http://web.archive.org/web/20100615055048/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html
"CHAPTER FIVE: The K-T Event 65 Million Years Ago
In Chapter Four, we left the earth spinning so rapidly that the rocky continental lithosphere had formed a thick belt or ring around the equator of the solid core of the earth. As the earth spun faster and faster the net gravitational force along the equator, which is the downward non-spinning gravity force minus the upward centrifugal spinning force, soon approaches zero.
Then about 65 million years ago, a large portion of that thick belt of land around the equator had less than zero gravity. Then the only thing holding it to the earth was the mechanical adhesion of the thick fluid lava layer called the asthenosphere. Then it simply overcame that sticky adhesion, something like unzipping a huge strip of Velcro around the equator, and it floated off into space.
That three fourths of the thick rocky ring around the earth carried with it a large amount of the rapidly spinning earth's energy in the form of angular momentum. It spiraled outward and was so large that it formed into a sphere by its own gravity and became what is today called the moon.
A LITTLE MATH GOES A LONG WAY: Happy Birthday Moon
To prove that, let's do a little math. If the earth spins at 24 hours per day, as it does today, then the force of gravity at the equator is about the same as the force of gravity at the north and south poles. If the earth spins faster, in about a 12 hour revolution day, then the force of gravity at the equator is around half of what it would be at the poles. And if the earth spins around in about 7 hours, then the force of gravity becomes rather close to zero at the equator, while the force at the poles remains the same.
There are several planets and moons in the solar system which rotate about that fast. It merely indicates how long the body in space has been cooling and shrinking. Rapid spinning is a normal part of planet and moon evolution, and is caused by the body shrinking with age and the principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum (CAM).
With another quick calculation we can find the volume of the missing three quarters of the rocky continents of earth. Simply take three fourths of the surface area of the earth and multiply that by 37 miles, or the average depth to the hot molten fluid asthenosphere where the separation took place. That volume of the three fourths of the surface material missing from the earth's rocky layer is exactly equal to the volume of the moon. And that calculation also shows the two volumes are exactly the same with an accuracy of about one percent. Amazing. "
well if you don't mean IN IT"S ORIGINAL COMPUTER then I would bet that some early parts of bios code has been ported without change into bios chip code that is still used. thus that part of the code might be the oldest code still running - especially on a widespread basis.
If you mean still running in its original computer, I would bet it would be early vintage 1970's calculator code that still runs fine and hasn't been changed since you bought the thing. My 70's calculators still work fine.
Of course if you include code that you can still run in virtual emulators then probably some early vac or univac or cobol or fortran stuff still runs somewhere not to mention some early assembly.
I still run some early basic stuff that was written in the 70's.
I wonder if the unmanned soft moon landers like the rover from Russia had some code that still runs when the sun hits the solar panels even if they don't power up enough to communicate.
I'll bet they still boot up to some degree so are still running their bios.
I would guess some old satellites and space probes still boot each time sunlight hits their panels to some degree even if they no longer have power to transmit.
Maybe some weather sonds dropped in places like the artic or underwater still boot up even though no one talks to them?
The answer is so obvious! The white house is the place most impervious to all legal actions. host your server there.
They can ignore supenonas and wouldn't let one be served because it would weaken the wall of executive privilege and the imperial presidency they are trying to create.
Additionally they don't subscribe to international courts either so you are safe from both US and international legal inquisitive action.
They are quick to rent out the Lincoln bedroom so i'm sure if you showed them they could get more bucks per square inch by hosting websites there they would rip out the bed and fill it with server farms.
http://vivzizi.com/
You don't even need sensors. the reception patterns of cellphones have all ready been used to detect rainfall and things in specific areas of a city. they polled the towers and the towers auto connect methods and were able to determine atmospheric conditions from them. So if the radiation source affected the operation of the cell phones that could be tracked right now with no one noticing.
Also according to the rather famous supoena that went out and was covered on most of the social networking sites - the fbi etc can turn on your cell phone's microphone and listen to any noise surrounding it without your knowledge.
i am sure they would be able to turn on your camera as well if they can do that. so here are my inventions:
1.if the cameras are multispectral (and most digchips sensors are at least sensitive to infrared light) could turn on cameras and watch for specific spectral signatures crossing in front of the camera to detect other things.
