Slashdot Mirror
Future of Maglev in the US Military
The Hippy of Death writes "An article at The Weekly Standard discusses the current maglev research being funded by the US military. From the article: 'But what if you could drastically reduce the amount of noise a ship makes directly at the source? ...Vibration & Sound Solutions Limited suggested placing mag-lev sensors at the source of the electromagnetic fields, such as motors. The idea was to actually levitate the machinery with an array of electromagnets while using a small amount of power.'"
This is all very interesting, but it seems like a roundabout solution. If the problem to begin with is isolating noise at the source and preventing noise / vibrations from getting transferred to the hull of a ship then the ultimate solution would be quiet engines.
I'm no mechanical engineer (rather obviously) but wouldn't this be useful in reducing friction and alleviating part of the need for complex bearings and lube mechanisms?
I'll show you a need for complex ball bearings and lube mechanisms RIGHT HERE!
What happens when the power dies and all of those sitting in seats fall on their asses?
Sounds like Red October.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Why would you want to design a near silent ship when future American wars are being fought against terrorists? The moment you launch a missile or fire a cannon at a target, the terrorists will know that death is flying their way. Money should be spent gathering better and accurate intelligence on terrorist hideouts.
As an engineer and scientist I oftentimes find myself excited about whatever technologies the military is funding. No, I'm not a proponent of destructive technologies -- even though military advancements oftentimes contribute to destruction (a topic for another conversation). But, what really excites me is the benefit to humanity that stems from such research.
While applying magnetic levitation technologies to engines is a rather roundabout solution, the research will improve humanities knowledge of such technologies in general, potentially expediting the timeframe in which you and I can reap the benefits. Who knows what the future will be? Perhaps we will see MagLev public transportation soon? Or perhaps air travel will be much quieter (now that would be enjoyable)... nevertheless research into the field is necessary.
One interesting note is that MagLev technologies are NOT that difficult to implement. It's really just a control system of an electromagnetic field. OK, so it is difficult, but its nothing new. What advancements we really NEED have to do with:
1.) Efficiency. Superconductivity will reduce the overall power / energy demands of the system.
2.) Reliability. What happens when the power goes out? Does the train / engine / whatever just fall to the ground? This is a BIG consideration.
3.) Safety. Does exposure to such large EM fields cause cancer?
4.) etc.
Despite all of the these concerns I am REALLY excited that this type of research is getting funding... at the very least it is a very practical application!
Well, thats enough for now.
Matthew Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com
In the game, it's a constant battle. Quieter engines on one side, and better sensors on the other.
The submitter didn't even get to the second page.
This technology was originally designed to dampen mechanical vibration in ships like the submitter said, but the Navy wasn't interested (probably because while that would be useful in a cold war, it's not too helpful in the war on terror).
What they're doing now, is using to cushion seats. The article claims some of the speedier boats they use to put marines ashore can pull 8Gs hopping over waves. So they use this technology along with wave height sensors and a fast processor to reduce it to 2-3Gs. Although this sounds new, it's basically the same technique as those active noise cancellation headphones only for lower frequencies and higher amplitudes.
Then the company is trying to expand by putting this into other vehicles like humvees and helicopters. (why in a helicopter?)
I'm shocked that slashdot is linking to The Weekly Standard, the official journal of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. How are they supposed to give us our secret orders and talking points now that the socialist hordes of Slashdot have discovered them?
But seriously, ya guys should be reading them whether you agree or disagree with the policies they advocate because they are influencial in Republican politics. Much like I follow the NYT editorial page and the network tv sunday morning yak-yak shows, because they (and now daily kos) drive the Democrats' talking points and policy positions.
Now ontopic. Wow, they sound like they plan to actually deploy this stuff. Talk about kicking the tech advantage up a notch.
Democrat delenda est
The problem of using Maglev on the motors is that the torque that is generated. It isn't as simple as lifting the weight of several tonnes but also apply the rotational torque as well (normally this is less that the wieght of the motor for conventional drives but high power units with hydrogen gas cooling [best thermal conductivity] could increase this force to multiples of the static wieght).
"As an engineer and scientist I oftentimes find myself excited about whatever technologies the military is funding. No, I'm not a proponent of destructive technologies -- even though military advancements oftentimes contribute to destruction (a topic for another conversation). But, what really excites me is the benefit to humanity that stems from such research. "
So which advances mankind further and faster? The path of destruction, or the path of construction?
I propose that they build a chair out of Bismuth. Diamagnetism will solve all of our problems.
(I'm kidding, obviously.)
Cohen, in a phone interview, explained how the Navy's interest in MagLev originated with the need for silencing machinery aboard ships. "Throughout history," he said, "we had used rubber mounts" to reduce noise and vibration. "What all navies have traditionally done is put heavy, large cables all around the perimeter of the ship. We then pass electric currents through them to try and nullify the electromagnetic feature of the steel hulls."
The first part, the problem, is about noise and vibration. The second part, the solution, is about using electric currents to nullify electromagnetics... Does this make sense to anyone else?
Let's get the Maglev show out of the barn and on the road. Maglev and other "[e]lectromagnetic suspension for trains is an important technology because it allows very high-speed trains. High-speed trains make railroad travel a very competitive alternate to road and air travel." From, "Solutions for the Energy Crises in this Union - Part 1: Alternate Energy and Conservation". This article also discusses the importance of making all trains electric-powered and generating the electricity for the trains from water, wind, and solar power.
Actually it's 77 planets.
In the ocean there are two types of vessels. Submarines and targets.
Too lazy to create a sig...
What is most interesting about this is the flow on effect this technology will have in civilian applications. The military get to do the hard yards, reap the first fruits and eventually the tech will become more price realistic and available for civilian use- safer airliners, trains, cars and so on. Maglev tech has been promised for years, now it looks like it will get some time in the sun.
I have to say, this has got to be the feeblest fucking totalitarian dictatorship in the history of the world.
I mean, half the country openly dissents from the ruling party.
You can't turn around without bumping into somebody voicing their opposition to the regime.
It's getting to be so that a guy has to re-read The Gulag Archipelago, just to get a feel for the real thing anymore.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
This is most definately not the place to try to wake people up. :) You'll just end up modded down to -1 and about 1% of the people who visit will see what you've written, and chances are 50% of those will hate you.
