| 1. |
- Assefa, Getachew
(författare)
-
Systems analysis of technology chains for energy recovery from waste
- 2006
-
Ingår i: WMSCI 2006. - ORLANDO : INT INST INFORMATICS & SYSTEMICS. - 9789806560727 ; , s. 183-188
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This contribution is based on the result of a project entitled "Systems Analysis: Energy Recovery from waste, catalytic combustion in comparison with fuel cells and incineration" is financed by The Swedish National Energy Administration. The aim of the project was to assess the energy turnover as well as the potential environmental impacts of biomass/waste-to-energy technologies. Four technology scenarios are be studied: (1) Gasification followed by low temperature fuel cells (i.e. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells) (2) Gasification followed by high temperature fuel cells (i.e. Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFC)) (3) Gasification followed by catalytic combustion (CC) and (4) Incineration with energy recovery. Looking at the result of the four technology chains in terms of the impact categories considered with impact per GWh electricity produced as a unit of comparison and from the perspective of the rank each scenario has in all the four impact categories, SOFC appears to be the winner technology followed by PEM and CC as second and third best respectively with incinerations as the least of all. On other hand, looking at the three important emissions (CO,. NOx and SOx) from the total systems (include both the core system and the external system), SOFC is the best technology equally followed PEM and CC as the second best. A comparison of the same emissions from the core systems places CC on equal level with SOFC as the best technologies with PEM as the second best.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kabilan, Vandana
(författare)
-
Improving peer reviewing in scientific conferences
- 2006
-
Ingår i: WMSCI - World Multi-Conf. Syst., Cybern. Informatics, Jointly Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. Anal. Synth., ISAS - Proc.. - 9806560728 - 9789806560727 ; , s. 413-416
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- What is Science? What is Scientific Research? These are some eternal questions which philosophers, academicians and practioner have debated upon for eons, and no doubt shall continue to do so. But, the general consensus is that, scientific research is a quest for new knowledge, and this knowledge has to be critically, methodically and objectively obtained, in order to be considered of potential scientific value. This paper shall not focus on the scientific research principles or criteria, but instead look at one of the evaluating conditions for acceptable scientific research-that of validation of scientific research. Scientific hypothesis and results proposed by a researcher need to be verifiable, repeatable or falsifiable. One such validation is attained through peer review by fellow researchers engaged in scientific research themselves. Today, the way to do so is to submit scientific research papers to conferences, journals and workshops. But is the current system of peer reviewing carried out by the so called 'established' conferences, truly objective, and true validation of innovative research? This paper puts forward some reflections on this issue.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nordquist, Lina, et al.
(författare)
-
Stay-at-home laboratory experiments - A case study of student motivation
- 2006
-
Ingår i: WMSCI 2006: 10TH WORLD MULTI-CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL VII, PROCEEDINGS. - 9806560728 - 9789806560727 ; , s. 114-116
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Studies have reported that as many as 60 % of all students learn in a practical manner, rather than theoretically. However, Internet courses, tight budgets and increasing student numbers augments the demand for laboratory experiments carried out off the university premises. Methods: This pilot study was performed to investigate whether laboratory experiments in physiology performed at home are motivating for, stimulates depth understanding and increases student learning. Pharmacy students were recruited to the project from a five-week physiology course, and were given instruc tions on four stay-at-home experiments. These experiments were then discussed at a seminar. In conjunction to this seminar, a simple survey was filled in by the students. Comments: Our results indicated that this method of learning would be appreciated by the students. Stay-at-home laboratory experiments can never take the place of ordinary laboratory experiments, but could be beneficial as a supplement, not the least by introducing an everyday perspective to the students, allowing them to reflect on connections and relations in every day life.
|
|
