Yes, current 3D printing is a gimmick. I want to see 3D printing with embedded metal parts and semis, circuits. Now all you can do is make a hollow that a metal part of board can be inserted into - ideally snapped into with a positive lock, so you can add wheels with bearings. Circuit boards, LEDs etc can also as snap ins. A software library for these snap ins is needed, with dimensional adjust-ability. What is also needed is deductive post 3D printing, -sandpapering irregular bits, and also the ability to machine it after the first print run - insert the bearings and circuit bits, a 3D print some more. As it sits, it is barely OK for small runs on some stuff. Injection molding is far better for volume.
One day, they will make these with 30-40 bins for various elements and you will be printing at the atomic level and you can make an iPhone... LOL, see this space in 20 years and it may have come true?
12.4 cents/KWH here in Canada. The path to recycle this aluminium is more tortuous and costly, but with enough cars buying new AL battery inserts and dropping off oxidized slush they will find a way, even if not economic compared with new mined alumina where the power is. If this works it will take 40-50 years to be put in place wlong with the others, like Vanadium and Lithium.
The feds should impose an interstate commerce tax, say 9% and give 3% to the ship-from state and 3% to the ship-to state and the feds grab 3%. States with no sales taxes, their 3% is omitted.
This will give states a bite of in and out traffic, that they get little of now. Not as much as the states full taxes, but they lose most of that now. 3% of both ways is a lot btter than what they have now. It will give the feds something to erase debt, it waill act as a leveller of the playing field. States will have to waive their state use taxes on good shipped to to conform with this law.
As we gradually change from ipv4 to ipv6 pressures will emerge that cause migration to ipv6. As the world as seen by an ipv4 gradually shrinks, the users will clamor for ipv6. Some dead ends might stay with ipv4? As the current low (~1-2%) rate of ipv6 adoption, the ipv4 group do not suffer greatly, but as allocatable blocks dry up, and the cost of ipv6 hardware declines there will come a tipping point which will place inexorable pressure on the ipv4 to switch instead of using translators or tunneling methods, which bottleneck them even more.
On cellular networks there are hard wired protocols that all must adhere to. recall the transition from the analog to digital methods a few years ago? A sunset time for analog was set and after that date(which varied by country) the analog went dark. Similarly, all makers of gear will have to adhere to a group standard to enable operation at all. I do not know enough about the tech to know if high speed cellular 'converters' will allow mixed operation? One suspects the overhead will be oppressive.
Well, The internet seems to operate well with standards. Cells do offer interoperability at the RF level and providers accommodate others for load sharing at peak times, and fee charging, so the equipment is there, if we can avoid the burden of uncivil serpents...
I was not suggesting that the government build it, with their layers of dogsbodies, private should build it, at their expense, with no cost for spectrum, but with full technical and interoperability conformity. Logically, with a small town that needs 10 towers, with a single multiplexed cell stack capable of the number of channels on each tower, instead of 40-50 towers with excess overlap etc/ In other words, onse system of 10 towers for the system load with the cost shared by the spectrum users
Yes, spectrum is limited, as is land for walks. The concept of leasing roads and sidewalks is not workable, we have grown up with these being a common good, provision and maintenance paid by taxes.
As for shared spectrum, it is perfectly workable, in fact it is now shared, with handoffs between carriers of assorted traffic being routine. Some carriers are accused of dropping traffic of other carriers. Each cellular base station has its landlines connected and will be a shared resource, with costs allocated by traffic by the various carriers. Currently we have 3-4 carriers with a base on the same high point and the same with other bases, although there is base sharing in low traffic ares.areas. With sharing you would have one base on each high point and they could be lower in power and closer, with less RF interference from the other three bases on the same high point, and a single land line trunk into it. It would have to be capable of the traffic load of the 3-4 bases that it has replaced, but this is easier to do in a single piece of equipment versus 3-4.
The method of auctio of spectrum superficially looks good, but in fact the fees paid are passed through to subscribers = high service costs = barrier to entry = less tru competition
Bidders are prone to bid wildly high amounts on the expectation they will have a captive audience to gouge, and this is what they have done. The sale of spectrum is a de-facto tax that is not called a tax by means of this so called spectrum auction.
