Aaron Whiteman WP3 Pinkert 10/18/11 8 days late Moores Law in Homeland Defense: An Integrated Sensor Platform Based

ed on Silicon Microcantilevers by Lal A. Pinnaduagem Hai-Feng Ji, and Thomas Thundat 1) [1] L.A. Pinnaduwage, J. Hai-Feng, and T. Thundat, "Moore's Law in Homeland Defense: An Integrated Sensor Platform Based on Silicon Microcantilevers," IEEE Sensors J., vol. 5, no. 4 pp.774-785, 2005. The article discussed here is based on the study of microelectromechanical sensors and their potential use, in an array, as a detection devise used broadly in the field of defense against general terrorist threats. The uses would be the efficient detection of a multitude of chemicals and materials which can be deployed in a small form without the need for multiple devices. The article mainly deals with one system, MEMS, as a means to replace current systems, which currently consist of multiple specific sensors which are large, expensive, and good only for a narrow array of purposes individually, and bring the system up-to-par in ease and effectiveness as the terrorist attacks which they are preventing. The title of the article is misleading tin that microcantilevers are not as prevalent as the MEMS which use them, and Moores law is only briefly mentioned when its explanation is crucial to the understanding of the gaps which the article attempts to explain how to

fill. The article was overall very informative and specific, but it felt very jumbled, unfocused, and unsure of itself. Though its content is very intelligent, well-thoughtout, and, at least to somebody in my field, incredibly interesting, its structure was flawed to the point at which without prior knowledge in at least a few of the fields which the articles topics fall into (which are many), it is an extremely difficult read. In order for this article to be read by any individual which it may be of use to, many more explanations need to be used. Although many research articles take liberties knowing that their audience already understands jargon and ideas which are part of the communities the research caters to, this topic itself is too broad for those liberties to be taken. However, once read a few times and understood well by the user, the wealth of information in this admittedly theoretical and highly specialized article is quite intriguing. 2) Move One Despite the jumbled nature of the article as a whole, a centrality claim is made quite clearly by the authors. They provide a context wrapping much of their research into a concrete idea starting in the first sentence of the introduction. They note the complications of the current system for the prevention of terrorism, and note that there is a huge deficiency there. They then introduce their topic of study as a potential solution to this deficiency, providing a reason for their research while holding on to a more general, easily understandable topic.

Move Two Inside of the introductions centrality claim there is a gap which is introduced in the form of the lack of reliable, cost-effective, and highly generalized solutions for the war on terror. There is introduced a need for replacements for current industry standards by describing their shortcomings. Some of these claims come during the centrality claim and are intertwined with it, however the gaps continue to be mentioned in depth even after the initial introduction has concluded around the end of the second paragraph of the introduction section. Move Three Purposes are truly outlined throughout the introduction, consistently being iterated as being to outline the potential for the use of microelectromechanical sensors (MEMS) to replace current defense systems which protect against terrorist threats. In the third paragraph of the introduction, it is announced that MEMS has been found as, when compared to many other potential solutions, the most effective way to efficiently and successfully replace current, inferior systems. This introduction of findings reflects the rest of the article well, however it is then introduced also as a solution to the titular Moores Law, but this is not reflective directly of the articles overall findings as this is not mentioned in the main article. Even so the introduction of MEMS as a solution outlines the findings of the article well without divulging all of the details.

In the last paragraph of the introduction, the overall issue of the article is summarized and it is announced very clearly the way in which the article is set up. The structure is introduced as being, overall, an exploration of potential solutions as well as an in-depth examination of the most promising solution, rather than a study on the implementation of these solutions, as the technology being studied wasnt, at the time the article was written, at a mature enough point to implement.

3) The research methods used are very specific and unique. The citation style seems to be a modified mixture of APA and Chicago Style formats, having certain parts turned around. This could very well be due to the mixed nature of the article (mentioned in-depth in the style analysis (part 4)). I attempted to do research on types of citation styles in order to find the correct one, however after studying APA, MLA, AMA, Turabian, and Chicago, I found no perfect matches. Due to this, in part 1 I did my best to recreate the citation style used. 4) The authors use very high-level jargon with little in-text explanation. Certain information introduced in the article is brushed by with little or no explanation. Though this is addressed in the end of the introduction by noting that this paper is not intended to be a comprehensive review paper, [1] the lack of even a brief

laymen explanation makes the paper hard to follow. This can be seen as a representation of the complex nature of the field, which is also not able to be put into a succinct category. The field which this articles topics fall into is a combination of nanotechnology, defense, computing, philosophy, chemistry, biology, and engineering. There is one thing which these categories all have in common, however, which is that they all have very specific jargon, concepts, and methods. Based on the diverse nature of the subject matter, there comes a very broad set of values. The authors attempt, whether advertently or inadvertently, to incorporate the values of all of the communities they are dealing with. This creates a very jumbled flow for the article, making it hard to follow, even given the knowledge that I, as a reader, have in more than one of the subjects. Perhaps this is due to there being three authors as opposed to one, combining their respective backgrounds, but there seems to be little attempt, at least with any success, of consolidation. The authors attempt to incorporate all of the fields rather than one or two, and even neglect some key aspects in attempting to vary styles to cater to every field. This is evidenced by one of the titular concepts, Moores law, being mentioned solely in the introduction, and not being explained in-text or mentioned at all through the rest of the article. This is misleading, as the topic is very specifically part of one field: Computer and Electrical Engineering. The article, however, only touches briefly on this field in ways unrelated to Moores law just as briefly and inconsistently as all of the other fields. There is some compensation in that the article as a whole fits into the workings of the law, but the connection is not ever iterated outside of the brief mention in the introduction. As such it may be concluded that the authors, though

attempting to establish a role in multiple communities, fail to delve deeply enough into any of them to truly be considered part of them. Instead a niche is formed in the very specific topic of microcantilevers and MEMS, while the article itself claims little affiliation with them. Overall the authors may very well be a part of any or all of these groups, but it is not relayed in the article itself. (NOTE: See citation analysis (part 3) for analyses of citations and their relation to the lack of specificity and singularity in the article)

EC) This article is perhaps the only one that I found that was concise enough (under 130 pages) which might also be considered to be part of my field of study (electrical and computer engineering). Though the title of the article includes, in a prominent position, Moores law, there is almost no mention of it in the article itself. On first glance this fits directly into my field, as Moores law deals almost exclusively in computer hardware. However as the article goes on it becomes clear that sensors are the focus. This still fits snugly into my field as electrical systems related to computers involve a great deal of miniature sensors and the use of these in arrays to complete a multitude of tasks, however such specialized sensors as this article describes are in a very specific niche comprised of a great number of specialty fields, the most prominent of which are chemistry and biology, which I quite frankly hope to never deal with again in my life. This article honestly would probably only be read by those in the field of homeland defense, and more specifically in the subfield of systems engineers within that field. This is a very selective group of people, and

based on the basis of the article (without, again, direct mention) in Moores law is even smaller given the immature nature of the technologies currently in use. Ultimately this article would be viewed, as far as I can tell, by government officials with the purpose of seeing what potential there is out there for newer systems to be designed so they might be able to commission more research and development to fulfill some of the potential that this article introduces. Overall there is a great deal of things mentioned in this article which put my field into perspective as a very broad one which collaborates with a great deal of other fields to accomplish a magnificent variety of goals.