1. Ditch the polarized sunglasses. 2. Wear a long-bill cap. 3. Get the $5 reading glasses at the drugstore. 4. Turn so the screen is shaded.

"Neglect of duty does not cease, by repetition, to be neglect of duty." Napoleon

I had (still have) a circular slide rule that gave me 5-6 digit accuracy. But for most engineering work 3-digit accuracy may be enough. (Do you really want to trust your life to something that doesn't have more than 1% design margin?)

Patents, trademarks and copyrights all fall into the category of "intellectual property" (IP). The USPTO handles both patents and trademarks.

Parts destined for aerospace are subject to rigorous testing and the first dozen or more prototype parts usually are sacrificed for testing. Exact dimensions, strength, creep and fatigue resistance must all be determined and the statistical lower bounds must be established before any part can be certified as airworthy. For wrought alloys this stuff is old hat. Things like welding are more of a problem and fabricated parts have fallen out of favor due to the rigorous QA needed. Look also at the use of as-HIP powder parts for turbine disks, etc. (They aren't.) Additive manufactured parts will have to be tested and qualified. I think those issues have been underestimated so far.

1995 isn't their priority date. 1995 is a "continuation in part" of a continuation of a patent application from 1991. Changes in the law back then complicate the situation and it probably will take an office of patent lawyers to decide if (when) the patent expired.

So much better than TECO.

It seems unlikely that interest will grow faster than the cost of dismantling increases. But, letting the shortest half-life stuff decay will make the task a little less challenging.

Today's threat level is PUMPKIN.

The situation is worse than described. I have had a patent application pending for nearly two years without even a first action. I now must decide whether to allow the PTO to publish the application or else I will have to withdraw the application. Obviously, this decision would be far easier to make if I had even a hint of what the patent examiner has found. Not that the first action is particularly informative; the dance usually goes like this: 1. File application. (Countdown to patent expiration begins.) 2. 16 month wait. 3. First action: rejection based on an automated survey of the Japanese patent office files indicating that about ten filings have been made in Japan on technology that is filed under the same category. 4. Notice of action is received several weeks later with warning that response must be received within 60 days of initial rejection. 5. Procure and get translations of cited interferences; pay large fee to get 30-day extension on response time. 6. File response showing that cited interferences are irrelevent and suggest that examiner actually read application. 7. About 90 days later, get "final rejection of all claims" notice, with new interferences cited. 8. Application gets published - competitors are now given a roadmap to still unprotected invention. 9. Detailed response letter is sent showing why cited prior art is not applicable. Revised patent specification is submitted if needed. 10. Divisional application is filed to cover claims still not accepted by PTO. 11. Patent office finally agrees to approve patent application about 3 years after initial application. 12. Patent fees paid and patent is issued. 13. Wrangling over claims in divisional application continues for 12 to 18 months. 14. Patent office agrees to approve second (divisional) patent and additional fees are paid. 15. Substantial patent maintenence fees are paid several times to keep patent in force. These fees increase each time. 16. Both patents expire 20 years after first application is made. I've done this 6 times and it has only become worse in the past 15 years.

I suspect they mean 17,000 atoms per liter. Since a liter of water has about 3.33*10^23 molecules or 6.66*10^23 hydrogen atoms, That would make the tritium concentration 1 per 3.91*10^19 hydrogen atoms. I wouldn't count on getting rich by collecting the tritium.

The real advantage of electron microscopy is depth of field. At 1000x magnification or higher, only a very thin layer is in focus. The much shorter wavelength of electrons produces a much greater depth of field, allowing realistic looking 3-dimensional images to be captured. This makes it very useful for failure analysis, where rough surfaces are typical. This product may reduce the capital cost for failure analysis consulting. But you'll still need a decade or more of training and experience.

Last week's "critical updates" were two copies of Windows Genuine Annoyance.

Since there is no room for any friends here in my basement, you will never find my profile or my picture on facebook!