2.they could use that new software program microsoft demonstrated (that can go through photos on the web and assemble them together in collages by pattern matching) and use it to combine all live images from secretly turned on camera phones to create live updating 3d pictures of anywhere that had people walking with their cellphones out of their pockets.
3.I'll bet radiation affects bluetooth reception. they could upload the bluetooth charaterisitics inthe neighbor of every bluetooth phone and probably detect radiation from that.
If that is their breakthrough their press release was poorly written.
one would have to wonder also whether the hubble would be better than their ground based technique if a lucky imaging system without the unnneeded adaptive optics system was mounted on the hubble.
since being above the atmosphere is better than any adaptive optics system one would think the same low order turbulence would be better eleminated by being on the hubble.
from his response it seems they are not using partial image summing. atmosperic distortion happens in commonly occuring sizes since it occures from actual columns of air in motion that have limited sizes. i ownder what radius he is assuming for such column of distorting air if he is making a difference between 2.5 meter and 5 meter scopes.
you can increase your eye light sensitivity breifly by eating buillbery jam too. it contains compounds that temporarilty increase the retina's light sensitivity - old british ww@ pilots did this before night flights.
and of coarse limit your eyes exposure to non red light for a long period before viewign to avoid narrowing your irs.
taking this tube idea further - one could paint an old huge tv display tube of many inches across with videocon type coating and read so many scan lines from that huge image that you would get a resolution that would cost millions if done with a one off ccd.
one could even read different parts of such a huge videocon type system using different circuits get near parallel outputs of different parts of the image screen thus increasing possible resolution even further.
ironically one can still achieve many great things by hooking up and old videocon tube video camera to even a 200 mm photo lens and aiming it at the stars.
analog videocon tube camera have unlimited resolution (the imaging coating has no defined pixels - only the readout scan lines are limited and can be varied.)
ccds have some advantages over videocon tubes but the primary reason they went into consumer cameras was lower cost of production and adjustment rather than their advantages in operation. in fact the first ccd consumer cameras had LOWER resolution than old videocon tube consumer cameras at the time.
I can still nurse a near HD resolution picture out of an old video con tube camera i have from the 80's.
tubes do suffer from blooming and are naturally additive in their imaging so the coating sensitivity must be picked based on expected exposure duration of each frame but they have nearly unlimited imaging resolution in the coating and -driven by modern electronics- the scanline readout resolution can real be high.
i agree that the only real news in the release here is the advance of the ccd senstitivity and that has nothing to do with the academic institution claiming credit in the press release. furthermore it is a natural advance of a technique invented rather than the discovery of a new technique. Academic institutions have great PR departments - better than us amateurs - however it is painful to see institutions get so much credit for things often discussed by amateurs openly on the net long before an institution publicizes their duplication of it.
The breakthrough technique of summing very short ccd electronic exposures is the key innovation which I invented in 1995. To my knowledge no one publicly stated that idea before then but if I am wrong I would love to see it as I never mean to take credit for something that someone else did first.
wrong.
you can subtract the noise by using a balck covered noise refence image fromt he ccd.
then you can judge the distortion of each rapid image by measuring the contrast between pixels.
un distorted images will have more contrast. add only the image with highest contrast and you sum the un aberrated images. you can even sum just the parts of each image that have the greatest contrast and tooss parts of each image that are more blurred.
you can tell which images are blurred by analysis of tre frwequency spread on the pixels. you donlt even have to knwo target characteristics.
however by taking a black image with the ccd covered first, you can get a direct readout of the noise for the ccd and then subtract it from each image thus canceling the noise becuase the noise doesn't change much between images since it is ccd specific and not image or target specific.
so noise doesn't limit usefulness to a large degree.
I looked for prior examples b ut could not find any. i foyu have them please post them.
ccd's weren't around then.
was it done photographically?
thanks
It is not necessary to build something to invent it. Otherwise inventors would have to be craftsmen. they don't have to be. the patent office got rid of the requirement to build a working model decades ago.
There were no heavy numbers to crunch. the only numbers needed were recognizing that if you took shots at a faster frequency than that of atmosphereic distortion and summed only the highest contrast pictures or parts then you would have a photo that had lower atmosperic distortion which i clearly discussed.
That was novel at the time. then Astronomical exposures with film were always taken over long periods of time to increase light gathering. the introduction of ccd's meant someone did not have to physical change film between shots and thus the concept of taking short duration shots and summing them was a breakthrough.
