 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, this is just fracking nuts, and no, I am not just talking about how
much the damn things would cost you. I just wanted to see if I could
find something *vaguely* less lame than the cheap plastic ones you get
at halloween, planning for the next one. What I find is stuff like this:
Build your own hilt to put stuff in:
http://www.thecustomsabershop.com/Modular-Hilt-System-C3.aspx
Add parts, either the single LED version:
http://www.plecterlabs.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23
Or a multiple LED version (This one would cost almost $500 before done,
due to all the LEDs, which being high output are almost $3-$5 a piece):
http://www.hyperdynelabs.com/hyperblade/purchase.php
This is a view of what the later ones look like, when lit:
http://www.hyperdynelabs.com/hyperblade/photo.php?picID=hyperblade_allcolor1.jpg
o.O
Seriously though, I would just like to see one where the blade can
extend, without the horrible design of the plastic ones. So far, I
can't. lol
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Seriously though, I would just like to see one where the blade can extend,
> without the horrible design of the plastic ones. So far, I can't. lol
The problem with light sabres is: they are complete nonsense. Even more so
than laser guns and most other SF stuff. don't crucify me, I am disappointed
by this sad fact, too.
Let's think about those marvellous SF battles, colourful laser beams
glittering in deep space while marvellous sound effects sound aloud. Never
mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
invisible. But I digress, so back to the post.
I would simulate an extensible light sabre by building on the principle of a
neon light. Get yourself a hilt, a clear glass cylinder with an emitter
cathode on the one end and an anode on the other. Fill with neon gas. By
applying the principle of ionisation by collision and slowly increasing the
voltage you should be able to achieve a look similar to a light sabre. You
can get the electronic parts on the web. Maybe you can find an optical
transparent dye that emits a colourful visible light when hit by
UV-radiation. I don't know if such a dye exists or if it would be
affordable - the usual dye used is not transparent.
However, you might run into problems finding an adequate power supply - or
you would be chained to the nearest socket by a long power cord.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> Never
> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
> invisible.
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, at the energy
levels usually used in terrestrial conditions, might be invisible. But
energy weapons in scifi movies do not necessarily use either LASER nor
the energy levels we are accustomed to. (The word "laser" has become more
or less synonym of "light/energy ray", especially in scifi settings, but
that doesn't mean that it's literally a LASER.)
The energy beams used by space ship weapons in scifi movies may be though
of using some form of energy still unknown to us, and the levels of energy
involved are ostensibly staggering (after all, these energy beams have to
penetrate energy shields and reinforced space ship hulls, so a regular
earthly LASER won't cut). It's *plausible* that this form of energy beam,
at the energy levels involved, might be visible, either all by itself or
by "burning" whatever matter is in space (after all, space is seldom 100%
total vacuum, and instead there are always trace amounts of hydrogen
molecules from stellar wind, etc).
As for sounds in space, if you require space scenes to be mute, you are
actually requiring for the movie to break the fourth wall. See more here:
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/AboutSoundsInSpace.html
(Not that breaking the fourth wall would be *wrong* per se. However, it's
equally non-wrong to not to break the fourth wall as well.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TC wrote:
>> Seriously though, I would just like to see one where the blade can extend,
>> without the horrible design of the plastic ones. So far, I can't. lol
>
> The problem with light sabres is: they are complete nonsense. Even more so
> than laser guns and most other SF stuff. don't crucify me, I am disappointed
> by this sad fact, too.
>
> Let's think about those marvellous SF battles, colourful laser beams
> glittering in deep space while marvellous sound effects sound aloud. Never
> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
> invisible. But I digress, so back to the post.
>
> I would simulate an extensible light sabre by building on the principle of a
> neon light. Get yourself a hilt, a clear glass cylinder with an emitter
> cathode on the one end and an anode on the other. Fill with neon gas. By
> applying the principle of ionisation by collision and slowly increasing the
> voltage you should be able to achieve a look similar to a light sabre. You
> can get the electronic parts on the web. Maybe you can find an optical
> transparent dye that emits a colourful visible light when hit by
> UV-radiation. I don't know if such a dye exists or if it would be
> affordable - the usual dye used is not transparent.
>
> However, you might run into problems finding an adequate power supply - or
> you would be chained to the nearest socket by a long power cord.
>
Uh.. Sorry. They already solved *that* with LEDs. There are two methods
the Hyperdyne ones uses a string of them, running up the tube. The
others use a inner core, or some sort, with makes the saber look like it
has a "bright" core, and a more defuse outside, as a side effect, and
increase the brightness of the LED linearly, to produce the effect. Both
produce "shimmer", by adding small variances into the voltage used to
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.
--
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:
> Ok, this is just fracking nuts, and no, I am not just talking about how
> much the damn things would cost you. I just wanted to see if I could
> find something *vaguely* less lame than the cheap plastic ones you get
> at halloween, planning for the next one. What I find is stuff like this:
What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original* effects
in the film...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>> Never
>> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
>> invisible.
>
> Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, at the energy
> levels usually used in terrestrial conditions, might be invisible. But
> energy weapons in scifi movies do not necessarily use either LASER nor
> the energy levels we are accustomed to. (The word "laser" has become more
> or less synonym of "light/energy ray", especially in scifi settings, but
> that doesn't mean that it's literally a LASER.)
>
> The energy beams used by space ship weapons in scifi movies may be though
> of using some form of energy still unknown to us, and the levels of energy
> involved are ostensibly staggering (after all, these energy beams have to
> penetrate energy shields and reinforced space ship hulls, so a regular
> earthly LASER won't cut). It's *plausible* that this form of energy beam,
> at the energy levels involved, might be visible, either all by itself or
> by "burning" whatever matter is in space (after all, space is seldom 100%
> total vacuum, and instead there are always trace amounts of hydrogen
> molecules from stellar wind, etc).
