For the HD DVD format, I was giving the exapmple if they were done on a DVD with current technology, not the violet laser.
I'm gunna hold out until they start using gamma ray lasers! w00t! Heck, the RIAA will probably love them...will most likely only get one use out of each disc:)
"You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components."
I don't understand...you controdicting yourself. Your saying you can't create new frequency components (which would be a wave with a different frequency than the originals), but you can create waves that are the sum of the existing components (which would be a new one compared to the old). So, you are agreeing.
And, it's not nonsense...and you just said he was correct...assuming that's what he was trying to say.
"A resonating surface can modulace a wave to creane new frequency components"
The modulation occurs by the signals mixing on the surface that they vibrate and reflect off of...so you are saying the same thing as him.
I understand what you mean. I do think that VHS seems more natural for some reason. Maybe it is the slight blurr or something, without the harsh horizontal lines of a DVD.
I was just going off of the fact that DVD can produce higher "harmonics", or frequencies, and that it has way more lines of resolution. But your right, I can see how people would like VHS better, I just personally don't. Maybe if I had nice, non 10 year old equipment, I would be able to understand. To me, whenever I have done a side by side, the VHS just seems blurrier (which will always be the case since the lines of res), but, like I said, I don't have a nice VCR(P?) to actually see if the picture quality looks better, which, like you said, doesn't really depend on all these numbers and whatnot.
But, if you were just comparing the ability to reproduce sharp detail of a paused frame, DVD should always win, purely because of it's higher lines of resolution (I guess there could be some artifacts though (even though I've never seen any except when my TV was to obright), so it seems to be either a choice between high detail, or blurry). I would assume that the DVD frame would look more like the original cell.
And if you were comparing the audio frequency response of a DVD to VHS, DVD should always win...since it would be nearly exactly how they recorded it..which is as good as you can do (I know they usually use larger words, and higher sample rate in the studio...but there's no way VHS could reproduce these, so anything that VHS can produce, DVD should be able to nearly exactly...although, it might muddy up the extremely high freq stuff (i.e., 16kHz and on) instead of just not playing it at all like VHS).
comments?
and, I understand your metaphore about the keyboards...good one:)
It's seriously probably your DVD player...I don't think it's a compatability issua since it's a standard...maybe it's that your DVD player isn't compatibly with the standard. Or it has a crappy laser, so it can't read beat up, scratched, overly washed, discs.
If they went to violet lasers...it also wouldn't change the picture quality of the DVD's that exist now.
You have to realise that if they used HD resolutions with DVD, they would be more artifacts since they would have the same datarate per frame, but with a higher res, which would require more loss.
Like trying to compress a 800x600 JPG to the same size as a 640x480...your just net gunna get better quality...unless the picture is simple (like non moving adjecent frames would be on dvd).
Could your screen's brightness be too high or contrast too low? That would cause black to not be true black, causeing artifacts to be visible. It's like brightenning a 16bit color picture that only uses four bits...you make the range between each color equivilant to much more than 1 bit.
"waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component..."
He would be right...but like you said, this isn't the responsibility of the equipment to make all the imperfections. CD's and records are recorded with the audio they heard originally, not with all the reflections and stuff...that's why they use soundproof rooms with sound absorbers and lead walls...they don't want reflections...just the waves comming out of the mouths and instrunments.
Even though clipping or non linear components is all that would cause harmonics for all the frequencies (which would be a sign of bad equipment, not good)...
If your talking about audio, then I don't see how a VHS could reproduce those higher. Reading around on the net, it seems that 15 khz is usually highest on most VHS equipment. DVD is 44.1KHz...which will give you more than 15kHz of lossless, non degregating audio. And, from here,
"VHS is the predominate consumer VCR format today, producing about 240 lines of horizontal video resolution compared to standard NTSC television broadcast signals of about 330 lines"
That seems like a lot less than BROADCAST, and a whole lot less than DVD's _720 horizontal lines_.
Also, you don't get CD quality audio from a VHS like you do a DVD...and you don't get the true 5.1. I don't see how anyone could think that VHS provides better audio or video than DVD...maybe you should do a side by side...
If you look closely, you will see where the problem originates...it's cliff! If an article is posted by cliff, it should be moderated first. I have been recomending this for a very long time. And your right, almost every single one could be answered in google, or belongs in a newsgroup or something.
If you look very closely...it's not as good at all...it blurs things...reducing the detail, and has more artifacts. There was an article here at slashdot a couple months ago that compared video compression. It doesn't look as good at all. Especially on scenes with a lot of detail, and a lot of difference between the adjecent frames (like during camera movement), which are the ones that make the codec really matter.
I was at a local auto partsr store (Kragen), and they were selling these license plate covers that made it impossible to read the whole license plate at high angles, such as where a camera would be. It looked like it worked great. I don't know how the cop would feel if he/she pulled you over and tried to read your license plate while standing (which would put his eye's at a high angle).
Just to throw in a little fact here...ring voltages are around 90v AC.
Maybe there are two seperate pieces of metal that you can touch to get shocked. You might have to be grounded with the perephrial, and be touching the computers case. This would make sense.
Always use you right arm since te path to ground has a better chance of being away from your heart. NEVER use both at the same time. Keep your left in your pocket. Unless you are right hearted of course?
Never use black plastic for an insulator or gloves unless they are specifically designed for HV. There are high amounts of carbon in black plastic, so it will conduct. Believe me;) This is also why you never see black plastic being used on things in Anechoic chambers, the EM waves will reflect off of it.
Make sure the TV, power supply, or whatever, is turned off when handling the wire. *BUT* don't even consider trusting that. Unplug it after every use. Better to be safe than dead.
I know it's fun to zap things with the TV power supply, but they aren't made to handle the high currents that useually are related. It WILL burn out eventually if you let it sit there for too long (like more than a second or so). You will most likely first see smoke comming from the electronics in the back of the TV. It can last quite a long time after this if you don't do it too much more, and if the TV I designed badly (considering what would happen if it were you between the wire).
NEVER EVER do it alone. Make sure there is someone that is capable of unplugging the TV and performing CPR (seriously). If they can't do that, digging a large hole is the only skill required.
Always be afraid.
Don't do it at all.
If you should break any of these rules, natural selection will strike down one more dummy.
The flame is drawn towards the 30-gauge collector wire when power is applied partially through an aerodynamic push from ions travelling from the emitter to the collector, but also because the flame is a mixture of combustion-gasses and gas-plasma that picks up and carries charges in the air-gap to the collector.
One time, with a small 4kv power supply (hurt, but not too much), I tried something like this. I put a wire near the flame, near the base, and charged myself with the other. I then put my finger next to the flame as to give the illusion that I was controlling the flame. Well, it worked too good, and the flame shot at my finger, bending directly onto it. I not only got burnt almost instantly, but got shocked a little as well! Heheh. Stupid me.
My website has picture too! Even of my high tech power supply apparatus! And my super HV safety encolsure!
Even got some video (which unfortunatly isn't on my website yet, can't find the tape) of it's final crash. You can definitely feel the ionic wind underneath the thing. It was a lot of fun making it though. Only burned a couple hole in the carpet (the cement under the carpet is plenty conductive), a floormat (I repeat, the cement is conductive), and some paper (got in the way of the cement), and lots of grass from when I used it outside (ground is conductive too, duh). At least my lifter went out in a flaming ball of glory, when it proceded to fly into a metallic doorframe, causing huge arcs and fire (which happens to be what I got on video:) after I cut one of the teathers (Muahhaha!).
Some think it is forces cause by the electrical field lines going from plates that are perpendicular. This is interesting, but i don't think this is how it works. If you look at the design, there is no stable capacitor. Since you do not ground the foil, you are not making a plate that will stay at a substantial potential that is less than the wire, because of ionized air and sparks that tend to sometime fly to it. And, the capacitance would be sooo low, that 25kv most likely wouldn't be enough to lift it even if those forces did exist. Also, looking at the construction, I can't see and perpendicular plates.
