Even assuming your bucket swinging would produce the correct force field (it won't), look at some of the other considerations. Assume you swing your bucket in a full circle once a second, and that you're trying to achieve a resolution of ten arc-seconds. 10/(360*60*60) is 7.7 microseconds out of each second that you have to make your exposure. Not only does that introduce difficulties, but you've reduced the amount of useful light hitting your sensor by 5 orders of magnitude.
Good flats are almost as difficult to make as good parabolas, and they're harder to test for proper shape. (They don't focus, after all). By the time you've made 2 of them, you've spent more money than making a good parabola, and you still haven't figured out how you're going to suspend them above the main mirror.
The liquid takes on a shape that minimizes its surface tension.
The parabolic form of a spinning liquid in a conventional gravity field is the result of the forces of gravity and (circular) acceleration acting on and caused by the mass of the fluid. Surface tension and wetting perturb the ideal shape. They're problems, not the source of a good shape.
The spinning mirror approximates a parabola (which is what you want) to the degree than the gravitational force on the mirror is parallel and of the same magnitude everywhere (i.e. the gravitational source is effectively located at infinity.) A black hole located near the base of the mirror sets up a different gravity field, and the resulting surface won't be a parabola.
I've seen news reports of Iran and North Korea threatening to do so. Iran has an obvious goal. North Korea has a history of erratic military activities; what they will do is simply beyond predictability.
Bipolar transistors have the additional advantage that there is no difficulty in controlling a threshold voltage; the equivalent (and less significant) problem is controlling current gain. Bipolars have the disadvantages that any active circuit must always draw current, and bipolar logic is more complex than CMOS. One correction to your comment: the current in a bipolar transistor is exponentally related to Vbe, so performance degrades very rapidly with decreasing voltage. Multiply speed by about 0.02 for each 0.1 volt drop in Vbe when fully turned on.
Commentators both left and right are calling this "the worst environmental disaster ever". They evidently choose to ignore Tuskunga, Chernoble, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, Vesuvius, Krakatoa, The Year Without a Summer (1816), the dust bowl, the black plague, the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and numerous other earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, volcanos, hurricanes and meteor strikes.
The phrase "business problems" in this context means financial calculations. Development of new products is not generally considered a "problem" unless you believe that new things should appear by magic.
Water rights are an old concept, and a valid one. If your jackass example violates your rights through bribery, you should give him and his "connections" the gift of some high velocity lead. We're in the mess we're in today because people don't agressively protect their VALID rights.
The philosophy of Islam is particularly likely to generate terrorists. You can't have a system of beliefs that includes aggressive opposition to outsiders and not have some members that take the words literally.
Finally, communism is not socialism.
A red Yugo is not a blue Yugo, it's an unimportant difference. For both, goal and the result is power and destruction.
In cold countries, the obvious idea that if you don't work very hard to prepare for winter, you'll die, is deeply ingrained into the minds of the general populace. In Scandinavia, this work ethic lingered for a long time until after 2 generations it finally became evident to a large segment of society that it wasn't necessary to work in order to live reasonably well. Furthermore, rapish levels of taxation make it fruitless to work hard. Thus, it seemed for 30 or more years that northern European socialism was successful, but it's failing now. Reality has caught up with the kleptocracy.
Most agriculture is very wasteful of water. It's not uncommon to just flood an area and ignore the runoff. Even if watering is cut down to a level such that there's no runoff, most of the water is still lost to evaporation off the soil rather than through the plant. It takes a greenhouse to even make true water control possible, and that's capital intensive.
In a sane world, the only reasonable is response "you've got to be kidding". If you look at Marx's personal life, you'll understand that his goal was universal malice.
they then want to rewrite all the textbooks to meet their own versions of history.
The textbooks are out there, there are hundreds of authors clamoring to get their books accepted. Textbooks aren't the major expense in education, and they're reused until they are physically unusable. Generally, the government committees making the choice aren't actually authors.
The reason this is such a big news story is that the liars that have been making the books for decades now have their tits in a wringer, and their friends are the press.
Texas is meerly switching to a different variety of liars.
The shame is that in this country, the political philosophy with rational economics and a slightly more pro-freedom standpoint is also the philosophy entwined with religion, which is being defeated by science at every turn. We have two distinct choices, the bad and the much worse.
If it weren't for the Republicans' potential to cause trouble, the original bill would have been much more extensive and draconian. The Democrats started with what they thought they could get away with. No changes in the party of slavery.
Although there are printers (or at least there were at one time) that had special dyes to better fill out the curves in the chromacity diagram, the common 6 color photoprinters are generally yellow, cyan, magenta, weak magenta, weak cyan, black. The weak (diluted) dyes are used to make (for a hypothetical example) 50% magenta with two dots of weak (50%) magenta instead of one dot of magenta and one empty (white) dot. The purpose is to reduce annoying visible dot patterns rather than improving spectral purity.