>
> As for sounds in space, if you require space scenes to be mute, you are
> actually requiring for the movie to break the fourth wall. See more here:
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/AboutSoundsInSpace.html
>
> (Not that breaking the fourth wall would be *wrong* per se. However, it's
> equally non-wrong to not to break the fourth wall as well.)
>
Don't know. This may be less the case now than it was in the past.
Battlestar did *everything* in space, unless you where in a cockpit, or
inside the ship, "silent", and it worked.
As for the Sci-fi effects issues.. Blasters and sabers both require
something we can't manage "containment". Both are likely to be plasma,
not laser. We can produce cold plasmas, and hot, and to *some extent*
control the cold ones, but it takes a lot of energy to produce them, and
"containment" is limited to more or less flat planes, between emitter
and collector, and such. In other words, we are more likely to see
something like Star Trek corridor shield, before we ever see a blaster,
never mind a saber. Sabers.. Are probably more likely than a blaster,
simply because it may be, in principle, possible to create a plasma
"blade" which is hot enough to cut something, but cool enough/isolated
enough, from the emitter, to prevent it melting a central "core" into
slag. In effect, you would generate the plasma at the tip of a baton, or
maybe the bottom, depending on how it had to work, then "collect" it on
the other end. This means that, unlike a true lightsaber you would have
a solid core, under the plasma. The most likely design such such a thing
would be more like a plasma chain saw, where the emitter and collector
where isolated by distance, from the "core" used to feed the energy and
particles to the emitter system. Its would be hottest nearest the emitter.
But, its all about containment, when making something more complex.
There is no known way to trap such a mass of plasma energy in a ball, or
limit how far it goes from an emitter, without a container, so that it
can be fired at a target. You would get something more like a flame
thrower, than a blaster, or blade, and it would diffuse in *all*
directions at once, with the only exception being what ever directional
movement may have been added at the emission point. Its that containment
issue that creates a hang up. Its one thing to contain particles in a
layer, between points you can control, then mess with the particle
density, its another thing entirely to force it out in a tight beam, or
a pulse, and expect it to maintain cohesion over more than a few feet.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original* effects
> in the film...
They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice that
almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie, they're
lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something else that lets
the perspective work out such that it looks like it's getting longer.
Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film on
each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
--
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:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original*
>> effects in the film...
>
> They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice
> that almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie,
> they're lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something
> else that lets the perspective work out such that it looks like it's
> getting longer.
>
> Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film
> on each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
So... the actors are just waving wooden sticks, and the effect was
actually painted onto the original film negatives by hand? o_O
I guess that explains why the blade shimmers slightly...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the hell they did the *original*
>> effects in the film...
>
> They used a wooden dowel wrapped with reflective tape. You'll notice
> that almost every time it "extends" in the original Episode IV movie,
> they're lifting it up, or turning it to the side, or doing something
> else that lets the perspective work out such that it looks like it's
> getting longer.
>
> Then, you sit down and have someone with an xacto knife scratch the film
> on each frame where the blade is and then paint over it.
>
The funniest thing being, now, if they had to remake the damn things,
they could just buy up a mess of them from these people, complete with
replicas of the original "film equipment parts", used to make the ones
in the first movie, and a whole mess of custom ones, you can even get
powder coated, colored, etc., how ever you want them... The only damn
thing you can't find, a reasonably priced set of tunics and robes. lol
--
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:
> 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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
>> Never
>> mind that in a vacuum there is no sound to be heard and laser beams are
>> invisible.
>
> Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, at the energy
> levels usually used in terrestrial conditions, might be invisible. But
> energy weapons in scifi movies do not necessarily use either LASER nor
> the energy levels we are accustomed to. (The word "laser" has become more
> or less synonym of "light/energy ray", especially in scifi settings, but
> that doesn't mean that it's literally a LASER.)
>
If it is a LASER, at a very high energy level, it would still be
invisible from the camera's perspective. There is very little to scatter
the beam, even if it was in the visible spectrum, so the only places
anyone in the movie would see the beam is at any point along the path it
travels, and possibly after it starts to vaporize the target.
As for sound, LASER beams do not go WOOOSH! or PEW! PEW! PEW!
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.
> The energy beams used by space ship weapons in scifi movies may be though
> of using some form of energy still unknown to us, and the levels of energy
> involved are ostensibly staggering (after all, these energy beams have to
> penetrate energy shields and reinforced space ship hulls, so a regular
> earthly LASER won't cut). It's *plausible* that this form of energy beam,
> at the energy levels involved, might be visible, either all by itself or
> by "burning" whatever matter is in space (after all, space is seldom 100%
> total vacuum, and instead there are always trace amounts of hydrogen
> molecules from stellar wind, etc).
Plasma, ion or blaster guns, antimatter particle streams. All good
choices that may, at some energy level or condition may emit photons.
Waste of good impact energy, but sometimes it can not be helped.
I suppose, thinking about it more, that a LASER might scatter in a space
'dog-fight' situation. The vehicles involved would be maneuvering and,
barring gravity modification or some other reaction-less system, would
be leaving behind a trail of some particles. A LASER would scatter in
that, and may possibly impart enough energy to cause those particles to
glow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> If it is a LASER,
That's exactly why Star Trek uses phasers. The original scripts had "laser"
and Roddenbury said to keep someone from showing up in a year or two saying
"lasers can't do that."
> Unobtainium capacitors,
I found it very amusing that in Avatar they actually refer to one of the
minerals as "unobtainium."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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 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:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
