My research group was looking into something exactly like this.
Last spring, our million $ lab was destroyed by a fire that turned out to be the fault of some high voltage equipment. Once the fire started, it burned through an O2 line and fed the fire.
How did we know this? Because the last thing we did before running like screaming girls was to grab the video tapes from out $100 walmart vcrs. We were feeding four cameras into each of four channels.
When we checked the tapes, the quality was terrible because we had been looping over the same tape for months.
Some security companies sell Linux based stand alones that do this however, the one I was looking at had some "issues." Most of these devices are set up to be "unhackable" whetever the hell that means. I didn't want to spend ~$1200 on a machine that I might be able to get a command prompt on.
With that said, the device I was looking for a had lot of good things going for it: hot swappable drives, plug-n-play USB CDR backup, four inputs, 30 fps. Software upgrades come in.tgz format which more or less begs DMCA violation.
I guess the short answer is Google: "security video digital".
We use 1 and 5 Mframe/sec cameras on the Pegasus project. They are useful in toriodal fusion experiments because the plasma bursts are so short (~a couple ms).
Sean
Are they asserting that the cost of laser surgery is centered around power consumption? I hope not. A laser powerful enough to vaporize a small turkey will only required a few tens of watts. You could get that from a lawnmower engine. What they really need is something that is easy to use with lots of idiot proofing. The cost of laser surgery is in the 6 years of medical school before anyone touches the device.
Yes, there exists politics in science. It is necessary when everyone is being fed from the same slop-bucket. The cold fusion debacle wasn't really an example of this. (Your point is valid, but you picked a poor example.) My research advisor, Rich Petrasso, was one of the scienctists who proved Fleischmann and Pons wrong. If you had actually studied the case, you would have known that: a) F+P had a tremendous amount of internal pressure to publish. They had to rush the results or risked getting scooped. b) They were electrochemists doing nuclear spectroscopy, using a device that they were unfamilar with. The "fusion" peak that they saw was an artifact from a previous test. An experianced scientist would have caught it. c) Where did they make their announcement? Science? Nature? JoAPS? No, they made it on CNN. Only AFTER the circus came, did they bother to publish an article in Science. How much time/money was wasted trying to prove these clowns wrong?
The lesson learned from the cold fusion debate was that "extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof." The science community has a system for error checking in place. When someone delibrately skirts this they are not engaging their peers.
Check out the other side of the story at http://www.infinite-energy.com
I actually work at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (http://www.lle.rochester.edu) - The NIF prototype. We have a laser that dumps ~30 Terrawatts in about a billionth of a second through 60 beams. All lot of our employees are Livermore folks and they were all sent an email last Friday. Ridge is right - 4% must be a typo if 80% of their budget (read: salaries) is getting transferred.
A book review written by a guy who hasn't read the book. Personally, I went through the first chapter of the book last night and I am pretty sure it is going to be tough reading (and I don't even have any degrees from MIT). I think a book review based on skimming the book is exactly what Wolfram is worried academia might do. Rather than listening to what he had to say, they have traditionally only listened long enough to gather ammunition against him.
Slashdot Mirror
My research group was looking into something exactly like this.
Last spring, our million $ lab was destroyed by a fire that turned out to be the fault of some high voltage equipment. Once the fire started, it burned through an O2 line and fed the fire. How did we know this? Because the last thing we did before running like screaming girls was to grab the video tapes from out $100 walmart vcrs. We were feeding four cameras into each of four channels.
When we checked the tapes, the quality was terrible because we had been looping over the same tape for months.
Some security companies sell Linux based stand alones that do this however, the one I was looking at had some "issues." Most of these devices are set up to be "unhackable" whetever the hell that means. I didn't want to spend ~$1200 on a machine that I might be able to get a command prompt on.
With that said, the device I was looking for a had lot of good things going for it: hot swappable drives, plug-n-play USB CDR backup, four inputs, 30 fps. Software upgrades come in .tgz format which more or less begs DMCA violation.
I guess the short answer is Google: "security video digital".
We use 1 and 5 Mframe/sec cameras on the Pegasus project. They are useful in toriodal fusion experiments because the plasma bursts are so short (~a couple ms). Sean
Are they asserting that the cost of laser surgery is centered around power consumption? I hope not. A laser powerful enough to vaporize a small turkey will only required a few tens of watts. You could get that from a lawnmower engine. What they really need is something that is easy to use with lots of idiot proofing. The cost of laser surgery is in the 6 years of medical school before anyone touches the device.
Yes, there exists politics in science. It is necessary when everyone is being fed from the same slop-bucket. The cold fusion debacle wasn't really an example of this. (Your point is valid, but you picked a poor example.)
My research advisor, Rich Petrasso, was one of the scienctists who proved Fleischmann and Pons wrong. If you had actually studied the case, you would have known that:
a) F+P had a tremendous amount of internal pressure to publish. They had to rush the results or risked getting scooped.
b) They were electrochemists doing nuclear spectroscopy, using a device that they were unfamilar with. The "fusion" peak that they saw was an artifact from a previous test. An experianced scientist would have caught it.
c) Where did they make their announcement? Science? Nature? JoAPS? No, they made it on CNN. Only AFTER the circus came, did they bother to publish an article in Science. How much time/money was wasted trying to prove these clowns wrong?
The lesson learned from the cold fusion debate was that "extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof." The science community has a system for error checking in place. When someone delibrately skirts this they are not engaging their peers.
Check out the other side of the story at http://www.infinite-energy.com
I actually work at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (http://www.lle.rochester.edu) - The NIF prototype. We have a laser that dumps ~30 Terrawatts in about a billionth of a second through 60 beams. All lot of our employees are Livermore folks and they were all sent an email last Friday. Ridge is right - 4% must be a typo if 80% of their budget (read: salaries) is getting transferred.
A book review written by a guy who hasn't read the book. Personally, I went through the first chapter of the book last night and I am pretty sure it is going to be tough reading (and I don't even have any degrees from MIT). I think a book review based on skimming the book is exactly what Wolfram is worried academia might do. Rather than listening to what he had to say, they have traditionally only listened long enough to gather ammunition against him.