Interpolation aren't just best guesses. They are numerical analysis curve fitting algorithms to best represent non-linearity in discrete linear slopes that become increasingly correct as the differential [distance between two points on the curve] decreases.
If that isn't the definition of a best guess, I don't know what is.
I can't give you the whole answer for why LCDs are more efficient than CRTs, but here's part of it. First, CRTs must have the filament going full blast all the time (that's a few watts) and that power does not contribute to the picture. Second, CRTs require high voltage (>20,000 volts) to operate the phosphors at high output and reasonable efficiency, and the conversion to such a high voltage is likely to be less efficient than the lower voltage that LCD backlights work at. Third, CRTs have deflection circuits running continuously, and even though some power is recovered through resonance, it still takes a lot of power to generate that oscillating magnetic field. Fourth, the CRT backlight can be optimized for maximum white power through any choice of phosphors or LEDs that when summed are perceived as white, whereas for CRTs there must be a compromise for each phosphor for color purity, efficiency, and durability (with the result that there aren't as many good candidates to choose from). Fifth, as much as half of the light made by a CRT's phosphors is radiated backwards, into the tube. (Reflective coatings can help this somewhat.)
Still, it does seem surprising that an LCD can be more efficient, given that it has to throw away at least 2/3 of the light that goes through it. (Each color pixel filters out the other two colors, so only 1 of 3 gets through.) I'm guessing that the weak link is CRT phosphor efficiency.
The agency can't add people fast enough to whittle down the pile. There are only two choices: lower standards and grant more patents to reduce the pressure or find ways to drastically cut back the number of applications.
Let's see... lower standards so that almost all existing applications are passed without adequate examination. This will cause what to happen? A flood of new applications for marginal and bogus ideas, most of which will be granted to clear the newly expanded backlog, which will encourage more applications, and so on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, inovation and existing products are sued out of existence by new patentholders.
The short term winners: lawyers and trolls. The short term losers: everyone else. Long term, everyone loses.
The proper approach is to make patent standards more difficult, and to reject certain patent application categories (software, business methods, for example) entirely. To protect the U.S. from foreign companies that have patents for categories the U.S. rejects, such patents should not be recognized.
Patents already cost a good deal more than a filing fee of $300, which your post implies is close to the current cost. Lawyer's charges and other expenses get the price over $2000, and that was 20 years ago. No business seriously involved in inovation is going to consider a few thousand dollars an impediment to filing a patent; it takes many expensive hours to draw up the documents and go through the steps involved in filing, defending against an initial rejection, etc..
Slashdot Mirror
Even assuming your bucket swinging would produce the correct force field (it won't), look at some of the other considerations. Assume you swing your bucket in a full circle once a second, and that you're trying to achieve a resolution of ten arc-seconds. 10/(360*60*60) is 7.7 microseconds out of each second that you have to make your exposure. Not only does that introduce difficulties, but you've reduced the amount of useful light hitting your sensor by 5 orders of magnitude.
In other words, the prototype isn't going to scale successfully.
Good flats are almost as difficult to make as good parabolas, and they're harder to test for proper shape. (They don't focus, after all). By the time you've made 2 of them, you've spent more money than making a good parabola, and you still haven't figured out how you're going to suspend them above the main mirror.
The parabolic form of a spinning liquid in a conventional gravity field is the result of the forces of gravity and (circular) acceleration acting on and caused by the mass of the fluid. Surface tension and wetting perturb the ideal shape. They're problems, not the source of a good shape.
The spinning mirror approximates a parabola (which is what you want) to the degree than the gravitational force on the mirror is parallel and of the same magnitude everywhere (i.e. the gravitational source is effectively located at infinity.) A black hole located near the base of the mirror sets up a different gravity field, and the resulting surface won't be a parabola.
I've seen news reports of Iran and North Korea threatening to do so. Iran has an obvious goal. North Korea has a history of erratic military activities; what they will do is simply beyond predictability.
Bipolar transistors have the additional advantage that there is no difficulty in controlling a threshold voltage; the equivalent (and less significant) problem is controlling current gain. Bipolars have the disadvantages that any active circuit must always draw current, and bipolar logic is more complex than CMOS. One correction to your comment: the current in a bipolar transistor is exponentally related to Vbe, so performance degrades very rapidly with decreasing voltage. Multiply speed by about 0.02 for each 0.1 volt drop in Vbe when fully turned on.
Commentators both left and right are calling this "the worst environmental disaster ever". They evidently choose to ignore Tuskunga, Chernoble, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, Vesuvius, Krakatoa, The Year Without a Summer (1816), the dust bowl, the black plague, the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and numerous other earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, volcanos, hurricanes and meteor strikes.
The phrase "business problems" in this context means financial calculations. Development of new products is not generally considered a "problem" unless you believe that new things should appear by magic.
Dangerous Dan McGrew is used in a Warner Brothers cartoon, which helps its long term popularity.
Water rights are an old concept, and a valid one. If your jackass example violates your rights through bribery, you should give him and his "connections" the gift of some high velocity lead. We're in the mess we're in today because people don't agressively protect their VALID rights.
A red Yugo is not a blue Yugo, it's an unimportant difference. For both, goal and the result is power and destruction.
In cold countries, the obvious idea that if you don't work very hard to prepare for winter, you'll die, is deeply ingrained into the minds of the general populace. In Scandinavia, this work ethic lingered for a long time until after 2 generations it finally became evident to a large segment of society that it wasn't necessary to work in order to live reasonably well. Furthermore, rapish levels of taxation make it fruitless to work hard. Thus, it seemed for 30 or more years that northern European socialism was successful, but it's failing now. Reality has caught up with the kleptocracy.
Most agriculture is very wasteful of water. It's not uncommon to just flood an area and ignore the runoff. Even if watering is cut down to a level such that there's no runoff, most of the water is still lost to evaporation off the soil rather than through the plant. It takes a greenhouse to even make true water control possible, and that's capital intensive.
In a sane world, the only reasonable is response "you've got to be kidding". If you look at Marx's personal life, you'll understand that his goal was universal malice.
Quite to the contrary, the Federalist Papers continue to be the primary reference for clarifying the Constitution.
The textbooks are out there, there are hundreds of authors clamoring to get their books accepted. Textbooks aren't the major expense in education, and they're reused until they are physically unusable. Generally, the government committees making the choice aren't actually authors.
The reason this is such a big news story is that the liars that have been making the books for decades now have their tits in a wringer, and their friends are the press.
Texas is meerly switching to a different variety of liars.
The shame is that in this country, the political philosophy with rational economics and a slightly more pro-freedom standpoint is also the philosophy entwined with religion, which is being defeated by science at every turn. We have two distinct choices, the bad and the much worse.
If it weren't for the Republicans' potential to cause trouble, the original bill would have been much more extensive and draconian. The Democrats started with what they thought they could get away with. No changes in the party of slavery.
This desperate emergency demands that we send Al Gore there immediately to fix the problem.
Although there are printers (or at least there were at one time) that had special dyes to better fill out the curves in the chromacity diagram, the common 6 color photoprinters are generally yellow, cyan, magenta, weak magenta, weak cyan, black. The weak (diluted) dyes are used to make (for a hypothetical example) 50% magenta with two dots of weak (50%) magenta instead of one dot of magenta and one empty (white) dot. The purpose is to reduce annoying visible dot patterns rather than improving spectral purity.
If that isn't the definition of a best guess, I don't know what is.
I can't give you the whole answer for why LCDs are more efficient than CRTs, but here's part of it. First, CRTs must have the filament going full blast all the time (that's a few watts) and that power does not contribute to the picture. Second, CRTs require high voltage (>20,000 volts) to operate the phosphors at high output and reasonable efficiency, and the conversion to such a high voltage is likely to be less efficient than the lower voltage that LCD backlights work at. Third, CRTs have deflection circuits running continuously, and even though some power is recovered through resonance, it still takes a lot of power to generate that oscillating magnetic field. Fourth, the CRT backlight can be optimized for maximum white power through any choice of phosphors or LEDs that when summed are perceived as white, whereas for CRTs there must be a compromise for each phosphor for color purity, efficiency, and durability (with the result that there aren't as many good candidates to choose from). Fifth, as much as half of the light made by a CRT's phosphors is radiated backwards, into the tube. (Reflective coatings can help this somewhat.)
Still, it does seem surprising that an LCD can be more efficient, given that it has to throw away at least 2/3 of the light that goes through it. (Each color pixel filters out the other two colors, so only 1 of 3 gets through.) I'm guessing that the weak link is CRT phosphor efficiency.
Let's see... lower standards so that almost all existing applications are passed without adequate examination. This will cause what to happen? A flood of new applications for marginal and bogus ideas, most of which will be granted to clear the newly expanded backlog, which will encourage more applications, and so on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, inovation and existing products are sued out of existence by new patentholders.
The short term winners: lawyers and trolls. The short term losers: everyone else. Long term, everyone loses.
The proper approach is to make patent standards more difficult, and to reject certain patent application categories (software, business methods, for example) entirely. To protect the U.S. from foreign companies that have patents for categories the U.S. rejects, such patents should not be recognized.
You should patent your idea under the title A scheme to provide lifetime employment to lawyers and luddites through barratry.
Patents already cost a good deal more than a filing fee of $300, which your post implies is close to the current cost. Lawyer's charges and other expenses get the price over $2000, and that was 20 years ago. No business seriously involved in inovation is going to consider a few thousand dollars an impediment to filing a patent; it takes many expensive hours to draw up the documents and go through the steps involved in filing, defending against an initial rejection, etc..