I knew it would work. It does work. Amateur software programs used since then do this.
I can't explain it but like most inventors i have the abuility to visualize something in my head and have it demonstrat all physical processes in my head. i could "see" the light being gathered by the ccd and the high and low contrast images being formed and summed etc. most inventors can do this. ( one inventor test - count the number of corners of a cube. If you figure it out by vizualizing the cube in your head and then physically counting the cubes corners as you rotate it in your mind you probably are a good inventor).
At the time the expense of patenting kept me from getting many patents. As a result I spent much time speaking out againt the high cost of patents saying the government should not tax the seeds (the patents) but instead the corn (the products fromt he patents) thus patents should be free and then the government should take its patent fees from licenses of the patents. This encourages the maximum recording and patenting of more ideas which are made available to benefit the world.
I invented this process in 1995.
here is my original post on
the sci.image.processing newsgroup
my old email address is no longer active.
new one is geopiloot at mindspring.com 9 reduce the numbers of ooo's in pilot to one
it was ironic that many people jumped out to say it wouldn't work at the time.
it does work and it works well. In fact most of the additive image processing now done by amateur astronomers everywhere using pc's software is based on my invention which I did not patent.
George Watson
From: George Watson (71360.2455@CompuServe.com)
Subject: virtual variable geometry telescope
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Date: 1995/12/11
Has anyone implemented a virtual variable geometry telescope using
only a CCD attached to a normal non variable telescope?
It would work like this:
Take extremely short duration images from the CCD at a frequency
faster than the frequency of atmospheric distortion (1/60 sec I have
read is the minimal needed timeslice for physically corecting
atmospheric distortion in real time so maybe an exposure of 1/120 sec
would be short enough).
Choose via computer a high contrast image as a reference image.
Continue to take rapid short duration images and keep only the high
contrast ones with that have minimal displacement/offset from the
reference image.
Sum each of those acceptable images to a storage that will become the
final image.
What you should end up with is a final image that has minimal
atmosperic based distortion because all the low contrast and non
matching images will have been discarded.
Obviously you build an image over a longer period of time than with
real time optical correction but at perhaps lower cost.
Anyone know whether this has been proposed/done or researched?
--
George Watson
The opinions expressed here are those of the fingers
of George Watson only; not those of George Watson himself.
Please reply via this newsgroup. No Email unless requested,
Thanks.
View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Date: 1995/12/30
I invented this process in 1995. here is my original post on the sci.image.processing newsgroup my old email address is no longer active. new one is geopiloot at mindspring.com 9 reduce the numbers of ooo's in pilot to one it was ironic that many people jumped out to say it wouldn't work at the time. it does work and it works well. In fact most of the additive image processing now done by amateur astronomers everywhere using pc's software is based on my invention which I did not patent.
George Watson
From: George Watson (71360.2455@CompuServe.com) Subject: virtual variable geometry telescope This is the only article in this thread View: Original Format Newsgroups: sci.image.processing Date: 1995/12/11
Has anyone implemented a virtual variable geometry telescope using only a CCD attached to a normal non variable telescope?
It would work like this:
Take extremely short duration images from the CCD at a frequency faster than the frequency of atmospheric distortion (1/60 sec I have read is the minimal needed timeslice for physically corecting atmospheric distortion in real time so maybe an exposure of 1/120 sec would be short enough).
Choose via computer a high contrast image as a reference image.
Continue to take rapid short duration images and keep only the high contrast ones with that have minimal displacement/offset from the reference image.
Sum each of those acceptable images to a storage that will become the final image.
What you should end up with is a final image that has minimal atmosperic based distortion because all the low contrast and non matching images will have been discarded.
Obviously you build an image over a longer period of time than with real time optical correction but at perhaps lower cost.
Anyone know whether this has been proposed/done or researched?
-- George Watson
The opinions expressed here are those of the fingers of George Watson only; not those of George Watson himself.
Please reply via this newsgroup. No Email unless requested, Thanks.
View this article only Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Date: 1995/12/30
There are many graphics cards with Twin simultaneous monitor outputs designed for running two monitors at once now. They are nvidia and ATI and relatively cheap - especially on ebay.
If you get two - one PCI and one AGP they will BOTH work simultaneously and you can usually get three or even four monitors going at once.