Good luck in the future.
You're nothing; like me.
Actually, you're thinking of Nazism. Not communism. Communism is not a political system, its economic.
Although a communistic economy often leads to such corruption in the society+government because nobody really wants equality.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Whether I people have the same opinions or not that you do, they don't care - Slashdot is a refuge from the rest of the politically biased world, where people can just read about tech or whatever else Slashdot has (granted it does have a politics section, but thats where these kinds of things go)...
Communism is not a political system, its economic.
I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the 100 million or so who have been killed by communist regimes.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's for static field configurations, in contrast to the active controls this company seems to be using.
No, he'll get modded down because that's at best offtopic, but in reality is just a troll. The idea that slashdot has a conservative and/or pro-US slant is ridiculous.
How about hand to hand combat .. tried it lately.. or just calling your self brave by killing people who have nothing to do with anything with missile (who is the terrorist).
Launching a cruise missile instead of challenging people to hand to hand combat isn't brave. It is smart.
As far as the size of the US military goes, the US military is what stood between the USSR and the rest of the world for half a centaury. The sacrifices that the American people made to keep the USSR where it was and hold the line against such a juggernaut seems to have been quickly forgotten. The US put itself directly in the way of the USSR. As the Cuban missile crises showed, the US was more then willing to risk complete annihilation in a fight to keep the USSR at bay.
Now, I am not claiming that US isn't a big ugly leviathan that makes nations fall apart when it sneezes wrong. I am not arguing that in its pursuit to keep the USSR at bay that innocent people were not hurt, nor that the US has not committed its share of evils in the name of a greater good. Anyone who tries to paint the actions of the largest economy and military in the world in terms of pure right and wrong is deluding themselves. The US is and always has been run by humans, flawed creatures as they are. I have no doubt that if it could all be done over again there are things that we would never do again because the turned out to cause so much human suffering.
My point is that despite its mistakes, the US was there for the rest of the world with its big ugly and unwieldy military. That big ugly military that slaughtered innocent people in Vietnam also bought millions of people time to escape Vietnam (many of them to the US) before it descended into the hell hole that it became. The US military was there to repulse North Korea from South Korea and held the line even after a million Chinese came pouring over the border. South Korea is happy little fairytale land that it is today and not the seventh level of hell that North Korea is because the US military was there. The threat of the US military is what kept the USSR from making West Germany and France look like East Germany and Poland.
My point? Yeah yeah, the US military is big and deadly. Where ever it goes and whatever it does people die. That said, it stood as a shield for half a centaury against far more malevolent forces and saved the lives of countless hundreds of millions. Maybe in this new centaury it has worn out its usefulness. Maybe all of the challengers have been beaten and the US can set down the shield and sword and get on with more productive things.
Then again, I bet at the very least the people of Taiwan sleep a little bit better at night knowing that US military leviathan is still lumbering around.
I do the same thing with a ventilation fan in my attic. When I mounted it directly to the truss, I could hear a vibration in the walls of my house, so I unbolted it and let it hang from some plastic fastener. Works like a charm to eliminate the noise. By your standards, I aught to have bought a more expensive fan with less vibration, which probably wouldn't have been as quiet.
No, they were killed by corrupt, totalitarian regimes. Have the 30,000 or so Iraqis killed in the latest war been killed by capitalism? The people in Guantanamo, have they been kidnapped and tortured by capitalism? (This isn't a critique of these things, it's just the best example of a capitalist country doing bad things I can think of.) They were not, because capitalism's an economic theory and has fuck all to do with politics. Same with communism.
Anybody read Michal Marshall Smith's Only Forward?
Here you have both industrial strength and living room versions of devices to bend gravity, called GravaBendars (TM). Those for the home runs on batteries.
From the book: "Now, you haven't seen a messed up room, until you've been in one where the GravaBenda (TM) has failed twice, in opposite directions.
I know fools like you typically fail at math and logic and also rarely have a firm grasp on reality. Analyzing the actual dollars spent is worthless. What's important is $ per capita and as a percentage of a countries total GDP.
i g_percap
o rder/2034rank.html
Measured as $ per capita the US is #3 (behind Israel and Singapore):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_f
Measured as a percentage of GDP the US is #36:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank
Random countries that spend more (as a % of the GDP): Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Singapore, China, Greece, Chile, Egypt
US Defense spending as percent of GDP from 1940-2000.
But I'm sure whatever you've learned in school (in whatever country you're from) doesn't cover these sort of things. Your ignorant leftist teachers just point out the the US is evil because it spends more money than other countries, as if that has a thread of logic to it.
For those of us who aren't American, it seems obvious. Just wait till the next article that mentions India, China &/or outsourcing. Not to mention the regular ID "debates".
Maybe this research in MagLev tech, military as it is, can somehow benefit the MagLev train development in the U. S. Wouldn't it be nice to travel between LA and NY on a train that "floats" at 500 km/hr, as demonstrated in this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=292640039 6387878713) shot by some guy who rode on a Japanese MagLev.
Sun and Fun
The Defense Department spends TONS of money on military projects that have little relevance in the war on terror. Military spending is the #1 corporate subsidy that no one calls a subsidy. I'm sure a few Senators' districts get some payola out of it too.
War never solved anything. Every war has its roots in previous hostility and violence and disrespect for others. World War II for instance, was largely a result of World War 1. Also, it can be argued that it was predicted over a hundred years before, because of other actions at that time (start reading on wikipedia if you want to know more on this).
It's time we started working towards peace rather than war.
I mean, half the country openly dissents from the ruling party.
You can only say that if you seriously think that the democrats and the are not part of the ruling party. The ruling party has a duopoly, they trade places in power once in a while to make you believe that there really is a democracy, and to keep you from voting for a real alternative with fear that the worst of two evils might get elected.
Wake up!
Although I do have to say that there have been worse Totalitarian societies, but wait.... our rulers are not done yet.
So, I'm wondering, why there are Communist politcal parties... if communism has nothing to do with politics? Is the World Worker's Party just an economic policy group?
I also was unaware that being captured on a battlefied while practicing warfare in violation of the Geneva conventions was now considered kidnapping.
It appears also that you lend some credence to the idea that adding swearwords to one's post increases it's impact. So, here goes: Damn, fuck shit fuck!
Hope that helps.
It's obvious that it's ridiculous? Good. I'm glad we all agree then.
Whatever the merits of the rest of your argument; the Cuban Missile Crisis was a crisis because the US itself was threatened, the US has never gone that far when another country was threatened by a major power. And as for Vietnam.... Whatever good was done, not EVERYTHING was good, and what GWB has got you into now is pretty controversial, to put it as mildly as I can.
actually you can see it both ways
the soviet army was the only thing that stood between the us military and the rest of the world. as soon as ussr was dissolved the us army has begun to bomb several countries to the stone age.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Probably because you haven't read TFA. It is about reducing shock in fast coast patrol vessels, helicopters and humvees. The noiseless ship was a previous incarnation of this idea, but that was scrapped in the past.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Our nuclear subs already produce enough electricity to light a small city, a little extra juice to power mag lev supports would probably be worth the extra turns on the turbines and cooling pumps. There would, of course, need to be a back-up system to support the equipment should the system fail or the sub loose power (also while the sub is in dock and the reactor is "idle")
No one of consequence
Because if we don't, we know what happens.
Anyway, cheap shots aside, Slashdot may be "liberal" on the US scale, but it still pegs pretty far to the right as the rest of the world sees things.
Yeah. It's not like the USSR invaded Afghanistan and tried to bomb it into the stone age before we did... wait.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Einstein had a few things to say along the same lines, for example, when we were developing nukes. There was also a good line in Jurassic Park that encapsulated this idea well, referring to recreating dinosaurs of course, that went something like, "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
This idea is also at the center of the stem cell and cloning debates.
If Slashdot really is "news for nerds, stuff that matters," then we nerds should be intelligent enough to discuss technology in its full human context, not just on the lab table in our ivory towers of idealism and naivity. I think most of us here are smart enough not to have to bury our heads in the sand.
A-Bomb
He was talking about mobile SAM's- the ones used by small guerrila armies, not the large fixed ones used for national defense. His point is that the weapons we build are being built for the wrong kind of war.
You still think there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats? Fine, I suppose, if you're ready to dismiss the real, life-and-death concerns of 99% of the nation. Sounds a little selfish to me.
on to gravitational shields!
Strap yourself into a metal cage and then drop the metal cage from an altitude of about 50 meters (low enough to negate any significant wind resistance) and see how you feel upon landing. Thats basicly how helicopter pilots feel upon crash landing, helicopters don't exactly come equiped with airbags or crash absorbant materials.
The Police States of America - Land of the Fee, Home of the Slave.
Whoa! I enjoy the occasional tin-foil hat remarks every now and then like every other /.'er, but WOW this is beyond paranoid. By your logic every single political power throughout history has been nothing more than facade for controlling a totalitarian society. The only difference is the names of the political groups.
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Singapore, China, Greece, Chile, Egypt
What a prestigious list of first world countries for the USA to be counted among. I bet you're all very proud.
Percentages don't show raw hard numbers though. Sure the percentage of the GDP of some country might be larger... but in dollars spent the US is still on top, and thats what you should look at when comparing countries.
2004 Expenditure in the United States: $466 billion USD.
I don't care if its a smaller percentage than Greece (6.12 Billion USD), because $466 billion USD buys a whole hell of a lot of bombs.
Vibration will still exist, as the forces that keep the motor elevated will also push the sub, or what other devices. The sound and smaller vibrations might be dampened too. But what about the electrical hum of those magnets? If you stand anywhere near a large transformer you can hear its 50Hz beauty (here in europe). I've worked with large motors before and to use maglev's to remove vibrations won't really happen. What about supplying power to a motor that can move under differing loads of torque? Or about very large inductive currents being generated by the maglev's electric field in the coil windings???
check your history facts please.
ussr was invited by the afghan administration to help them against amin who has murdered the prime minister, declared himself ruler of afghanistan and started a reign of terror.
ussr also invested lot of money in afghanistan, building schools, industry and so on.
so no, it is not like the ussr invaded afghanistan and tried to bomb it into the stone age.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
How about hand to hand combat .. tried it lately.. or just calling your self brave by killing people who have nothing to do with anything with missile (who is the terrorist).
Well, actually, yes, we have tried hand-to-hand combat recently... when we... uhh... fought the Romans. Yea. The Romans. About a year ago. Don't you read the news? We kicked their asses too, and we might just do it again real soon if Caesar can't get his crap together. But that whole conflict was really just a little demo for the Mongolians (if Ghengis doesn't stop oppressin' the people, we'll be all over them too) and the Babylonians (stop tradin' slaves, yo!).
But when we're fighting the nation of Terrorism (who are a notoriously crafty people), it's better safe than sorry, hence the missles.
Paul: If you're reading this, pick your shoes up out of the hallway. I keep tripping over them. Slob.
Shrink the technology down so the "track" is just a couple of feet long. Increase the velocity of objects placed on it and you could have a basic low tech railgun.
Not sure if a hand held version would be feasible with current batteries though.
How condescending of you. How culturally judgmental. I'd much rather live in Istanbul than in Paris, anyway.
I bet at the very least the people of Taiwan sleep a little bit better at night knowing that US military leviathan is still lumbering around.
Yes, while the people of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., etc., etc., sleep worse, because they've seen the tens of thousands of innocent women and children that the US military has massacred in Iraq, and they know that if Bush gets his way, their wives and children will be next.
But at least Taiwan's okay. That makes it all alright. As long as Taiwan is happy, the USA can slaughter as many innocents as it likes in pursuit of the chimera of Terror, right?
Uncle Sam would be ashamed. What would the U.S Navy be without the sheer atmosphere of it's arrival?
It's all about NOISE, man. You can't convincingly attack and occupy a country against international law unless you're menacing enough to do it.
Plus, the world will think our army is gay. We all read the recent soldier porno story...where are we headed here?
You missed the whole point of the statement. He is not counting the US among those countries. Rather he is counting the US BEHIND those countries. If you ever decide to go back and look again at the statement, it may be a good idea to reread the first paragraph while you're at it. It applies, but then again it won't do much good.
I also was unaware that being captured on a battlefied while practicing warfare in violation of the Geneva conventions was now considered kidnapping.
