 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> light the LED(s). No, the, as one guy put it, "unicorn they are looking
> for", is a way to make the actual tube itself "extend", without having to
> have it a fixed length. There is no practical solution at this point for
> doing that.
Your are perfectly right. I wanted to suggest some way that might allow to
>see< through a clear glass cylinder (without noticing LEDs), enhancing the
illusion of extension. Frankly, to put my idea into work, you would have to
do quite a bit of experimenting. Fiddling with pressures, dyes, voltages.
Way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
Something that might actually work and look cool (though not at all like a
lightsabre) would be putting a chain of miniature plasma globe emitters into
a clear glass cylinder.
http://www.teslaboys.com/Plasma/MorePlasmaGlobes/index.html
I mean: take a plasma globe, shrink it's diameter to 3 cm, take 50 emitters
and put them into a 1.5 m long glass cylinder. Fill it with Krypton, power
up and enjoy.
If you could get it to work, it would look very cool, I guess.
Still - way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just came across a link to a crackle tube - a much more efficient
implemetation of the idea I proposed. Maybe it is of interest.
http://www.strattman.com/products/crackle/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I have thought, however, that it could be explained by having the
> Unobtainium capacitors, that power a LASER/plasma/whatever weapon,
> discharge with a sonic component. I mean, if the charging circuit for a
> set of flash bulbs has a nice whine to it, maybe the futuristic ones
> will just have a different charge rate/volt/pattern.
Speaking of Unobtanium, the other day I came across this article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_115 ...'ununpentium'. Using the
naming scheme that they are for elements that haven't been assigned a
'proper' name yet will clearly lead to one thing and one thing only:
eventually, we will create unobtanium.
I think they did that on purpose.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/AboutSoundsInSpace.html
So I'm a hypocrite and a smartass? Some people might get annoyed if you use
language like this ;-)
No, I do not feel like a hypocrite at all. Most movies and most fiction (SF
and otherwise) is just a dream and does not have much to do with reality. I
try to forget about reality when watching a movie or when reading a book. I
try to enjoy it.
Any half-realistic movie about the dark ages would be an abomination, too.
Something I would not like to watch. There is a reason for the dark ages
being called dark: a cruel, ignorant and dirty time. I enjoy movies like
"Ivanhoe" and stories about valiant knights as long as I manage to forget
reality. Nonetheless: chivalry is a dream, too, best enjoyed when emulating
the viewpoint Ludwig II of Bavaria.
I never watch a "making of" because I simply do not wish the illusion to be
destroyed. And I never, ever, watch any documentation on a nice TV-series if
I can help it. There is nothing worse than an actor talking about his or her
role: after hearing Gilian Anderson talking about her role in x-files I
could not bring myself to watch another episode. forever spoiled. Hearing
Amanda Tapping talking about her role in stargate was almost as bad.
One of the problems you encounter when getting older is that it becomes
harder and harder to ignore reality. When I was twenty I never thought about
things like sound in vacuum. I was simply entranced by the plot. If
questioned, I would have realized it to be impossible, of course. But when I
was still young I simply did not think about this. After I actually
>realized< the impossibility, it became very hard to ignore. The older you
get, the more illusions are destroyed (because you had time to think about
them) and every passing year adds to this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> unlike a true lightsaber you would have a solid core,
>
> I wasn't aware we knew enough about how lightsabers work to know there
> isn't a solid core (or at least a wire) under the plasma.
>
Kidding me? Talking about Star Wars ones here, which, for the most part,
is basically the same as most of the "versions" I have seen. They all
pretty much agree that there is no "solid core" in them. What ever the
energy is, it extend out to a set length, and then just stops, without
anything "inside" it. Even in terms of what might be feasible, its
probably more feasible to make something that looked, and worked, more
like a hacksaw, where the blade is suspended between end of a loop, than
a sword. Its just the limitations of how the things have to work.
Anything hot enough to cut through stuff like a lightsaber would, at
this point, within the reasonable limits of such a technology, render
its "core" to slag so fast you would never get a blade from it. Only by
isolating the emitter and collectors, so they are the only thing close
to the heat, and making those of something that can, at least for a
while, resist it... A wire doesn't even come bloody close to what would
be needed, since, in the case of plasma, we are talking about
superheating some sort of particulate, which means some way to "channel"
it to the emission point, then reclaim it the at the other end. Either
way, you have to have a "hot spot", on one end, and a "cool spot", on
the other. The cool spot either has to be on the hilt end, in which case
you can't cut with that (which, now that I think of it, may be
reasonable), or the tip, which means you can't slice open doors with it,
using the tip. Either way, we are talking about a) a fairly large
emitter source, and b) some way to extend it from 0 length, to 3 feet.
Its way more practical to make a saw than a sword, for *multiple*
reasons, using that sort of plasma.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
>> light the LED(s). No, the, as one guy put it, "unicorn they are looking
>> for", is a way to make the actual tube itself "extend", without having to
>> have it a fixed length. There is no practical solution at this point for
>> doing that.
>
> Your are perfectly right. I wanted to suggest some way that might allow to
> >see< through a clear glass cylinder (without noticing LEDs), enhancing the
> illusion of extension. Frankly, to put my idea into work, you would have to
> do quite a bit of experimenting. Fiddling with pressures, dyes, voltages.
> Way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
>
> Something that might actually work and look cool (though not at all like a
> lightsabre) would be putting a chain of miniature plasma globe emitters into
> a clear glass cylinder.
>
> http://www.teslaboys.com/Plasma/MorePlasmaGlobes/index.html
>
> I mean: take a plasma globe, shrink it's diameter to 3 cm, take 50 emitters
> and put them into a 1.5 m long glass cylinder. Fill it with Krypton, power
> up and enjoy.
>
> If you could get it to work, it would look very cool, I guess.
>
> Still - way too much work and expense for a party ;-)
>
Well, the existing system apparently works pretty well. I mean, you end
up with a silly plastic tube, which you can see, on the thing, but, at
the same time, the result looks *exactly* like the movies, even when
using only *one* LED, from the "activation" extension, to the shimmer
while operating, to the shrinking, as it shuts down. If you could just
get rid of the damn tube.. lol
But, gas based solutions have numerous issues (early models used them,
until the super bright LEDs came out), not the least being that you can
duel, with a fair amount of aggression, with these new ones, but the old
gas+tube based ones where way to fragile for that (and took a lot less
power). These will run a single LED for most of a day, I guess, multiple
ones, for people using that version, for several hours, and can be
charged pretty fast. The prior ones... not so much.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> unlike a true lightsaber you would have a solid core,
>>
>> I wasn't aware we knew enough about how lightsabers work to know there
>> isn't a solid core (or at least a wire) under the plasma.
>>
> Kidding me?
No.
You could very easily[1] build something like a lightsabre with a loop of
wire at the tip attached to a wire that runs down the middle, with magnetic
fields keeping the wire stable. It wouldn't be "solid" core, but just a wire
held in place by very strong magnetic fields.
The wire could easily be thin enough to break if it actually touched something.
Heck, you've got FTL travel. Why not make a wire out of exotic material with
negative energy, and build a plasma field around that?
> Its way more practical to make a saw than a sword, for *multiple*
> reasons, using that sort of plasma.
I wasn't aware we knew what kind of plasma was used in a lightsaber. I'm
just highly amused that you're sure enough of how a lightsaber works that
you're telling me I'm wrong about there being anything supporting the blade.
[1] At least as easily as any other of the star wars tech.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> unlike a true lightsaber you would have a solid core,
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware we knew enough about how lightsabers work to know
>>> there isn't a solid core (or at least a wire) under the plasma.
>>>
>> Kidding me?
>
> No.
>
> You could very easily[1] build something like a lightsabre with a loop
> of wire at the tip attached to a wire that runs down the middle, with
> magnetic fields keeping the wire stable. It wouldn't be "solid" core,
> but just a wire held in place by very strong magnetic fields.
>
> The wire could easily be thin enough to break if it actually touched
> something.
>
> Heck, you've got FTL travel. Why not make a wire out of exotic material
> with negative energy, and build a plasma field around that?
>
>> Its way more practical to make a saw than a sword, for *multiple*
>> reasons, using that sort of plasma.
>
> I wasn't aware we knew what kind of plasma was used in a lightsaber.
> I'm just highly amused that you're sure enough of how a lightsaber works
> that you're telling me I'm wrong about there being anything supporting
> the blade.
>
> [1] At least as easily as any other of the star wars tech.
>
Sigh.. I am talking "practical means to replicate". If you want to get
silly about it (and I am pretty sure no wire is involved, and its
explained as such some place anyway), then why not ask what sort of
"crystals" we need to use in them, or batteries?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sigh.. I am talking "practical means to replicate".
I agree there is no practical means to replicate it. :-) That's my point.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Speaking of Unobtanium, the other day I came across this article,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_115 ...'ununpentium'. Using the
> naming scheme that they are for elements that haven't been assigned a
> 'proper' name yet will clearly lead to one thing and one thing only:
> eventually, we will create unobtanium.
What element number would that be?
115 is ununpentium because 'un' = 1 and 'pent' = 5.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_element_name
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