Lets have a sidewalk auction. Bidders would get ownership of lengths of sidewalk, and people would have to pay a fee to walk along and another fee to cross in their car. Some people who could not afford it, would be house bound, and unable to go to work, and all food delivered would be inflated by the sidewalk fees paid by the grocer on deliveries.
Why stop at that? Road auctions? Make everything a toll road, with each car, truck or bicycle tracked by bar codes and fees charged back that way. Does this sound like roaming? Would they have police preventing theft of cross over fees by people who went overland?
Spectrum should be free. Users must meet common technical standards for interoperability - like the land-line phone system does. Antennas and land-line interconnects to be pooled and common standards here as well.
People who are not competent in the subject are unable to defend any position they may hold or follow that is trolled - thus they are defeated. People who are knowledgeable on the topic can field a good defence on the blog, referencing sources, and can usually win and the troll quietly goes away, or a troll war ensues until interest is lost. SInce trolls are invasive and persistent and may not have a life, they usually have more time to devote to the attack than non-trolls, remember, they live under the bridge, and we are just passing by...
I want ads that help me, like XVZ Inc advises that a meter maid will find your car with an expired meter in 10 minutes, so I can top up the meter. If we had e-meters, I could tag them when I parked and drop in 25 cents every few minutes, as needed by me knowing when I would leave.
Get them down, and kick them while they are down to make sure they stay down. I agree with you - scorched earth. BUT, we have an ecology - we get free space, and for that we must tolerate ads whose money we use to pay for what we want. We need a set of rules that will allow ads, that will not allow any of these objectionable practices. Full up ad block is our bully, and the enemy gets it's own bully = an arms race.
Yes, I see, it has limited merit, and is inferior to impactors and suited only to the bag of orbiting gravel and very long time frames because it is so very very weak.
i.e. 4. For our simulated test case, where the tractoring spacecraft was about 1000 kg, the total V imparted to the asteroid in one month was about 7 m/s. so it would need decades tomiss the keyhole. It also says, each case differs and impactors and direct thrust can be superior.
I would like to see a ssimilar report that rated other methods in more detail
Rotation would have to be dealt with. You might not want to stop it, if it in enough may toss loose pieces away with escape velocity - remember how very small the ev is, In my opinion, a loose aggregate will not have a large rotational speed for this reason. A metal one can have a high rate of rotation. A solid rock one that has a high rate of rotation will scatter when broken. Each case will differ, and various ways to accomodate any rotation will be used.
most will achieve escape velocity from their original mass.
May I borrow your crystal ball for a while? I assume you must have one, since there is absolutely no way you would know that with any certainty at all otherwise.
LOL, the escape velocity from a one million tonne mass is 0.0000115536 meters per second (gravity = weak remember)
a million one ton rocky masses - none would reach the surface
You must be pretty amazingly good to be able to shatter a rock into a million roughly equally-sized pieces. Or maybe you really don't know squat about blowing up rocks at all. WHat a moron, you supplied the one tonne masses - did you forget?
Explosive fragmentation will produce randon masses from dust upwards - to large pieces, depends on the competence of the rock and shear it is subjected to, and the number of holes and blasting material you used.
The rock will break where the local shear exceeds the strength. High brisance, like TNT with a velocity of detonation of several thousand meters per second will create a network of fractures. The more hole = more fractures = smaller pieces, I agree, surprise I have lots of experience in mining, drilling, fusing etc. With a large mass like this with expansion room to infinity, you might create a ring of holes 10 feet apart as a ring, and another one within it, and so on. The outer ring is detonated first, followed progressively by the inner ones, which will give you an expanding mass of fragmented rock. This is opposite to what you do to blast a shaft, where you create an expanding pattern from the middle out, the center if broken and ejected and then successive blasts break into the loosened area
On the other hand, we can just tow the damn thing out of an intercept path and be done with it. Yes, I agree, but the best way to tow it is with an ion rocket mounted some distance from the asteroid with a number of nozzles directing the ions so they clear the asteroid (hitting it wastes it) and attached by a pull cable of sufficenet strength for the job. A sold metal asteroid can probably be moved by a post drilled into it and cemented. A one inch attachment will take many tons, bit if it is broken and goint to be moving through a gravitational gradient that might cause separation of pieces, you need to bag it. Seine nets 500 meters across are sold, in essence they can be made arbitrarily large - as long as they can be orbited and have the strength needed to be pulled by 1000 pounds. A large and light net could be extruded in orbit from the correct material. Nylon would work, so would polyester, as long as they were UV stabilized.A net 500 meters x 500 x 500 = 125,000,000 cubic meters - 400 million tons of rocks, more or lees, =depends on the density which a 1000 pound pull would move away from the earth in a few months or less. You could make a net 5 miles across, just balance the holes size, strength etc to suit it. The gravity tug method is many thousands of times as wastefull of energy as ion rockets. Just thrust it away, do not use the microscopic force of gravity when you have the large force of thrust
Yes, Rocky asteroids are indeed brittle and most break up when they enter. Rock is brittle, metals is not.
Yes, the escape velocity of the fragments is very low and most will achieve escape velocity from their original mass.
Remember,the breakup of the asteroid will have most of them miss the earth and the number that hit the earth will be of various sizes, most will break up, being rocky. There may well be larger ones that impact? Recall the one that broke up over Russia recently was about 10,000 tons. They will be of all sizes. The earth gathers a few thousand tons per day of mainly small sizes. The temporal spread will mitigate the damage as will the size and type of rock. a million one ton rocky masses - none would reach the surface.
The thrusters must aim about 175 degrees away from each other to avoind the ion stream from impinging on the asteroid - you can not have that. The ion thrust can not impact the towed body
I have not seen any such reputable article, all I have seen is fool's work,please show me one - if you can. Forexample, this scenario has errors in their basic math. 1 newton of thrust will quickly move their tug away from the target mass, because the mutual attraction is far smaller. http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509595.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, current 3D printing is a gimmick. I want to see 3D printing with embedded metal parts and semis, circuits. Now all you can do is make a hollow that a metal part of board can be inserted into - ideally snapped into with a positive lock, so you can add wheels with bearings. Circuit boards, LEDs etc can also as snap ins.
A software library for these snap ins is needed, with dimensional adjust-ability. What is also needed is deductive post 3D printing, -sandpapering irregular bits, and also the ability to machine it after the first print run - insert the bearings and circuit bits, a 3D print some more.
As it sits, it is barely OK for small runs on some stuff. Injection molding is far better for volume.
One day, they will make these with 30-40 bins for various elements and you will be printing at the atomic level and you can make an iPhone... LOL, see this space in 20 years and it may have come true?
12.4 cents/KWH here in Canada. The path to recycle this aluminium is more tortuous and costly, but with enough cars buying new AL battery inserts and dropping off oxidized slush they will find a way, even if not economic compared with new mined alumina where the power is. If this works it will take 40-50 years to be put in place wlong with the others, like Vanadium and Lithium.
We need to assess the overall efficiency of the process that uses aluminum in the battery and then electro-refines it via the Hall process.
No, It is a good idea. It would get tax to both states and the feds abd be a great leveller of I/S commerce
The feds should impose an interstate commerce tax, say 9% and give 3% to the ship-from state and 3% to the ship-to state and the feds grab 3%.
States with no sales taxes, their 3% is omitted.
This will give states a bite of in and out traffic, that they get little of now. Not as much as the states full taxes, but they lose most of that now. 3% of both ways is a lot btter than what they have now. It will give the feds something to erase debt, it waill act as a leveller of the playing field.
States will have to waive their state use taxes on good shipped to to conform with this law.
As we gradually change from ipv4 to ipv6 pressures will emerge that cause migration to ipv6. As the world as seen by an ipv4 gradually shrinks, the users will clamor for ipv6. Some dead ends might stay with ipv4? As the current low (~1-2%) rate of ipv6 adoption, the ipv4 group do not suffer greatly, but as allocatable blocks dry up, and the cost of ipv6 hardware declines there will come a tipping point which will place inexorable pressure on the ipv4 to switch instead of using translators or tunneling methods, which bottleneck them even more.
On cellular networks there are hard wired protocols that all must adhere to. recall the transition from the analog to digital methods a few years ago? A sunset time for analog was set and after that date(which varied by country) the analog went dark. Similarly, all makers of gear will have to adhere to a group standard to enable operation at all. I do not know enough about the tech to know if high speed cellular 'converters' will allow mixed operation? One suspects the overhead will be oppressive.
Well, The internet seems to operate well with standards. Cells do offer interoperability at the RF level and providers accommodate others for load sharing at peak times, and fee charging, so the equipment is there, if we can avoid the burden of uncivil serpents...
I was not suggesting that the government build it, with their layers of dogsbodies, private should build it, at their expense, with no cost for spectrum, but with full technical and interoperability conformity. Logically, with a small town that needs 10 towers, with a single multiplexed cell stack capable of the number of channels on each tower, instead of 40-50 towers with excess overlap etc/ In other words, onse system of 10 towers for the system load with the cost shared by the spectrum users
Yes, spectrum is limited, as is land for walks.
The concept of leasing roads and sidewalks is not workable, we have grown up with these being a common good, provision and maintenance paid by taxes.
As for shared spectrum, it is perfectly workable, in fact it is now shared, with handoffs between carriers of assorted traffic being routine. Some carriers are accused of dropping traffic of other carriers. Each cellular base station has its landlines connected and will be a shared resource, with costs allocated by traffic by the various carriers. Currently we have 3-4 carriers with a base on the same high point and the same with other bases, although there is base sharing in low traffic ares.areas.
With sharing you would have one base on each high point and they could be lower in power and closer, with less RF interference from the other three bases on the same high point, and a single land line trunk into it. It would have to be capable of the traffic load of the 3-4 bases that it has replaced, but this is easier to do in a single piece of equipment versus 3-4.
The method of auctio of spectrum superficially looks good, but in fact the fees paid are passed through to subscribers = high service costs = barrier to entry = less tru competition
Bidders are prone to bid wildly high amounts on the expectation they will have a captive audience to gouge, and this is what they have done.
The sale of spectrum is a de-facto tax that is not called a tax by means of this so called spectrum auction.
Lets have a sidewalk auction. Bidders would get ownership of lengths of sidewalk, and people would have to pay a fee to walk along and another fee to cross in their car. Some people who could not afford it, would be house bound, and unable to go to work, and all food delivered would be inflated by the sidewalk fees paid by the grocer on deliveries.
Why stop at that? Road auctions? Make everything a toll road, with each car, truck or bicycle tracked by bar codes and fees charged back that way. Does this sound like roaming? Would they have police preventing theft of cross over fees by people who went overland?
Spectrum should be free. Users must meet common technical standards for interoperability - like the land-line phone system does. Antennas and land-line interconnects to be pooled and common standards here as well.
Stay away, nothing can resist superheated high velocity bullshit
I am going to wait before I buy one of these 3D printers. Once they can print 256Gig SSD drives, they will be worth buying...
The Casino does lose, they will have to make good to the losers
People who are not competent in the subject are unable to defend any position they may hold or follow that is trolled - thus they are defeated. People who are knowledgeable on the topic can field a good defence on the blog, referencing sources, and can usually win and the troll quietly goes away, or a troll war ensues until interest is lost. SInce trolls are invasive and persistent and may not have a life, they usually have more time to devote to the attack than non-trolls, remember, they live under the bridge, and we are just passing by...
I want ads that help me, like XVZ Inc advises that a meter maid will find your car with an expired meter in 10 minutes, so I can top up the meter. If we had e-meters, I could tag them when I parked and drop in 25 cents every few minutes, as needed by me knowing when I would leave.
Get them down, and kick them while they are down to make sure they stay down. I agree with you - scorched earth.
BUT, we have an ecology - we get free space, and for that we must tolerate ads whose money we use to pay for what we want.
We need a set of rules that will allow ads, that will not allow any of these objectionable practices.
Full up ad block is our bully, and the enemy gets it's own bully = an arms race.
How do we get a liveable peace?
http://easycalculation.com/physics/classical-physics/newtons-law.php
here is one that seems to do a good job
I use online calculators that deal with m1, m2, and separation as point masses
Yes, I see, it has limited merit, and is inferior to impactors and suited only to the bag of orbiting gravel and very long time frames because it is so very very weak.
i.e.
4. For our simulated test case, where the tractoring spacecraft was about 1000 kg, the total V imparted to the asteroid in one month was about 7 m/s.
so it would need decades tomiss the keyhole.
It also says, each case differs and impactors and direct thrust can be superior.
I would like to see a ssimilar report that rated other methods in more detail
Rotation would have to be dealt with. You might not want to stop it, if it in enough may toss loose pieces away with escape velocity - remember how very small the ev is, In my opinion, a loose aggregate will not have a large rotational speed for this reason. A metal one can have a high rate of rotation. A solid rock one that has a high rate of rotation will scatter when broken. Each case will differ, and various ways to accomodate any rotation will be used.
most will achieve escape velocity from their original mass.
May I borrow your crystal ball for a while? I assume you must have one, since there is absolutely no way you would know that with any certainty at all otherwise.
LOL, the escape velocity from a one million tonne mass is 0.0000115536 meters per second (gravity = weak remember)
a million one ton rocky masses - none would reach the surface
You must be pretty amazingly good to be able to shatter a rock into a million roughly equally-sized pieces. Or maybe you really don't know squat about blowing up rocks at all. WHat a moron, you supplied the one tonne masses - did you forget?
Explosive fragmentation will produce randon masses from dust upwards - to large pieces, depends on the competence of the rock and shear it is subjected to, and the number of holes and blasting material you used.
The rock will break where the local shear exceeds the strength. High brisance, like TNT with a velocity of detonation of several thousand meters per second will create a network of fractures. The more hole = more fractures = smaller pieces, I agree, surprise I have lots of experience in mining, drilling, fusing etc. With a large mass like this with expansion room to infinity, you might create a ring of holes 10 feet apart as a ring, and another one within it, and so on. The outer ring is detonated first, followed progressively by the inner ones, which will give you an expanding mass of fragmented rock. This is opposite to what you do to blast a shaft, where you create an expanding pattern from the middle out, the center if broken and ejected and then successive blasts break into the loosened area
On the other hand, we can just tow the damn thing out of an intercept path and be done with it.
Yes, I agree, but the best way to tow it is with an ion rocket mounted some distance from the asteroid with a number of nozzles directing the ions so they clear the asteroid (hitting it wastes it) and attached by a pull cable of sufficenet strength for the job. A sold metal asteroid can probably be moved by a post drilled into it and cemented. A one inch attachment will take many tons, bit if it is broken and goint to be moving through a gravitational gradient that might cause separation of pieces, you need to bag it. Seine nets 500 meters across are sold, in essence they can be made arbitrarily large - as long as they can be orbited and have the strength needed to be pulled by 1000 pounds. A large and light net could be extruded in orbit from the correct material. Nylon would work, so would polyester, as long as they were UV stabilized.A net 500 meters x 500 x 500 = 125,000,000 cubic meters - 400 million tons of rocks, more or lees, =depends on the density which a 1000 pound pull would move away from the earth in a few months or less. You could make a net 5 miles across, just balance the holes size, strength etc to suit it.
The gravity tug method is many thousands of times as wastefull of energy as ion rockets. Just thrust it away, do not use the microscopic force of gravity when you have the large force of thrust
Yes, Rocky asteroids are indeed brittle and most break up when they enter. Rock is brittle, metals is not.
Yes, the escape velocity of the fragments is very low and most will achieve escape velocity from their original mass.
Remember,the breakup of the asteroid will have most of them miss the earth and the number that hit the earth will be of various sizes, most will break up, being rocky. There may well be larger ones that impact? Recall the one that broke up over Russia recently was about 10,000 tons. They will be of all sizes.
The earth gathers a few thousand tons per day of mainly small sizes. The temporal spread will mitigate the damage as will the size and type of rock.
a million one ton rocky masses - none would reach the surface.
The thrusters must aim about 175 degrees away from each other to avoind the ion stream from impinging on the asteroid - you can not have that. The ion thrust can not impact the towed body
At this distance, the asteroid will fill about ~175 degrees of the visual field, thus the vector of the thrust will be 99% wasted
I have not seen any such reputable article, all I have seen is fool's work,please show me one - if you can.
Forexample, this scenario has errors in their basic math. 1 newton of thrust will quickly move their tug away from the target mass, because the mutual attraction is far smaller.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509595.pdf