I also saw an experiment, cant find it though, of someone who put one in a bag that was wrapped around it. It didn't fly...which proves it. And, someone told me that if you monitor the current (didn't have or make a HV current meter at the time) there is a HUGD power draw that would be plenty to lift the lifter.
Don't forget about the Square Kilometer Array
on
Worlds Largest Telescope?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
From the later, The antenna has "...a proposed collecting area at low frequencies (150 MHz to 1.5 GHz) of roughly 1 km2 (or 106 m2) - the equivalent of more than one hundred dishes of 100 m diameter. In contrast, the largest and most sensitive existing array has a physical area approximately one hundred times smaller than this."
I think the main fear is that they can be scanned from any angle, and without any real way to know they are being scanned (with barcode, you see light, and it must be visible). This would allow them to do things like track you, for instance, by linking all your RFID info to your customer number, so they can find your shopping habits by knowing whenever you walk into a store. If they find it wasn't you, such as if someone used a credit card with their name on it while wearing your jacket, they could come to the conclusion that you now that person, or sold your cloths to them. They could track your every movement by having scanners installed in the sidewalks, and doorways....OMG! They ARE watching me!
But, your right. I don't see these as anything more than what you said, a barcode that can be scanned from any angle. The possible abuses that come with this technology are just MUCH easier to bring to reality than with others (like barcodes), mainly because it doesn't require video or image scanning to get the information...just for you to pass by a scanner.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually never understood this either. Maybe it's the support and software that makes it worth it.
Glossy paper...you sure it wasn't a CD..maybe an AOL cd!? HRMMM!!?
I was agreeing with you.
:)
For the HD DVD format, I was giving the exapmple if they were done on a DVD with current technology, not the violet laser.
I'm gunna hold out until they start using gamma ray lasers! w00t! Heck, the RIAA will probably love them...will most likely only get one use out of each disc
I don't understand...you controdicting yourself. Your saying you can't create new frequency components (which would be a wave with a different frequency than the originals), but you can create waves that are the sum of the existing components (which would be a new one compared to the old). So, you are agreeing.
And, it's not nonsense...and you just said he was correct...assuming that's what he was trying to say.
"A resonating surface can modulace a wave to creane new frequency components"
The modulation occurs by the signals mixing on the surface that they vibrate and reflect off of...so you are saying the same thing as him.
I understand what you mean. I do think that VHS seems more natural for some reason. Maybe it is the slight blurr or something, without the harsh horizontal lines of a DVD.
:)
I was just going off of the fact that DVD can produce higher "harmonics", or frequencies, and that it has way more lines of resolution. But your right, I can see how people would like VHS better, I just personally don't. Maybe if I had nice, non 10 year old equipment, I would be able to understand. To me, whenever I have done a side by side, the VHS just seems blurrier (which will always be the case since the lines of res), but, like I said, I don't have a nice VCR(P?) to actually see if the picture quality looks better, which, like you said, doesn't really depend on all these numbers and whatnot.
But, if you were just comparing the ability to reproduce sharp detail of a paused frame, DVD should always win, purely because of it's higher lines of resolution (I guess there could be some artifacts though (even though I've never seen any except when my TV was to obright), so it seems to be either a choice between high detail, or blurry). I would assume that the DVD frame would look more like the original cell.
And if you were comparing the audio frequency response of a DVD to VHS, DVD should always win...since it would be nearly exactly how they recorded it..which is as good as you can do (I know they usually use larger words, and higher sample rate in the studio...but there's no way VHS could reproduce these, so anything that VHS can produce, DVD should be able to nearly exactly...although, it might muddy up the extremely high freq stuff (i.e., 16kHz and on) instead of just not playing it at all like VHS).
comments?
and, I understand your metaphore about the keyboards...good one
It's seriously probably your DVD player...I don't think it's a compatability issua since it's a standard...maybe it's that your DVD player isn't compatibly with the standard. Or it has a crappy laser, so it can't read beat up, scratched, overly washed, discs.