And I was unaware that being arrested while going about one's peaceful business in Pakistan, hundreds of miles from the nearest battlefield, and illegally handed over to the US military, was now considered "being captured on a battlefied (sic) while practicing warfare in violation of the Geneva conventions".
(FYI, while there are no official figures, it is widely believed that fewer than 10% of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay were captured on a battlefield by Coalition forces.)
I also find bizarre your apparent belief that the US should not have to obey the Geneva Convention if the enemy wasn't obeying the Geneva Convention. By that argument, the police should be allowed to break the law because criminals break the law. That wouldn't lead to a society I'd particularly want to live in...
Reminds me of a story of a college recruit. College A offered a half scholarship to play a sport. College B offered a third scholarship to play the sport. Recruit picks college A because one half is greater than one third. College A offered a bigger percentage of a scholarship and a larger dollar value as well. The recruit cited a single parent mother that would have difficulty making up the remainder of the necessary money. What the recruit failed to appreciate was that attending college A would require the recruit to make up around $40,000 to attend school while college B would require only $8,000. If it was truly about money the recruit, if truly smart, would have picked college B. Throw in that college B is regularly one of the top 2-3 teams in conference and college A is regularly one of the bottom 2-3 teams in the conference, the recruit really shines as a doofus.
The take home message is that numbers are good and fun, but it really helps to know what they represent. Total dollars the US is the biggest warmonger on this little rock. % of GDP tells a whole other story. There are other countries that appear to have the military as its primary industry. Makes me think of little yipping dogs.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
If you want to go into the cold war, you really should know that it might never have happened if the USA had not REFUSED to negotiate with the USSR.
f m?pageid=711
One of the main goals of Wiston Churchill's second tenure (1951-1955) was to bring about peacefull negotiations between the USA and USSR. He managed to get the USSR to agree to negotiations, but the USA (President Eisenhower) refused.
The source for this was a TV documentary on the BBC.
The only reference brought up by Google is this:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.c
After Stalin's death in March of that year, the new Soviet regime appeared to Churchill to be signaling, in various ways - for example, in the Austrian treaty negotiations - a new readiness to reduce tensions. He believed there was a least a glimmer of light, a possibility of progress. He told President Eisenhower in a letter: "A new hope has been created in the unhappy, bewildered world." And he suggested that the West make a new approach to Moscow. He wrote in a top secret message; "If we fail to . . . seize this moment's precious chances, the judgement of future ages would be harsh and just."
The moment, unfortunately, remained unseized. John Foster Dulles and some in his own Foreign Office accused Winston Churchill of starting down the road of appeasement. As the recently published diary of his private secretary, Sir John Colville, recounts, it was one of the bitter moments of Churchill's life when Eisenhower rejected the policy of negotiation.
The issue is not whether the policy surely would have worked; many of his friends conceded that at that time it might very well have failed. But Winston Churchill was steadfast in believing that it should be tried. As he said in 1955, in one of his last, great speeches to Parliament, "I have hoped for a long time for a top-level conference where these matters can be put plainly and bluntly" - and he was talking then specifically about the issue of nuclear weapons.
"Stealth" is a buzzword these days, but the reality is decoys. Radar and other detection systems work excellently when shooting down flying things.
A 4 million dollar missile wasting itself on an air-launched, $5000 decoy is a good investment. That is one way the US defeated the Iraqi air defense. Pretty easy, actually, if you think about it.
The Western way of warfare is rediculously techno-centric and full of chest beating machoness. It is stupid and gets our young men killed. You'll notice that we have constantly received an ass kicking by the sneaky modern day hashashins of the middle east and central asia. The vietcong bush ninjas of yesteryear also showed us the greatness of silenct deceptive warfare.
In a bar fight analogy. The western way is the loud boisterous drunk who tells anyone and everyone how he would kick their ass in the most loudest possible fashion. Our enemies are the sober guy in the dark corner, who the loud idiot has slighted earlier on in the night. That same sober guy will leave a tiny bit earlier than said drunk to launch an ambush from an alley way with a baseball bat or knife on the arrogant loud fool on his way home.
I'd bet on the silent unassuming type than Mr arrogant Noise it a combat situation.
It's bouncing around a lot. We don't see this 'in the news' because image stabilization is used with TeeVee cameras and other optics. Image stabilization does not work with gun sights. Sure, the whole weapons platform could be stabilized, but imagine all the hydraulics, gimbal mounts, servo-motors, etc. Lots of weight for a Helicopter.
I suppose I came a little bit strong there, I dont know. I know slashdot is also meant for the moral side of technology, such as you said, Bombula, stem cell research and things like that, I was simply trying to save him/her from making future irrelevant posts causing him/her to be flamed on to a crispy chicken point about "great they just spent another few billion when they coulda fed the homeless" or any post of the sort criticizing the government about its "choice of spending" that always pop up in something like this submission...
MagLev is interesting technology. It has been proven (at least mostly viable) many times over with things like trains. I think it is actually a pretty good idea for the military to see if it fits in the movement of machines and heavy loads.
An advantage of the military trying to make something work long-term and heavy-duty-scale is that the developments for the military could probably trickle down to use in civilian life. Many technologies have taken just such a development path. Especially those where business had not wanted to fund research and development as a private project - but was happy to do so for the military. Maybe they'll finally come up with those flying/floating cars I was promised in the 60s?
A Passionate Independent Musician
(The rest of Europe doesn't speak english, so doesn't use the word liberal at all - most of the rest of the world isn't very liberal by anyone's definition)
James P. Barrett
My point is that it's an awfully short list of countries who spend more, and it certainly means that the US would be included in any list of countries that spend over the top when it comes to military hardware. Funnily enough, it's also a good summary of countries with long records of severe human rights abuses.
Being the world's greatest military power, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in loudspeakers?
You fools, the military ALREADY has this kind of technology! DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY.
I'd disagree, if "half the country openly dissents from the ruling party" but it makes no difference to policy then the "totalitarian dictatorship" can call itself a legitimate democracy.
Totalitarian dictatorships only fail when they become too extreme and it becomes in everyone's interest globally to oppose them. But by keeping the pretence of freedom, people are inclined to let them get away with it. The fact that you see it as feeble means the PR is working.