Slashdot Mirror
http://web.archive.org/web/20100615055048/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/WHAT_REALLY_KILLED_THE_DINOSAURS.html "CHAPTER FIVE: The K-T Event 65 Million Years Ago In Chapter Four, we left the earth spinning so rapidly that the rocky continental lithosphere had formed a thick belt or ring around the equator of the solid core of the earth. As the earth spun faster and faster the net gravitational force along the equator, which is the downward non-spinning gravity force minus the upward centrifugal spinning force, soon approaches zero. Then about 65 million years ago, a large portion of that thick belt of land around the equator had less than zero gravity. Then the only thing holding it to the earth was the mechanical adhesion of the thick fluid lava layer called the asthenosphere. Then it simply overcame that sticky adhesion, something like unzipping a huge strip of Velcro around the equator, and it floated off into space. That three fourths of the thick rocky ring around the earth carried with it a large amount of the rapidly spinning earth's energy in the form of angular momentum. It spiraled outward and was so large that it formed into a sphere by its own gravity and became what is today called the moon. A LITTLE MATH GOES A LONG WAY: Happy Birthday Moon To prove that, let's do a little math. If the earth spins at 24 hours per day, as it does today, then the force of gravity at the equator is about the same as the force of gravity at the north and south poles. If the earth spins faster, in about a 12 hour revolution day, then the force of gravity at the equator is around half of what it would be at the poles. And if the earth spins around in about 7 hours, then the force of gravity becomes rather close to zero at the equator, while the force at the poles remains the same. There are several planets and moons in the solar system which rotate about that fast. It merely indicates how long the body in space has been cooling and shrinking. Rapid spinning is a normal part of planet and moon evolution, and is caused by the body shrinking with age and the principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum (CAM). With another quick calculation we can find the volume of the missing three quarters of the rocky continents of earth. Simply take three fourths of the surface area of the earth and multiply that by 37 miles, or the average depth to the hot molten fluid asthenosphere where the separation took place. That volume of the three fourths of the surface material missing from the earth's rocky layer is exactly equal to the volume of the moon. And that calculation also shows the two volumes are exactly the same with an accuracy of about one percent. Amazing. "
well if you don't mean IN IT"S ORIGINAL COMPUTER then I would bet that some early parts of bios code has been ported without change into bios chip code that is still used. thus that part of the code might be the oldest code still running - especially on a widespread basis. If you mean still running in its original computer, I would bet it would be early vintage 1970's calculator code that still runs fine and hasn't been changed since you bought the thing. My 70's calculators still work fine. Of course if you include code that you can still run in virtual emulators then probably some early vac or univac or cobol or fortran stuff still runs somewhere not to mention some early assembly. I still run some early basic stuff that was written in the 70's. I wonder if the unmanned soft moon landers like the rover from Russia had some code that still runs when the sun hits the solar panels even if they don't power up enough to communicate. I'll bet they still boot up to some degree so are still running their bios. I would guess some old satellites and space probes still boot each time sunlight hits their panels to some degree even if they no longer have power to transmit. Maybe some weather sonds dropped in places like the artic or underwater still boot up even though no one talks to them?
The answer is so obvious! The white house is the place most impervious to all legal actions. host your server there. They can ignore supenonas and wouldn't let one be served because it would weaken the wall of executive privilege and the imperial presidency they are trying to create. Additionally they don't subscribe to international courts either so you are safe from both US and international legal inquisitive action. They are quick to rent out the Lincoln bedroom so i'm sure if you showed them they could get more bucks per square inch by hosting websites there they would rip out the bed and fill it with server farms. http://vivzizi.com/
You don't even need sensors. the reception patterns of cellphones have all ready been used to detect rainfall and things in specific areas of a city. they polled the towers and the towers auto connect methods and were able to determine atmospheric conditions from them.
So if the radiation source affected the operation of the cell phones that could be tracked right now with no one noticing.
Also according to the rather famous supoena that went out and was covered on most of the social networking sites - the fbi etc can turn on your cell phone's microphone and listen to any noise surrounding it without your knowledge.
i am sure they would be able to turn on your camera as well if they can do that.
so here are my inventions:
1.if the cameras are multispectral (and most digchips sensors are at least sensitive to infrared light) could turn on cameras and watch for specific spectral signatures crossing in front of the camera to detect other things.
2.they could use that new software program microsoft demonstrated (that can go through photos on the web and assemble them together in collages by pattern matching) and use it to combine all live images from secretly turned on camera phones to create live updating 3d pictures of anywhere that had people walking with their cellphones out of their pockets.
3.I'll bet radiation affects bluetooth reception. they could upload the bluetooth charaterisitics inthe neighbor of every bluetooth phone and probably detect radiation from that.
http://www.vivzizi.com/
If that is their breakthrough their press release was poorly written. one would have to wonder also whether the hubble would be better than their ground based technique if a lucky imaging system without the unnneeded adaptive optics system was mounted on the hubble. since being above the atmosphere is better than any adaptive optics system one would think the same low order turbulence would be better eleminated by being on the hubble. from his response it seems they are not using partial image summing. atmosperic distortion happens in commonly occuring sizes since it occures from actual columns of air in motion that have limited sizes. i ownder what radius he is assuming for such column of distorting air if he is making a difference between 2.5 meter and 5 meter scopes.
you can increase your eye light sensitivity breifly by eating buillbery jam too. it contains compounds that temporarilty increase the retina's light sensitivity - old british ww@ pilots did this before night flights. and of coarse limit your eyes exposure to non red light for a long period before viewign to avoid narrowing your irs.
taking this tube idea further - one could paint an old huge tv display tube of many inches across with videocon type coating and read so many scan lines from that huge image that you would get a resolution that would cost millions if done with a one off ccd. one could even read different parts of such a huge videocon type system using different circuits get near parallel outputs of different parts of the image screen thus increasing possible resolution even further.
ironically one can still achieve many great things by hooking up and old videocon tube video camera to even a 200 mm photo lens and aiming it at the stars. analog videocon tube camera have unlimited resolution (the imaging coating has no defined pixels - only the readout scan lines are limited and can be varied.) ccds have some advantages over videocon tubes but the primary reason they went into consumer cameras was lower cost of production and adjustment rather than their advantages in operation. in fact the first ccd consumer cameras had LOWER resolution than old videocon tube consumer cameras at the time. I can still nurse a near HD resolution picture out of an old video con tube camera i have from the 80's. tubes do suffer from blooming and are naturally additive in their imaging so the coating sensitivity must be picked based on expected exposure duration of each frame but they have nearly unlimited imaging resolution in the coating and -driven by modern electronics- the scanline readout resolution can real be high.
i agree that the only real news in the release here is the advance of the ccd senstitivity and that has nothing to do with the academic institution claiming credit in the press release. furthermore it is a natural advance of a technique invented rather than the discovery of a new technique. Academic institutions have great PR departments - better than us amateurs - however it is painful to see institutions get so much credit for things often discussed by amateurs openly on the net long before an institution publicizes their duplication of it. The breakthrough technique of summing very short ccd electronic exposures is the key innovation which I invented in 1995. To my knowledge no one publicly stated that idea before then but if I am wrong I would love to see it as I never mean to take credit for something that someone else did first.
wrong. you can subtract the noise by using a balck covered noise refence image fromt he ccd. then you can judge the distortion of each rapid image by measuring the contrast between pixels. un distorted images will have more contrast. add only the image with highest contrast and you sum the un aberrated images. you can even sum just the parts of each image that have the greatest contrast and tooss parts of each image that are more blurred. you can tell which images are blurred by analysis of tre frwequency spread on the pixels. you donlt even have to knwo target characteristics.
however by taking a black image with the ccd covered first, you can get a direct readout of the noise for the ccd and then subtract it from each image thus canceling the noise becuase the noise doesn't change much between images since it is ccd specific and not image or target specific. so noise doesn't limit usefulness to a large degree.
I looked for prior examples b ut could not find any. i foyu have them please post them. ccd's weren't around then. was it done photographically? thanks
It is not necessary to build something to invent it. Otherwise inventors would have to be craftsmen. they don't have to be. the patent office got rid of the requirement to build a working model decades ago. There were no heavy numbers to crunch. the only numbers needed were recognizing that if you took shots at a faster frequency than that of atmosphereic distortion and summed only the highest contrast pictures or parts then you would have a photo that had lower atmosperic distortion which i clearly discussed. That was novel at the time. then Astronomical exposures with film were always taken over long periods of time to increase light gathering. the introduction of ccd's meant someone did not have to physical change film between shots and thus the concept of taking short duration shots and summing them was a breakthrough. I knew it would work. It does work. Amateur software programs used since then do this. I can't explain it but like most inventors i have the abuility to visualize something in my head and have it demonstrat all physical processes in my head. i could "see" the light being gathered by the ccd and the high and low contrast images being formed and summed etc. most inventors can do this. ( one inventor test - count the number of corners of a cube. If you figure it out by vizualizing the cube in your head and then physically counting the cubes corners as you rotate it in your mind you probably are a good inventor). At the time the expense of patenting kept me from getting many patents. As a result I spent much time speaking out againt the high cost of patents saying the government should not tax the seeds (the patents) but instead the corn (the products fromt he patents) thus patents should be free and then the government should take its patent fees from licenses of the patents. This encourages the maximum recording and patenting of more ideas which are made available to benefit the world.
I invented this process in 1995. here is my original post on the sci.image.processing newsgroup my old email address is no longer active. new one is geopiloot at mindspring.com 9 reduce the numbers of ooo's in pilot to one it was ironic that many people jumped out to say it wouldn't work at the time. it does work and it works well. In fact most of the additive image processing now done by amateur astronomers everywhere using pc's software is based on my invention which I did not patent. George Watson From: George Watson (71360.2455@CompuServe.com) Subject: virtual variable geometry telescope This is the only article in this thread View: Original Format Newsgroups: sci.image.processing Date: 1995/12/11 Has anyone implemented a virtual variable geometry telescope using only a CCD attached to a normal non variable telescope? It would work like this: Take extremely short duration images from the CCD at a frequency faster than the frequency of atmospheric distortion (1/60 sec I have read is the minimal needed timeslice for physically corecting atmospheric distortion in real time so maybe an exposure of 1/120 sec would be short enough). Choose via computer a high contrast image as a reference image. Continue to take rapid short duration images and keep only the high contrast ones with that have minimal displacement/offset from the reference image. Sum each of those acceptable images to a storage that will become the final image. What you should end up with is a final image that has minimal atmosperic based distortion because all the low contrast and non matching images will have been discarded. Obviously you build an image over a longer period of time than with real time optical correction but at perhaps lower cost. Anyone know whether this has been proposed/done or researched? -- George Watson The opinions expressed here are those of the fingers of George Watson only; not those of George Watson himself. Please reply via this newsgroup. No Email unless requested, Thanks. View this article only Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Date: 1995/12/30
I invented this process in 1995.
here is my original post on
the sci.image.processing newsgroup
my old email address is no longer active.
new one is geopiloot at mindspring.com 9 reduce the numbers of ooo's in pilot to one
it was ironic that many people jumped out to say it wouldn't work at the time.
it does work and it works well. In fact most of the additive image processing now done by amateur astronomers everywhere using pc's software is based on my invention which I did not patent.
George Watson
From: George Watson (71360.2455@CompuServe.com)
Subject: virtual variable geometry telescope
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Date: 1995/12/11
Has anyone implemented a virtual variable geometry telescope using
only a CCD attached to a normal non variable telescope?
It would work like this:
Take extremely short duration images from the CCD at a frequency
faster than the frequency of atmospheric distortion (1/60 sec I have
read is the minimal needed timeslice for physically corecting
atmospheric distortion in real time so maybe an exposure of 1/120 sec
would be short enough).
Choose via computer a high contrast image as a reference image.
Continue to take rapid short duration images and keep only the high
contrast ones with that have minimal displacement/offset from the
reference image.
Sum each of those acceptable images to a storage that will become the
final image.
What you should end up with is a final image that has minimal
atmosperic based distortion because all the low contrast and non
matching images will have been discarded.
Obviously you build an image over a longer period of time than with
real time optical correction but at perhaps lower cost.
Anyone know whether this has been proposed/done or researched?
--
George Watson
The opinions expressed here are those of the fingers
of George Watson only; not those of George Watson himself.
Please reply via this newsgroup. No Email unless requested,
Thanks.
View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Date: 1995/12/30
There are many graphics cards with Twin simultaneous monitor outputs designed for running two monitors at once now. They are nvidia and ATI and relatively cheap - especially on ebay. If you get two - one PCI and one AGP they will BOTH work simultaneously and you can usually get three or even four monitors going at once.