If they went to violet lasers...it also wouldn't change the picture quality of the DVD's that exist now.
You have to realise that if they used HD resolutions with DVD, they would be more artifacts since they would have the same datarate per frame, but with a higher res, which would require more loss.
Like trying to compress a 800x600 JPG to the same size as a 640x480...your just net gunna get better quality...unless the picture is simple (like non moving adjecent frames would be on dvd).
Could your screen's brightness be too high or contrast too low? That would cause black to not be true black, causeing artifacts to be visible. It's like brightenning a 16bit color picture that only uses four bits...you make the range between each color equivilant to much more than 1 bit.
The whole purpose of digital cable is to be able to use less bandwidth per channel..and it's cheaper...
They aren't doing it for you or the picture quality...it's jsut profit.
and, Direct TV sucks...it looks AWFULL when things start maving fast.
In other words, he gave you proof...
I wanna see one comparing VHS to DVD now...DVD, you should be able to calculate since it's digital...
And giant 5 Farad capacitors to handle all the current.
Could he be trying to say...
"waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component..."
He would be right...but like you said, this isn't the responsibility of the equipment to make all the imperfections. CD's and records are recorded with the audio they heard originally, not with all the reflections and stuff...that's why they use soundproof rooms with sound absorbers and lead walls...they don't want reflections...just the waves comming out of the mouths and instrunments.
Even though clipping or non linear components is all that would cause harmonics for all the frequencies (which would be a sign of bad equipment, not good)...
If your talking about audio, then I don't see how a VHS could reproduce those higher. Reading around on the net, it seems that 15 khz is usually highest on most VHS equipment. DVD is 44.1KHz...which will give you more than 15kHz of lossless, non degregating audio. And, from here,
"VHS is the predominate consumer VCR format today, producing about 240 lines of horizontal video resolution compared to standard NTSC television broadcast signals of about 330 lines"
That seems like a lot less than BROADCAST, and a whole lot less than DVD's _720 horizontal lines_.
Also, you don't get CD quality audio from a VHS like you do a DVD...and you don't get the true 5.1. I don't see how anyone could think that VHS provides better audio or video than DVD...maybe you should do a side by side...
If you look closely, you will see where the problem originates...it's cliff! If an article is posted by cliff, it should be moderated first. I have been recomending this for a very long time. And your right, almost every single one could be answered in google, or belongs in a newsgroup or something.
If you look very closely...it's not as good at all...it blurs things...reducing the detail, and has more artifacts. There was an article here at slashdot a couple months ago that compared video compression. It doesn't look as good at all. Especially on scenes with a lot of detail, and a lot of difference between the adjecent frames (like during camera movement), which are the ones that make the codec really matter.
I was at a local auto partsr store (Kragen), and they were selling these license plate covers that made it impossible to read the whole license plate at high angles, such as where a camera would be. It looked like it worked great. I don't know how the cop would feel if he/she pulled you over and tried to read your license plate while standing (which would put his eye's at a high angle).
Screw this being marked as a troll...this is getting rediculouse...cliff needs a big red muzzle.
(notice, I didn't use my karma bonus)
Wow....good point.
Just to throw in a little fact here...ring voltages are around 90v AC.
Maybe there are two seperate pieces of metal that you can touch to get shocked. You might have to be grounded with the perephrial, and be touching the computers case. This would make sense.
Always use you right arm since te path to ground has a better chance of being away from your heart. NEVER use both at the same time. Keep your left in your pocket. Unless you are right hearted of course?
;) This is also why you never see black plastic being used on things in Anechoic chambers, the EM waves will reflect off of it.
Never use black plastic for an insulator or gloves unless they are specifically designed for HV. There are high amounts of carbon in black plastic, so it will conduct. Believe me
Make sure the TV, power supply, or whatever, is turned off when handling the wire. *BUT* don't even consider trusting that. Unplug it after every use. Better to be safe than dead.
I know it's fun to zap things with the TV power supply, but they aren't made to handle the high currents that useually are related. It WILL burn out eventually if you let it sit there for too long (like more than a second or so). You will most likely first see smoke comming from the electronics in the back of the TV. It can last quite a long time after this if you don't do it too much more, and if the TV I designed badly (considering what would happen if it were you between the wire).
NEVER EVER do it alone. Make sure there is someone that is capable of unplugging the TV and performing CPR (seriously). If they can't do that, digging a large hole is the only skill required.
Always be afraid.
Don't do it at all.
If you should break any of these rules, natural selection will strike down one more dummy.
One time, with a small 4kv power supply (hurt, but not too much), I tried something like this. I put a wire near the flame, near the base, and charged myself with the other. I then put my finger next to the flame as to give the illusion that I was controlling the flame. Well, it worked too good, and the flame shot at my finger, bending directly onto it. I not only got burnt almost instantly, but got shocked a little as well! Heheh. Stupid me.
I made one of these things a while ago.
website here
My website has picture too! Even of my high tech power supply apparatus! And my super HV safety encolsure!
Even got some video (which unfortunatly isn't on my website yet, can't find the tape) of it's final crash. You can definitely feel the ionic wind underneath the thing. It was a lot of fun making it though. Only burned a couple hole in the carpet (the cement under the carpet is plenty conductive), a floormat (I repeat, the cement is conductive), and some paper (got in the way of the cement), and lots of grass from when I used it outside (ground is conductive too, duh). At least my lifter went out in a flaming ball of glory, when it proceded to fly into a metallic doorframe, causing huge arcs and fire (which happens to be what I got on video:) after I cut one of the teathers (Muahhaha!).
Some think it is forces cause by the electrical field lines going from plates that are perpendicular. This is interesting, but i don't think this is how it works. If you look at the design, there is no stable capacitor. Since you do not ground the foil, you are not making a plate that will stay at a substantial potential that is less than the wire, because of ionized air and sparks that tend to sometime fly to it. And, the capacitance would be sooo low, that 25kv most likely wouldn't be enough to lift it even if those forces did exist. Also, looking at the construction, I can't see and perpendicular plates.
I also saw an experiment, cant find it though, of someone who put one in a bag that was wrapped around it. It didn't fly...which proves it. And, someone told me that if you monitor the current (didn't have or make a HV current meter at the time) there is a HUGD power draw that would be plenty to lift the lifter.
in Australia.
:)
Site are here, here, and here.
Some technical details are here.
From the later,
The antenna has "...a proposed collecting area at low frequencies (150 MHz to 1.5 GHz) of roughly 1 km2 (or 106 m2) - the equivalent of more than one hundred dishes of 100 m diameter. In contrast, the largest and most sensitive existing array has a physical area approximately one hundred times smaller than this."
That's pretty big.
I think the main fear is that they can be scanned from any angle, and without any real way to know they are being scanned (with barcode, you see light, and it must be visible). This would allow them to do things like track you, for instance, by linking all your RFID info to your customer number, so they can find your shopping habits by knowing whenever you walk into a store. If they find it wasn't you, such as if someone used a credit card with their name on it while wearing your jacket, they could come to the conclusion that you now that person, or sold your cloths to them. They could track your every movement by having scanners installed in the sidewalks, and doorways....OMG! They ARE watching me!
But, your right. I don't see these as anything more than what you said, a barcode that can be scanned from any angle. The possible abuses that come with this technology are just MUCH easier to bring to reality than with others (like barcodes), mainly because it doesn't require video or image scanning to get the information...just for you to pass by a scanner.
Seriously though, they are watching me!
Scarry. That's just all too likely to happen.