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
OK, great you now have seats that mitigate impact and motors that aren't really attached to the hull... a couple of questions:
1) I've never been in combat, but I'd expect that damage enough to cause power failure is rather common. With everything else, it's 'repair the damage and start her up again'. With motors mounted on 'maglev' shocks, what happens if you don't have the supplemental power to start with?
2) IMO one of the most impressive things about the modern military is their sensor suites at all levels from the massive carrier group to the individual soldier? How will these be affected by maglev systems in everything? How about Joe Soldier's mark 1 compass?
3) the flip side of #3, I'd expect that you're just giving enemy targeting systems one more 'thing' to aim at; in fact I find it hard to believe that these relatively high-power systems wouldn't make 'stealthing' the using vehicle nearly impossible?
-Styopa
Well, it's certainly not considered a dirty word. Always strikes me as funny that the 'land of the free' treats liberal as a term of political abuse.? stem=liber&ending=
Etymology: from latin liber
liber (1) -era -erum [free , independent, unrestrained; free from, exempt].
Source: http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl
Draw your own conclusions...
Your ridiculous attempt at history revision surprises me — I thought, this Soviet lie fooled no one at all.
You may argue, that our methods of setting up preferred governments weren't much different, but our results speak for themselves. Places like Puerto Rico, South Korea, or even Chile (boo-Pinochet-boo!) are the regional champions and the envy of those of their neighbors, where the Commie rhethorics prevailed.
From its beginning USSR was unabashed about "exporting revolution". Fortunately for the rest of the world, the US was there to contain it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
the US has never gone that far when another country was threatened by a major power.
I'm sure there are a lot of Germans in Berlin who would whole-heartedly disagree with you. Does the term Berlin Airlift mean anything to you. Google it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If you wish to look at it "objectively", you'll have to say: "USA is trying to export democracy. USSR was preventing that".
To equate the two, you must equate the Soviet regime with ours. I have seen fools (most of them never exposed to one or the other) trying to do that, so I'll just point you at the objective facts: forget the evil oppressiveness of all Communist rulers and simply look at the results. However much you may hate "corporations", examples like
- Finland vs. Estonia
- South vs. North Korea
- Chile vs. Argentina
- West vs. East Germany
- Thailand vs. Cambodia
speak one tune: what USSR tried spread was far worse, than what America was protecting.It really is black-and-white, and there are no "shades of grey" about it: USSR — bad; USA — good.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm sure glad we live in country that is fiscally responsible. We've got our debt down to nine trillion, so it really was time to start a few wars and spend half a trillion dollars a year on our military. Who needs an education or the stabilization of developing countries through economic development when we can have maglev engines and VTOL projects that literally waste billions of dollars?
President's Day really got me thinking of how lucky I am to live in America. I mean, only communists forcibly take money away from their citizens in order to increase their own power, domestically and abroad. And, if we lived in a communist country, just doing something like reading a book or saying we should overthrow the government would warrant an interview from the police! They can even spy on their own citizens in secret! And, in communist countries, they can throw you in jail for no reason, and you don't get a lawyer or anything! Lincoln would be so, so proud.
You are free to move, ya know. Cuba is just a short swim away. Why people continue to live under totalitarian regimes when no one is keeping them here is beyond me.
BTW, did you notice that there was not a single weapon mentioned in the article? The entire of the article spoke of how to silence subs and save lives. If what you were saying is true, we'd be researching how to gas Iran and the DNC.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Let's compare old technology (rubber shock absorbing mounts) with new (active maglev shock suppressors):
Old - cheap, zero power requirement, silent, no additional support/control systems needed, simple maintenance by minimally skilled techs, pretty effective
New - expensive, lots of power required, non-silent, lots of additional support/control systems needed, complex maintenance by highly skilled techs, super-duper-extra effective (as soon as they get it to work, which will be Real Soon Now)
All of this... for a seat cushion? For years, I've been hearing about active controls in shock absorbers using electrorheological or magnetorheological fluids in place of regular fluid or gas filled shock absorbers. These would be a lot more straighforward than maglev shock suppressors, but where are they?
The fact is, the control systems still are too expensive and unresponsive, and don't offer any significant benefit over traditional shock absorbing systems. The power requirements for a full-on maglev systems would be ridiculous.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
In the White House? One's amBushing you right now as we speak!
It was tense, but the US and Russia didn't directly come into conflict. The whole point of the airlift was to avoid a ground-level confrontation.
Wow, can you not read. He said the US was 36th in spending based on %GDP. Are you too damn lazy to look at the link he provided? Well here ya to slackard... Ranking Country %GDP Year-of-info 1 Jordan 14.60 2004 2 Eritrea 13.40 2004 3 Oman 11.40 2003 4 Angola 10.60 2004 5 Qatar 10.00 NA 6 Saudi Arabia 10.00 2002 7 Israel 8.70 FY02 8 Yemen 7.80 2003 9 Armenia 6.50 FY01 10 Bahrain 6.30 2004 11 Burundi 6.00 2004 12 Macedonia 6.00 NA 13 Syria 5.90 NA 14 Maldives 5.50 2004 15 Kuwait 5.30 2004 16 Turkey 5.30 2003 17 Brunei 5.10 2004 18 Morocco 5.00 2004 19 Pakistan 4.90 2004 20 Singapore 4.90 NA 21 Ethiopia 4.60 2004 22 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.50 NA 23 Djibouti 4.40 2004 24 China 4.30 2004 25 Greece 4.30 2003 26 Zimbabwe 4.30 2004 27 Botswana 3.90 2004 28 Libya 3.90 NA 29 Tajikistan 3.90 FY01 30 Chile 3.80 2004 31 Cyprus 3.80 NA 32 Colombia 3.40 FY01 33 Turkmenistan 3.40 NA 34 Egypt 3.40 2004 35 Iran 3.30 2003 est. 36 United States 3.30 February 2004
Of the vast number of countries out there, 36 is a short list.
I would see this technology as helpful if it can be employed without the few serious consequences I imagine cropping up.
1. New diesel attack subs CAN BE quieter than nuclear boats, we want any edge we can get over that particular threat.
2. Machinery noise transmitted to the hull is a huge noise problem, some Chinese boats can be tracked out beyond belief due to their sloppy engineering.
