Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Inverter: Dangerous

  1. #31

    Default plasma

    I was working with an engineer this past weekend and we got some basic plasma generated. It was a simple apparatus to build with a nixie tube, metal wire, solder, and the high voltage inverter. It was quite safe because the plasma was generated in a container that had low pressure gas. The next trick will be to try something similar within a containment ring.

    While it may take many years to actually make something useful, it does look as though the nixie tube will work as a quasi crystal chamber. So it may be useful for that application as well. The nixie tube was cheap and could be found on e-bay. The inverter was also relatively cheap. You would probably need a good 12 volts to drive it though. 9 volts may work but may not generate as intense a glow.

    Further information can be found here:
    http://www.daqq.eu/index.php?show=prj_plasma_nixie

    ***Edit****
    The next step after forming a ring will be to directionally excite the plasma to move in a given direction. In theory, it would look something like this:

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by swear000; 12-31-2008 at 02:57 PM. Reason: next step

  2. #32

    Default why so slow

    sorry for the double post but I am looking at many different things right now. I came across this:

    http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physi...nstruction.htm

    basically, it is for IEC which is a new type of power. I am studying a lot of theory now (including rare gas-solids). I ordered some platinum wire and will experiment with creating some deuterium. I also have a hobby ignition coil
    http://www.modelflight.com/larrydavidson.html
    and vacuum pump
    http://www.micropumps.co.uk/
    on the way.

    These look small enough to fit in a hilt but I will continue to search for better parts that are more appropriate for desired results. Lots of experimentation at this point to generate some baseline data. Will keep you posted of any significant findings.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swear000 View Post
    The "right to bear arms" as laid out in the constitution was for forming a militia in wartime.
    The right to bear arms was so that the populace *could*, if the need arose again, form militias to fight a tyrannical government. That's exactly what had just happened.

    The whole argument that 'it's just for armies' ignores the whole point that a militia was formed of every able bodied and willing individual who could get his hands on a gun. That's 'Joe Average', not the guy who was in his state's organized military.

    According to a strict reading of the US Constitution, I (personally) have the right to own a tank, or a bomber, complete with munitions. Heck, even a nuke. (Of course, that doesn't make it particularly practical to own any of them.)
    The lightsaber: An elegant weapon from a more civilized age...
    ... or the galaxy's best utility knife?

  4. #34

    Default

    I absolutely agree 100% that RKBA exists "so that the populace *could*, if the need arose again, form militias to fight a tyrannical government. That's exactly what had just happened."

    One doesn't even have to be a strict constructionist to see that, rather the COPIOUS amount of commentary by the Founders on their views regarding gun ownership makes it impossible to reasonably argue that they intended any other purpose for it, imo...

    ...however... [there's always a caveat]

    ...a strict constructionist could argue that the construction of the second amendment indicates that the Second Amendment was written in a specific way that recognizes a SINGULAR right based structurally on the BEARING of arms.

    Note that the Second Amendment does not explicity recognize INDEPENDENT 'rightS [plural] to keep OR bear arms' but rather "the right [singular] to keep AND bear arms".

    ["keeping" being only the necessary corollary of "bearing" arms since logically one cannot bear what one cannot keep; possess, and therefore "keeping" not an independent right SEPARATE from the bearing of arms].

    According to a STRICT reading of the US Constitution that would NOT include a "tank, or a bomber, complete with munitions." since those are not MAN-PORTABLE weapons that one can personally BEAR.

    Now "a nuke" is a more interesting question...since while MOST nukes are not man-portable and thus can be rationally excluded from RKBA under a Strict Constructionist reading, there DO exist 'suitcase nukes' [mainly old Soviet manufacture] which under that same reading, bein man-portable and thus able to "bear" WOULD be a Right under RKBA

    An interesting question would arise if even more powerful man-portable weapons are constructed in the future.

    Would the Second Amendment cover a 'nuclear rifle' as seen at the very end of Starship Troopers [and mentioned in several Heinlein stories as an "isotope charge rifle"] that while man-portable can blow apart a mountain?

    Imo it would.

    Would the Second Amendment cover rifles firing NUCLEAR BULLETS - very small clean-fusion [laser or cold-fusion initiated] micronukes with low yields but EXTREME armour penetration by their temperature that would be undefendable perfect ASSASSIN weapons?

    Imo it would.

    And clean fusion presents the nexus for a real problem in public safety because it could allow man-portable weapons with quite HIGH yields as well as nuclear bullets [once you get past the limitations of hot fission triggers nuclear devices can get either very very small or wayyyyy more destructive]...would the Second Amendment cover those?

    Imo it would.

    Would the Second Amendment cover a man-portable launcher of Star Trek style 'photon torpedos' [antimatter warheads] that could - in principle - be much more powerful than 'puny' conventional 'suitcase' nukes or even higher powered clean fusion nukes?

    Imo it would.

    Perhaps the ultimate question for RKBA - if a man portable launcher could be made for a hypothetical ZERO POINT BOMB [vacuum energy extraction explosive] would a strict constructionist reading of the Second Amendment recognize a right to keep and bear such a genuinely DOOMSDAY weapon [man-portable planet-cracker]?

    Imo it would.

    Fortunately we mere humans have no idea how to build a Z-Bomb...yet...AFAIK...all we have is Feynmann's 1969 calculation that the vaccuum energy in a light bulb could vaporize the Earth's oceans [a student later proved that Feynmanns calculations were flawed and it could actually blow apart the center of a galaxy].

    Then again in 1909 no one had any idea HOW to build a fission bomb either; only that Einstein showed it to be possible in theory.

    Z-Bombs may be the answer to Enrico Fermi's infamous "Where Are They?" - because if intelligent life inevitably evolves to create Civilizations, and Civilizations inevitably evolve military technology for their defence, and military technological R&D inevitably evolves study of Physics to discover A and H bombs, clean nukes, antimatter and ultimately Z-bombs...

    ...well its not likely any Civilization anywhere could or would survive the latter...the first Z-Bomb used would very likely be the last and the END.

    And a strict constructionist reading of the Second Amendment just might recognize you have a Right to keep and bear one - if it can be made man-portable.

    If Z-bombs ever come, and you have a Constitutional Right to one, we better Hope and PRAY that every single last one of hundreds of millions of Americans is both absolutely perfectly RATIONAL and 100% LIGHT SIDE their entire life...

    ...what are the odds of that eh?

  5. #35

    Default ok

    I think I see your point. We can't expect everyone to be rational 100% of their lives. Don't know if you have ever had a chemistry class but even lawn fertilizer can be dangerous. Come to think of it, a lot of things in homes can be dangerous. Carbon monoxide from a car, gas from a stove, etc. I guess it just boils down to usage. I guess I was just kind of interested in seeing what all could be done with 7.4 volts and some science. It seems that as one ventures toward the atomic level, things become more interesting....

  6. #36
    Jedi Council Member cardcollector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    I am A proud American.
    Posts
    2,567
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    in my opinion...
    I'll Keep my guns!!
    Got a Question? There's a thread for that...
    ~Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.~Teddy Roosevelt

    SollusVir everywhere else... FXsabers, Youtube, etc...

  7. #37

    Default alright

    alright...I guess this is being misinterpreted as a weapons debate rather than a scientific endeavor. So, I will just let the discussion go unless someone has any meaningful scientific information to contribute.

  8. #38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •