it seems to me that since carbon nanotubes are, well, pure carbon that pollution is a non-issue. carbon must be better than polymers. also, any work done on the effects of graphite/diamond dust would seem to apply equally well for nanotubes.
actually, laser printers work much the same way. the paper rolls across a drum while a laser horizontally scans across the page. the laser bounces off a rotating mirror (called a roof mirror); this mirror is typically hexagonal- or octagonal-shaped.
it seems to me that you could do the same sort of scanning setup with a laser/lasers. (1) mount the laser(s) on a rotating drum like a VCR head. the VCR head has the additional plus of being a rotating transformer so you could get power to the laser(s). (2) rotate a roof mirror perpendicular to the rotation of the laser(s). this would produce a helically scanned image which would have to be rectified through a cylindrical lens of some sort. maybe you could curve a frensel lens to the correct radius of curvature. anyway just an idea.
it seems to me that LCD backlighting will only be a short term application. other display technologies are coming out that don't require backlighting: LED (grid of diodes), EL (electro-luminescent) & FED (field-emission displays). all of these will be lower in power because no backlighting is required. however, what's cool about the LED stuff is that it emits white light (not a combination of RGB light). that means that a low-power/high-efficiency/long-life lightbulb is only a small prodcution step away. imagine a lightbulb lasting longer than one's childhood.
that's an excellent point. how would the beam "know" to affect only the pendulum ball and not the intervening matter? this insight in itself indicates a major flaw in the design of this experiment as presented.
the bigger the particle accelerator the higher the energies of particles that can be smashed together. actually, it's a bit more complicated than that; things like accelerator lifespan, different magnetic confinement techniques, new detector designs/geometries, particle production equipment and so on are also part of the equation. ultimately though, the longer the tube and the stronger the magnets, the greater the speed and the larger the mass of the particles that can be smashed together.
insurance companies actually commit one of the most basic fallacies associated with statistics (related to the gambler's fallacy). while one can say that a group has specific tendencies to do X, one cannot then apply the statistics of that group to an individual just because s/he fits that group's characteristics (unless, of course, it were 100% likely). in other words, the statistics of the group belong to the group and not to a member of the group.
imagine if there were a statistic showing that dogs between the ages 7 and 28 (in dog years) were statistically likely to piss on the owner's carpet if the owner didn't feed the dog before 6pm GMT. so, the C.A.T. (canine ablution taskforce) in an effort to combat these dometic dowsings has mandated that all dogs between their 1st and 4th years must wear a specially designed catheter. however, you've had fido for 3 years now and have never observed this pissy behavior. does this regulation make sense for fido?
the reason software like napster exists is that the RIAA doesn't supply a much needed/desired demand. it's economics 101. perhaps, this lawsuit is more about missed opportunities than anything else.
i wonder what science fiction films you think are better than Star Wars or The Matrix or Pi for that matter? i'm inclined to agree with you about Batman, but you must recall that, when the movie came out, the only popular version of batman had been the tv show from the 60s(?). since the tv show was intentionally campy, it seems plausible that the movie would be as well. in fact, all tim burton movies have a quasi-campiness about them -- a good thing. so, i'm not convinced that the movie failed because the joker had an absurdly long gun, however the kim basinger character did become tiresome.
as for Pi, i think it was one the better films ever made and a work of art. yes, perhaps, the 216 digit unspeakable name of god blowing up computer chips was unrealistic. but the film connects kabbalistic numerology with mathematical descriptions of nature with underlying patterns in languages we speak and write ala Goedel, Escher, Bach or The Grammatical Man. the repeated sequences of pills popping -- the number of pills increasing with each scene up to but not including seven (seven being important in many cultural/religious traditions) -- were a set of scenes among many sets that brought the viewer into the premise of the movie.
Betrand Russell has a nice turn of phrase which i paraphrase here: why would a OOO (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) God be so insecure as to require his worship? It often perplexes me this notion that's thrown about of infinite God vs. finite creatures. It seems to me that if this were the case, then God must be too powerful to need to exist.
i was just thinking that maybe warner brothers had it right all along. imagine carrying one of these wormholes around and strategically placing it for quick escapes.
actually i can't think of any compelling reason why one couldn't use a combination of the ground effect and linear induction propulsion. something like a big coil on the track inducing an oscillating magnetic field on a carrier substrate (like aluminum) on the train. this would be virtually noiseless as well as virtually frictionless.
there have been a few write-ups on magnetospheric propulsion. it works similarly to a solar sail except the "sail" is a bubble of ionized plasma that interacts with the solar wind to create thrust. seems pretty cool. Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion
Slashdot Mirror
it seems to me that since carbon nanotubes are, well, pure carbon that pollution is a non-issue. carbon must be better than polymers. also, any work done on the effects of graphite/diamond dust would seem to apply equally well for nanotubes.
actually, laser printers work much the same way. the paper rolls across a drum while a laser horizontally scans across the page. the laser bounces off a rotating mirror (called a roof mirror); this mirror is typically hexagonal- or octagonal-shaped.
it seems to me that you could do the same sort of scanning setup with a laser/lasers. (1) mount the laser(s) on a rotating drum like a VCR head. the VCR head has the additional plus of being a rotating transformer so you could get power to the laser(s). (2) rotate a roof mirror perpendicular to the rotation of the laser(s). this would produce a helically scanned image which would have to be rectified through a cylindrical lens of some sort. maybe you could curve a frensel lens to the correct radius of curvature. anyway just an idea.
it seems to me that LCD backlighting will only be a short term application. other display technologies are coming out that don't require backlighting: LED (grid of diodes), EL (electro-luminescent) & FED (field-emission displays). all of these will be lower in power because no backlighting is required. however, what's cool about the LED stuff is that it emits white light (not a combination of RGB light). that means that a low-power/high-efficiency/long-life lightbulb is only a small prodcution step away. imagine a lightbulb lasting longer than one's childhood.
that's an excellent point. how would the beam "know" to affect only the pendulum ball and not the intervening matter? this insight in itself indicates a major flaw in the design of this experiment as presented.
the bigger the particle accelerator the higher the energies of particles that can be smashed together. actually, it's a bit more complicated than that; things like accelerator lifespan, different magnetic confinement techniques, new detector designs/geometries, particle production equipment and so on are also part of the equation. ultimately though, the longer the tube and the stronger the magnets, the greater the speed and the larger the mass of the particles that can be smashed together.
insurance companies actually commit one of the most basic fallacies associated with statistics (related to the gambler's fallacy). while one can say that a group has specific tendencies to do X, one cannot then apply the statistics of that group to an individual just because s/he fits that group's characteristics (unless, of course, it were 100% likely). in other words, the statistics of the group belong to the group and not to a member of the group.
imagine if there were a statistic showing that dogs between the ages 7 and 28 (in dog years) were statistically likely to piss on the owner's carpet if the owner didn't feed the dog before 6pm GMT. so, the C.A.T. (canine ablution taskforce) in an effort to combat these dometic dowsings has mandated that all dogs between their 1st and 4th years must wear a specially designed catheter. however, you've had fido for 3 years now and have never observed this pissy behavior. does this regulation make sense for fido?
the reason software like napster exists is that the RIAA doesn't supply a much needed/desired demand. it's economics 101. perhaps, this lawsuit is more about missed opportunities than anything else.
i wonder what science fiction films you think are better than Star Wars or The Matrix or Pi for that matter? i'm inclined to agree with you about Batman, but you must recall that, when the movie came out, the only popular version of batman had been the tv show from the 60s(?). since the tv show was intentionally campy, it seems plausible that the movie would be as well. in fact, all tim burton movies have a quasi-campiness about them -- a good thing. so, i'm not convinced that the movie failed because the joker had an absurdly long gun, however the kim basinger character did become tiresome.
as for Pi, i think it was one the better films ever made and a work of art. yes, perhaps, the 216 digit unspeakable name of god blowing up computer chips was unrealistic. but the film connects kabbalistic numerology with mathematical descriptions of nature with underlying patterns in languages we speak and write ala Goedel, Escher, Bach or The Grammatical Man. the repeated sequences of pills popping -- the number of pills increasing with each scene up to but not including seven (seven being important in many cultural/religious traditions) -- were a set of scenes among many sets that brought the viewer into the premise of the movie.
Betrand Russell has a nice turn of phrase which i paraphrase here: why would a OOO (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) God be so insecure as to require his worship? It often perplexes me this notion that's thrown about of infinite God vs. finite creatures. It seems to me that if this were the case, then God must be too powerful to need to exist.
i was just thinking that maybe warner brothers had it right all along. imagine carrying one of these wormholes around and strategically placing it for quick escapes.
actually i can't think of any compelling reason why one couldn't use a combination of the ground effect and linear induction propulsion. something like a big coil on the track inducing an oscillating magnetic field on a carrier substrate (like aluminum) on the train. this would be virtually noiseless as well as virtually frictionless.
here's the link for those that are interested: Antimatter Space Propulsion
there have been a few write-ups on magnetospheric propulsion. it works similarly to a solar sail except the "sail" is a bubble of ionized plasma that interacts with the solar wind to create thrust. seems pretty cool.
Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion