Comment Re:Volt is a game changer. (Score 1) 443
...with the same gas mileage as my 20 year old toyota.
...with the same gas mileage as my 20 year old toyota.
Geiger counters tell you if there's radiation at the counters sensor. This lets you measure/see where the radiation is coming from.
Series hybrid are much more efficient than parallel hybrid since you can have a relatively small motor that continuously runs at peak efficiency: http://serieshybrid.com/FreedomFormula/images/Drivetrain_Comparison.pdf
Well, anything that can reasonably power a > 3000lb car up a freeway hill will be much more than 200lbs. Why not put a weed eater engine in, then your numbers will look way more impressive.
I just wish I had $175,000...which is probably what he wished.
You misunderstand. I don't claim that it's not possible, since the incident report link to in TFA say that it is plenty capable of boiling skin off. I'm saying, I don't believe the numbers the journalist claim were the at-his-flesh numbers.
Hrmm, doing the math, I'm not sure I can believe it. I'm still guessing that's the power at the transmitter and he was being a normal reporter, claiming the biggest numbers.
Here's some datar: http://www.physto.se/~ljvi4037/ProjectReferences/MillimeterWave%20Dosimetry%20of%20Human%20Skin.pdf
Assuming 1/32 penetration depth (95Ghz is more like 1/64), only 50% absorbtion (95GHz on forearm is around 70%), and he was made 100% out of water (best case scenario for maximum specific heat, and he might be a little sweaty) that's something like a 76 degree rise in temperature per second...I call reporter reporting big numbers type of bullshit.
It'll dissipate? If only I mentioned that in the last two sentences.
No, it's not 12 joules per second per cm^2 over the whole path. And no, you wont ever get hit by the thing being close enough to make that true. Damn inverse square laws, right?
I think you should review the maths for a corner reflectors. In angle = out angle for, basically, the whole 90 degree opening, with a slight radial offset perpendicular with the beams direction. The most work would be figuring out which maybe 70 usable degrees segment to point the thing. With the size of it, and the fact that it requires line of site, do you really see this as a daunting task? Hey, tape two together! Now you have nearly 180 degrees! And, this isn't a laser beam...it spreads...you don't have to aim it precisely, and that would be the biggest problem! If it only works to 700m, you would have to be no more than 700m/2 for them to feel anything, and they'll always feel much less than half the pain of anyone around you.
Grounding is unnecessary for reflecting something a few wavelengths larger than the frequency of interest. At 3mm, you'd be completely safe, and fairly dangerous, behind a sheet of tinfoil.
Grounding is 100% unnecessary for a Faraday cage. RF doesn't know or care what ground is...all it can see is changes in impedance.
No, the stress is not an issue. It's the operating temperature of the device that's the issue. It was calibrated at its operating temperature and so can't give NIST traceable results without running at its operating temperature. If what you're claiming is true, you literally wouldn't be able to make measurements for the first two hours. You can make measurements just fine, they just wont be as accurate. If you disagree, try it.
Because someone is paying attention to the supply and demand curves. There's an extremely huge audience compared to even 15 years ago. Not charging more doesn't remotely mean that profits are hurting.
Libraries man. Make a single cloth simulator, use it for all cloth. Make a single skin texture builder, use it for all skin. Make a single face constructor, use it for all faces. Trees, rocks, pavement, buildings...everything. If you've ever played with a proper 3d rendering platform where you don't have to draw everything by hand, it becomes impressive what you can make with a small algo and a random number generator to feed to it.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein