TI new products...

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:15:14 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

3. Rejecting new ideas is endemic to humanity, for several reasons.
Fight that tendency if you want to design cool stuff.

Nonsense. One cannot appreciate a good idea without discerning the
faults of a bad idea. The word \'idea\' covers all the contents of a conscious
mind, no one rejects \'new ideas\' who IS connected to reality.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 4. maj 2022 kl. 20.10.05 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

On Tue, 3 May 2022 20:16:26 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

On 05/03/2022 08:16 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDTeoeWZeI

Where the hell is my flying car? My baseline is the 1964 World\'s Fair. I
was in high school so maybe I was young and naive but there was a
feeling in the air of optimism. There have been plenty of technological
advances but that optimism didn\'t even make it through the \'60s.
I was at the \'64 fair!

We got PCs, internet, drones, cell phones, LCD and Oled color TVs,
fiberoptics, nanometer ICs, medical advances, SUVs, social media, all
sorts of great-ish stuff.

What the great things have in common is that they were *not*
anticipated at the World\'s Fair. Futurism ain\'t what it used to be.

I\'m still optimistic. There is plenty of stuff left to invent.

https://medium.com/swlh/everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented-49c4376f548b

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 4 May 2022 11:16:52 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:15:14 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

3. Rejecting new ideas is endemic to humanity, for several reasons.
Fight that tendency if you want to design cool stuff.

Nonsense.

You reject my idea! Obviously for one of the \"several reasons.\"

Thanks for making my point.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[rbowman]

On 05/04/2022 12:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2022 20:16:26 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 05/03/2022 08:16 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDTeoeWZeI

Where the hell is my flying car? My baseline is the 1964 World\'s Fair. I
was in high school so maybe I was young and naive but there was a
feeling in the air of optimism. There have been plenty of technological
advances but that optimism didn\'t even make it through the \'60s.

I was at the \'64 fair!

We got PCs, internet, drones, cell phones, LCD and Oled color TVs,
fiberoptics, nanometer ICs, medical advances, SUVs, social media, all
sorts of great-ish stuff.

What the great things have in common is that they were *not*
anticipated at the World\'s Fair. Futurism ain\'t what it used to be.

I\'m still optimistic. There is plenty of stuff left to invent.

Oddly one thing I have always remembered was a hands on exhibit in Ma
Bell\'s pavilion. There were timers connected to a rotary dial and to the
new touch tone keypad so you could see how much faster the future was
going to be. Ma Bell is long gone but their keypad layout lives on.

Trivia: JFK kicked the fair countdown off by keying in \'1964\'. Not quite
\'text 1964 to...\'

I\'m optimistic in the technical sense, not so much in the societal
sense. That seems to be SSDD, to use Stephen King\'s acronym which has
nothing to do with solid state drives.

 

[server]

On Wed, 4 May 2022 21:25:21 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 05/04/2022 12:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2022 20:16:26 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 05/03/2022 08:16 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDTeoeWZeI

Where the hell is my flying car? My baseline is the 1964 World\'s Fair. I
was in high school so maybe I was young and naive but there was a
feeling in the air of optimism. There have been plenty of technological
advances but that optimism didn\'t even make it through the \'60s.

I was at the \'64 fair!

We got PCs, internet, drones, cell phones, LCD and Oled color TVs,
fiberoptics, nanometer ICs, medical advances, SUVs, social media, all
sorts of great-ish stuff.

What the great things have in common is that they were *not*
anticipated at the World\'s Fair. Futurism ain\'t what it used to be.

I\'m still optimistic. There is plenty of stuff left to invent.


Oddly one thing I have always remembered was a hands on exhibit in Ma
Bell\'s pavilion. There were timers connected to a rotary dial and to the
new touch tone keypad so you could see how much faster the future was
going to be. Ma Bell is long gone but their keypad layout lives on.