3. (Con) Russians have a way better Magnetic Anomaly Detection system than our own maritime patrol craft, anything we use MUST NOT increase our magnetic signature. Everything from Mines and Torpedoes to you-name-it sub hunters (ships, planes, etc) employ magnetic sensors for detection. Hell, we use magnetic sensors for navigation even. These systems must not interfere with other on-board systems.
4. (Con) When an attack sub is patrolling in a hostile area (read, inside their territorial waters...) they typically will be in a quiet condition based on threat, and lots of gear gets powered off except for vital equipment. I would hope only vital equipment gets this treatment. Changing something like this on/off would likely create a lot of noise as the rig sets down whatever is being levitated..I would assume there would be a lot of engineering done to have a back-up suspension support for anything when the power is off.
5. (Con) Again I'll mention sensors. This stuff could make us a HUGE beacon to magnetic sensors...Mines and Torpedoes are a concern for me...Magnetic silencing by deperming and such while not extremely expensive, it can be an issue of time to complete on a regular basis.
Overall I suppose its a loss/gain situation...I don't think it would be adopted for sub's if it cuts acoustic signatures only to increase magnetic signatures, but if they work out those issues...who knows. I think we're getting desperate in overcomming diesel threats.
It has so far been impossible to build an engine that makes many thousands of horsepower but not noise.
The best current solutions are gas turbines combined with direct drive electric motors. The gas turbines are mounted of "rafts" that are isolated from the hull.
Your ultimate solution is about as easy as the ultimate solution for an auto engine. One that runs for ever and uses smog for fuel while exhausting clean air. Yea it would great solution now tell me how to do it.
On potential solution for ships would be fuel cells if you could get the power density up to what a gas turbine offers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What does war have to do with making quiet engines?
Simple: It's easier to hide if you're quiet.
Many of the military forces on our planet now have the capability to destroy any vessel or vehicle. The difficult part is locating them closely enough to hit them before being detected and destroyed themselves.
When you're fighting sonar, this would allow a vessel to maintain greater speed for less noise, improving their chances for survival.
I don't read AC A human right
Are you still trying to argue the way out of the fact that you're an idiot?
Vast number of countries out there? What are there, 200 or so?
You've been made to look like an ass. Just stop.
Measured as a percentage of GDP the US is #36:
Random countries that spend more (as a % of the GDP):
Do you know what random means? It means I just went through the list of countries and randomly grabbed selected ones. The "list" that the US is part of with these countries is the complete list of the world's nations and their military expenditures as a percentage of their GDP.
Here's a shocker: your country is on that list too (unless you live at the vatican)!
I think you're a little wide of the mark there...
Many people who work in the tech industry in europe will have a very high level of spoken and written English, and it will probably be the language they have to use at work.
Not everyone on this planet is limited to being fluent in just one language.
Vast? The compiled list was 166 countries looked at. U.S. was # 36. That puts it in ~ the top 22%.
FTA: "What all navies have traditionally done is put heavy, large cables all around the perimeter of the ship. We then pass electric currents through them to try and nullify the electromagnetic feature of the steel hulls."
I think the author used this quote out of place here. The process he is describing is used to degauss the ship to remove (or at least to alter) its magnetic signature. It has nothing to do with accoustical signature reduction, which seems to be the focus of the first part of the article.
Both accoustical and magnetic signature reduction are of interest to a navy as they can be both used to identify not only the class of ship, but the actual ship itself. They are very different beasts though.
There are differences, but not essential ones. Republicans speak of fiscal conservatism while plunging us into the worst debt in history. Democrats speak of Social Liberty while allowing the abuses of the drug war, terror war and war-du-jour to go on (almost no member of congress or senate of either party speaks about these things). Sure, there are differences, and they can easily be charted here but where the rubber meets the road we're talking The Evil Party vs. The Stupid Party (and notice that I don't say which one is which).
There actually was a ground level confrontation. Multiple times the US and Germany sent ground convoys to Berlin against the expressed consent of the USSR. At one point it resulted in a many hour stand off as the convoy refused to produce papers authorizing their presence. Further, the USSR also threatened to start shooting down airplanes that were violating East German airspace. The US told them pretty point black that doing so would result in open armed conflict. The Berlin airlift was an extremely tense time. I would not underplay how close the continued supply of Berlin almost resulted in war.
These are not the political groups you are looking for.
Bose (usually known for their speakers and audio systems) has been developing similar technology for replacing suspensions in cars...
There are lots of articles about this, including here and here.
ussr was invited by the afghan administration to help them against amin who has murdered the prime minister, declared himself ruler of afghanistan and started a reign of terror.
Talk about revisionist history. The Afghan administration that "invited" the USSR was an administration funded entirely by the USSR to start their own little communist revolution in Afghanistan. This administration, even with the material backing of the Soviet Union, utterly failed and was wiped out. As they were being wiped out this communist revolution administration "invited" the USSR in. This wasn't some democratically elected administration that was taken out by a few rebels. This was a rigged communist uprising funded entirely by the USSR that was torn down by the people of Afghanistan. Granted, what they ended up building after removing the Soviet's wasn't all pleasant, making it sound like the peaceful democracy of Afghanistan called in Soviet help to restore their legitimate democracy is a complete fallacy.
I should also point out that the USSR was "invited" to put down multiple more black and white pro-democracy uprisings on Eastern Europe by their respective Soviet controlled governments. The USSR was "invited" to come build the Berlin wall and lock down their borders so that people couldn't flee across country lines to get away from the Soviet controlled governments. During the time that the USSR was building walls all around its little empire to keep people in , the US, even with its liberal immigration policy was building walls to keep people out. That fact alone should tell something.
You are right that the US refused to ever engage in much negotiation with the USSR. Yes, negotiations could have certainly reduced tensions. Increasing aid to the USSR probably could have gone a long ways to cooling things down. The US did not engage in much negotiation with the USSR until it was on the brink of collapse was because peaceful coexistence was never the goal.
The USSR had to build walls to keep its people in. The US and Western Europe has never had to do such a thing in the last half of the past centaury. In fact, if the US and Western Europe are building walls it is to keep people out. When you have to build walls to keep your people from fleeing your government, that should be a dead giveaway that you are fucking something up. The US had no intention of letting the Soviet Union expand or even continue to hold onto its walled up section of the world. The US actively sought to put an end to the Soviet domination through direct confrontation on political, economic, and military level.