Trivia: JFK kicked the fair countdown off by keying in \'1964\'. Not quite
\'text 1964 to...\'

I\'m optimistic in the technical sense, not so much in the societal
sense. That seems to be SSDD, to use Stephen King\'s acronym which has
nothing to do with solid state drives.

I think there was a Bell demo of using light for communications,
specifically shooting light through a long pipe that used thermal
gradients to keep it confined. This sort of anticipated fiberoptics.

There was a cool monorail sort of ride.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:10:05 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2022 20:16:26 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

On 05/03/2022 08:16 AM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDTeoeWZeI

Where the hell is my flying car? My baseline is the 1964 World\'s Fair. I
was in high school so maybe I was young and naive but there was a
feeling in the air of optimism. There have been plenty of technological
advances but that optimism didn\'t even make it through the \'60s.
I was at the \'64 fair!

We got PCs, internet, drones, cell phones, LCD and Oled color TVs,
fiberoptics, nanometer ICs, medical advances, SUVs, social media, all
sorts of great-ish stuff.

What the great things have in common is that they were *not*
anticipated at the World\'s Fair. Futurism ain\'t what it used to be.

It never was. Read old science fiction to find out how bad it was back then..

> I\'m still optimistic. There is plenty of stuff left to invent.

If you are as under-informed as John Larkin is , you can be a lot more optimistic. The woods are full of people reinventing the wheel and concocting media releases about how it is going to revolutionise the world after they get around to inventing spokes and axles.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rbowman]

On 05/04/2022 10:41 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I think there was a Bell demo of using light for communications,
specifically shooting light through a long pipe that used thermal
gradients to keep it confined. This sort of anticipated fiberoptics.

The concept had been around for a long time.

https://www.olympus-global.com/technology/museum/endo/?page=technology_museum

Glass tubes were also used to illuminate tight spots. Developing the
technology to create bundles of very thin fibers was the trick.

A lot of ideas are like that. The concept of an airplane had to wait for
relatively lightweight IC engines to happen.

> There was a cool monorail sort of ride.

Now for cool monorails -- in the early 1900\'s some people were working
on a monorail with gyroscopic stabilization. The big problem was each
car would need a gyroscope.

The idea never took off in the US. Other countries have impressive
systems including maglev designed. Most US monorails are basically
tourist attractions like Seattle, the Disney parks, Jacksonville, and
Las Vegas. Detroit\'s is much more expensive per passenger mile than buses.

I don\'t think the people mover at the Detroit airport qualifies as a
monorail. It\'s never been operating when I was there unfortunately.
Invariably my connections are between the two furthest apart gates.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

rbowman wrote:

On 05/04/2022 10:41 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
I think there was a Bell demo of using light for communications,
specifically shooting light through a long pipe that used thermal
gradients to keep it confined. This sort of anticipated fiberoptics.


The concept had been around for a long time.

https://www.olympus-global.com/technology/museum/endo/?page=technology_museum


Glass tubes were also used to illuminate tight spots. Developing the
technology to create bundles of very thin fibers was the trick.

A lot of ideas are like that. The concept of an airplane had to wait for
relatively lightweight IC engines to happen.

There was a cool monorail sort of ride.

Now for cool monorails -- in the early 1900\'s some people were working
on a monorail with gyroscopic stabilization. The big problem was each
car would need a gyroscope.

The idea never took off in the US. Other countries have impressive
systems including maglev designed. Most US monorails are basically
tourist attractions like Seattle, the Disney parks, Jacksonville, and
Las Vegas. Detroit\'s is much more expensive per passenger mile than buses.

I don\'t think the people mover at the Detroit airport qualifies as a
monorail. It\'s never been operating when I was there unfortunately.
Invariably my connections are between the two furthest apart gates.

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.
They\'re fun toys, but just toys.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Tabby]

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 17:33:59 UTC+1, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Tabby <tabb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 21:52:04 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:

I want everything on one wireless network. Internet, phones, TV, wifi,
home automation, cars, utility meters, security, webcams, everything.

Privacy is over-rated.

Until your social credit score gets too low and they punt you from
everything at once.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
But they can\'t punt everyone. In the USA at least, people would still
pay someone for the service and for bandwidth (I guess) so nobody
would be in charge and someone loses revenue if they lose a customer.

Capitalism will find a way.

Dictatorship outranks capitalism.
Dictators, like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Putin, think they understand
everything and then want to control everything. They kill hundreds of
millions.

\"Capitalism\" really means pluralism, letting lots of sane and crazy
people try things to see what actually works.

Despite believing their own folly, dictators still outrank capitalism. Hence dictatorships are poorer.

 

[Tabby]

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 20:16:32 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:00:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:56:42 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

I want everything on one wireless network. Internet, phones, TV, wifi,
home automation, cars, utility meters, security, webcams, everything.

Privacy is over-rated.

That\'s a laugh; Internet range is out to near Earth orbit, and you want your
utility meters to compete for that against your TV remote control? One network
isn\'t the answer, any more than one TV channel is the answer.
What we have is a mess. Many cell companies have various spotty
coverage. Ditto cable TV and internet providers. Once people manage to
get an internet provider, they have to install their own cables and
wifi. Wires are strung on poles, sidewalks are dug up, dishes point
everywhere and rust or get blown away. People pay for multiple
services.

One uniform microcell mesh system would eliminate all that.

Imagine progress.

History consistently teaches us that one system means lack of competition or investment equals worse service.

 

[Tabby]

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 20:43:44 UTC+1, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 4/28/2022 22:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:00:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:56:42 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

I want everything on one wireless network. Internet, phones, TV, wifi,
home automation, cars, utility meters, security, webcams, everything.

Privacy is over-rated.

That\'s a laugh; Internet range is out to near Earth orbit, and you want your
utility meters to compete for that against your TV remote control? One network
isn\'t the answer, any more than one TV channel is the answer.

What we have is a mess. Many cell companies have various spotty
coverage. Ditto cable TV and internet providers. Once people manage to
get an internet provider, they have to install their own cables and
wifi. Wires are strung on poles, sidewalks are dug up, dishes point
everywhere and rust or get blown away. People pay for multiple
services.

One uniform microcell mesh system would eliminate all that.

Imagine progress.

It would be nice for things to evolve this way but - and it is a huge
BUT - the standards need to be public. They are anything but at the
moment - the layers above IP and perhaps PPP are completely secret.

Privacy is overrated, as you say

Privacy is what stops governments harrassing us with endless false accusations

- I\'d go a step further and say
privacy will disappear completely before we know, however it has to
disappear for *everyone*, *zero* exceptions.

It\'s already mostly gone.

 

[Tabby]

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 15:23:37 UTC+1, rbowman wrote:

On 05/04/2022 10:41 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
I think there was a Bell demo of using light for communications,
specifically shooting light through a long pipe that used thermal
gradients to keep it confined. This sort of anticipated fiberoptics.

The concept had been around for a long time.

https://www.olympus-global.com/technology/museum/endo/?page=technology_museum

Glass tubes were also used to illuminate tight spots. Developing the
technology to create bundles of very thin fibers was the trick.

A lot of ideas are like that. The concept of an airplane had to wait for
relatively lightweight IC engines to happen.
There was a cool monorail sort of ride.
Now for cool monorails -- in the early 1900\'s some people were working
on a monorail with gyroscopic stabilization. The big problem was each
car would need a gyroscope.

The idea never took off in the US. Other countries have impressive
systems including maglev designed. Most US monorails are basically
tourist attractions like Seattle, the Disney parks, Jacksonville, and
Las Vegas. Detroit\'s is much more expensive per passenger mile than buses.

I don\'t think the people mover at the Detroit airport qualifies as a
monorail. It\'s never been operating when I was there unfortunately.
Invariably my connections are between the two furthest apart gates.

Monorails have a lot of problems. The need for a gyroscope is not one of them.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

> I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.

Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine was small, too.

As a horizontal-elevator system, both tunnels/subways (The Boring Company) and
elevated rail seem suitable for transportation in cities. Automobiles and
ever-wider highways with long commutes are NOT likely to dominate the future.
In a city core already full of streets, an elevated rail, monorail or standard gage,
doesn\'t take a lot of demolition footprint to install.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 6:50:53 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 20:16:32 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:00:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:56:42 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

I want everything on one wireless network. Internet, phones, TV, wifi,
home automation, cars, utility meters, security, webcams, everything..

Privacy is over-rated.

That\'s a laugh; Internet range is out to near Earth orbit, and you want your
utility meters to compete for that against your TV remote control? One network
isn\'t the answer, any more than one TV channel is the answer.
What we have is a mess. Many cell companies have various spotty
coverage. Ditto cable TV and internet providers. Once people manage to
get an internet provider, they have to install their own cables and
wifi. Wires are strung on poles, sidewalks are dug up, dishes point
everywhere and rust or get blown away. People pay for multiple
services.

One uniform microcell mesh system would eliminate all that.

Imagine progress.

History consistently teaches us that one system means lack of competition or investment equals worse service.

Thatcher managed to come up with a counter-example. Her privatised British Rail skimped on maintenance (and killed a few people in consequence) and generally delivered a poorer service. Natural monopolies work better as publicly owned public services, as has been known since Victorian times. Thatcherites ignored the history and did a Putin-like job of giving previously publicly-owned assets to their friends for nowhere near enough money.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:25:16 AM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.
Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine was small, too.

As a horizontal-elevator system, both tunnels/subways (The Boring Company) and
elevated rail seem suitable for transportation in cities. Automobiles and
ever-wider highways with long commutes are NOT likely to dominate the future.
In a city core already full of streets, an elevated rail, monorail or standard gauge,
doesn\'t take a lot of demolition footprint to install.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Monorail

It ran from 1988 to 2013, only got about 40% of the customers it had been designed for and never broke even.

Putting back the original tram lines would have been cheaper and would have served more travellers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Hobbs]

whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.

Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine was small, too.

No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to be
huge and therefore expensive.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.

Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine was small, too.

No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to be
huge and therefore expensive.

Ouniculars f that line of reasoning, we\'d see f

 

[whit3rd]

rOn Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.

Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine was small, too.

No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to be
huge and therefore expensive.

Following that reasoning, we\'d expect funiculars for intraurban transit.

The rigid elevated systems use less airspace than a guyed tower (there\'s HUGE
lateral cable-tension loads in a funicular). A dovetail monorail is practical and less derail-able
than standard twin-track.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/22 12:26 pm, Phil Hobbs wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything real.

Why?   Because the ones you\'ve seen are small?   Hero\'s steam turbine
was small, too.

No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to be
huge and therefore expensive.

Only if the train rides on the track, instead of under it.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

whit3rd wrote:

rOn Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:17:45 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

I have no idea why anybody would use a monorail for anything
real.

Why? Because the ones you\'ve seen are small? Hero\'s steam turbine
was small, too.

No, because in order to get static stability your one track has to
be huge and therefore expensive.

Following that reasoning, we\'d expect funiculars for intraurban
transit.

Do tell. Cable suspension and all those towers are cheaper than train
tracks? And funiculars are as fast as trains?

The rigid elevated systems use less airspace than a guyed tower
(there\'s HUGE lateral cable-tension loads in a funicular). A
dovetail monorail is practical and less derail-able than standard
twin-track.

Most derailments are caused by maintenance failures, IIRC. With the
same standard of maintenance, your dovetail gizmos are less likely to
fail, and/or easier to repair?

Don\'t think so.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com