If there is any travesty in how the US handled the USSR it, it was during the collapse of the USSR. Simply put, we gave them well intention but absolutely horrible advice. We pushed them to liberalize their economy as fast as possible and it resulted in the economic ruin that to this day they are still recovering from. They liberalized their economy long before all the pieces that needed for liberalization were in place. The country was essentially looted by an oligarchy when it was collapsed. Our push for speedy liberalization is the reason why Russia teeters on the brink of falling back into being an authoritarian nightmare again. If it wasn't for their economic ruin, they very likely would have become a successful liberal democracy well on its way towards true first world status. It certainly wasn't malicious as no one wanted Russia to succeed after the collapse of the Soviet Union more then the US did, but it was utterly wrong and flawed in hindsight. The proper course of action would have been to have advised political and social liberalization, but of pushed for slow and well planned market liberalization.
They're useful in situations where lubrication is difficult or the lubricant has to be sealed away from the environment. Clean rooms, vacuum systems, food and drug processing, cyrogenics, and pressurized gases qualify. They're also useful for large diameter bearings.
These things look and work much like an electric motor. They're not that exotic.
No, I'm not necessarily paranoid. But the problem is worse than you think. As you can see here, the republicans have abandoned any pretense at being fiscally conservative. Even those that still say they want economic freedom care much more about social control. Among the democrats they care much more about economic control than they do about social freedoms, when you put all of this together you get a continued move towards economic AND social control: the worse of both worlds. I'm sure most politicians think they are doing their best for the country, meanwhile the direction of the whole polit goes further and further south in the Nolan chart.
if this is referring to suspending submarine engines via a magnetic field, did it ever occur to them that maybe the dirty commies would just break out their compass and find them by their massive magnetic field? If not, then nevermind! :D
...but absolutely horrible advice. We pushed them to..
what advise was actually given them? And who specifically gave that advice to them? I'm not sure that any 'governance training' was offered or accepted.
And ultimately if any 'advice' was actually offered the responsibility should be on those who took action.
And specifically how is Russia now any different that the US was in the first half of the 20th century? The mafia and political machines had direct control over local politicians and had vast influence over national policies even through the mid 60s. So if Russia takes a few more years to evolve its court system and remove criminal control, is it 'wrong'? Is it hard to imagine that a vast political and social change should take some time. And why should outsiders (you say 'we' when referencing the US) pass moral judgments? Especially since the US had their own problems with organized crime so very long after their independence.
And so how should the US have 'handled' the USSR? What do you mean by handled, do you mean controlled? After an internal collapse the US should have stepped in and...what? What direct involvement should the US have taken after the collapse? The only success the US has had in nation building is direct governance (Germany and Japan) anything less was a failure. You are insinuating that the US should have had a very active role in the development of the current Russian political landscape.
Or perhaps you are saying the US should have said different words, and that Russia would have listened and everything would be just fine now.
It seems like your core argument is that the regime keeps us too free to realize that we're actually slaves.
So I'm having a hard time seeing the problem.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
While I don't agree with the parent, the argument that defense spending per capita or percentage of GDP is the only valid measure is pointless. If I go out and buy a military sniper rifle, then I'd rank as one of the top military spenders! The fact is we (U.S.A.) spend a crapload of our tax revenue on the military. Who gives a damn if Eritrea spends a higher percentage of peanuts on defense?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"your ignorant leftist teachers" What the hell is that supposed to mean?
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Actually I'm suprised that North Korea is not in that list. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm Their spending is about 25% of GDP, and has 1.2 million people in the armed forces. Maybe the numbers we have weren't acurate enough for the report cited above.
"22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
There is some irony in calling someone else a coward while posting as an Anonymous Coward.
That the grand-parent poster is a republican and that according to him all liberals (or at least liberal teachers) are ignorant. Only explanation I can think of.
You just got troll'd!
That his teachers were ignorant leftists?
Well, hang on just one second. Comparing spending to income makes no sense when your income is so high that spending in proportion to that income completely outstrips any practical need. If you're an engineer making $80,000 a year and you drive a $10,000 car, that's at least reasonable, since your new car value is 12.5% of your annual income. (Not that you necessarily pay it off in one year, just to set up the numbers) If you're a CEO making 8 million dollars a a year, that doesn't make it all that prudent to buy a $750,000 car and turn around and say, "Hey, that engineer is spending a higher percentage of his income on his car than I am on mine!"
There are diminishing returns to a 500 billion dollar military vs. a 300 billion dollar military, especially when the purpose of your military is to beat everyone else and the most they spend is 100 billion. Just because the United States is a rich country doesn't mean it's prudent for the United States to waste money on an unnecessarily expensive military. And while the CEO's decision to waste his money is just a sad indication of his personal insecurities, the government deciding to waste everyone's money on tanks and bombs is a gross violation of the public trust.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Communism is not a political system, its economic.
All political systems are economic systems, and vice versa.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Wow, good call. I missed that one. I see South Korea at #58, but no North Korea. I see a lot of former Soviet Union countries on there, but no Russia either (unless I missed it). I'm sure theirs is down a lot now from what it was during the cold war.
How about hand to hand combat
Why the hell would we? What's so great about hand-to-hand combat? War is not about personal "honor" or "glory"; it's about about doing unto the other guy before he can do unto you, and achieving one's strategic objective as quickly, and with as little in the way of friendly losses, as possible.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_STATIC_P AGE_EVENT&url=/learning/project_sound/bose_suspens ion.jsp&ck=0 Is a similar idea from bose, but improved suspensions, with lower road noise, rather than military apps.
I'm flatulant in many lagranges.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Did you never stop to consider that maybe the evolution of two major parties, opposing each other around the gravity of a centrist position, is a natural and healthy--and therefore desireable--outcome of democratic rule?
In a system where a majority is needed to effect real change, why are you so shocked that the real changes always seem to reflect the centrist position?
Here, "moderate" is simply the thing that most reasonable people can agree on.
Wake me up when your "real alternative" can come up with a platform most reasonable people can agree on.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
OK, so, no US military. The USSR annexes the entire world. We have 2 decades of communism, then the system collapses or reforms (you simply can't govern a people long term if you piss them off too much, and the rivalry with the West provided a unifying factor which disappears after they own the West) and everything is happy again by the time I get born in 1980, with the added bonus that we might have a unified world government - which would be pretty useful for dealing with environmental problems and cuts down on the "legal overhead" of different countries.
In short, IMO it's better to be conquered peacefully then rebel and execute any unjust leaders than it is to wage industrial scale war.
Poland and East Germany are nice places to live now. The US military didn't prevent the existence of the North Korean regime, so I'm not too impressed with it.
Did you never stop to consider that maybe the evolution of two major parties, opposing each other around the gravity of a centrist position, is a natural and healthy--and therefore desireable--outcome of democratic rule?
Yup. I stopped to consider it, thought seriously about it and figured (as posted elsewhere in this thread) that this is not the case, because your one dimensional model is wrong(er) than my two dimensional model. In a two dimensional model (The Nolan Chart), traditional democrats favor economic controls and social freedoms, traditional republicans favor social control and democratic freedoms. Because both parties feel stronger about their "control" platforms than about their "freedom" platforms what you end up with is not a healthy average, but a very unhealthy totalitarian regime.
Here, "moderate" is simply the thing that most reasonable people can agree on.
I am a Libertarian, and work day in and day out in getting people to consider the Libertarian alternative. Most reasonable people agree that Libertarianism is the best option, the problem is that most people are not reasonable. Liberty requires thought, and most people don't have the initiative to think about politics, it's beyond the scope of this post to consider the reason.
Given enough time, I can convince many people to register Libertarian (or at least Decline-to-state) as long as they aren't already "in politics".
Wake me up when your "real alternative" can come up with a platform most reasonable people can agree on.
Wake up!
GNAA FO LIFF
If you're so smart, you'd be able to make your point without ad hominem attacks.
Oh that's right, it's the per capita spending that matters... because when you get into a modern war you simply compare rates of per capita spending to decide who wins. It's a good thing wars aren't decided by absolute measure of military power like they used to do in less progressive eras.
what advise was actually given them? And who specifically gave that advice to them? I'm not sure that any 'governance training' was offered or accepted.
And ultimately if any 'advice' was actually offered the responsibility should be on those who took action.
If you want to know "who" passed along terrible advice, the IMF and the US treasury by association can take a fair amount of blame. The US treasury has a massive amount of influence and control over the IMF and is really the only nation in the world that has veto power over its actions. They advocated a 'market fundamentalist' approach most of the remnants the USSR that went down the path of liberalization, including Russia, obliged and followed their advice. Russia followed the IMF's advice almost to the T. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that Russia listened to their advice as they followed their formula almost to the letter.
Even the IMF admits that its interventions in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union were an utter failure. I don't place a lot of blame on them. In hindsight rapid liberalization is a poor idea. When Russia liberalized they sold off nearly all state owned property without setting up a fair framework to sell it and keep capital within the nation. The bidding process for state property was horribly flawed and resulted a few powerful people snapping up state industries at bargain bin prices. To make matters worse, instead of rehabilitating state owned industries and pruning them to make them efficient as it was hoped, they had their capital stripped and sold. The money from these sales was then quickly moved out of the country for fear of devaluation of the Russia currency. In short, it was a complete cluster fuck. There was massive unemployment, dramatic wage cuts, whole sale looting of Russian industry, and in general a big mess was made.
The proper course of action would have to had a transitional period instead throwing a people who had nearly a centaury of collectivist rule into full scale anarcho-capitalism. Don't get me wrong. I am a big believer in globalization and capitalism, but I am not so bedazzled with it that I think that stripping a former communist nation's industrial base over night is a good thing.
And specifically how is Russia now any different that the US was in the first half of the 20th century?
Do you want a list? The state controls nearly all media. A massive amount of power has accumulated into the executive branch of the government. No, I don't mean G.W. "massive" amount. The executive branch picks governors of Russia providences and has very few checks and balances placed upon it by other branches of government. Political freedom is desperately low. During the last election the lead candidate was kidnapped, drugged, and ended up finishing his failed campaign outside of Russia because he was afraid to do it inside Russia. The US has never had any of the above problems even beginning to approach the scale that Russia is dealing with.
The mafia and political machines had direct control over local politicians and had vast influence over national policies even through the mid 60s. So if Russia takes a few more years to evolve its court system and remove criminal control, is it 'wrong'? Is it hard to imagine that a vast political and social change should take some time. And why should outsiders (you say 'we' when referencing the US) pass moral judgments? Especially since the US had their own problems with organized crime so very long after their independence.
The US "problem" with organized crime in its past doesn't even fit on the same scale as Russia's problem. Russia organized crime is powerful enough to almost be considered another branch of the government. Russia is taking some steps to fix their problems with organized crime, but it will take decades to undo the damage done when organized crime looted the nation after the collapse of communism.
And so how should the US have 'hand
There's that pesky "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" rule. If you levitate a vibrating object, true, the object's inertia may help to buffer the vibration, and the lack of physical contact will certainly be a benefit, but in the end, the vibrating object will create a disturbance in the magnetic field that is levitating it, which will in turn cause the maglev unit itself to vibrate. Isn't this going to a lot of work for a very minor benefit?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
In many places in Europe, 'liberal' is an euphemism for the far right.
Trust me, I work for the government.
There is nothing new here. Magnetic Bearings have been in use for decades now on all sorts of rotating equipment. Levitate a spinning shaft, control the movement of the shaft and therefore the physical vibrations. Go check out www.skfmagneticbearings.com, or www.s2m.fr . The US even has schools specializing in these systems, check out www.virginia.edu/romac/, www.mengr.tamu.edu/People/facultyinfo.asp?LastName =Palazzolo.
Yeah, percentage of GDP is a great indicator of strength, seeing as Jordan tops the list, and their military is world class, bar none. *rolleyes*
Just musing about stabilization on gun sights; why not?
So you presently have this image of the "cross hair" stable and all other information [the target & surroundings] jumping around. Wouldn't it be more usable to have a stable scene [smoothly scrolling] with the [more than normally] prominent cross hair doing the jumping around [unstabilized obviously].
This would allow better pattern recognition in the way the barrel is actually veering, hence better information to enable the shooter in controlling it [by hand].
Why not?
No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
Meh, whatever, I'm british so it matters little to me what you guys spend your hard earned tax dollars on.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman