A mixed bag: everyman’s drone, political matters, and other interesting stuff

 

Mail 714 Thursday, February 23, 2012

This will have to be short shrift – most of the mail deserves more comment, but this is the best I can do as I fall behind…

clip_image002

"I do wonder about the proliferation of hypothetical constructs and intervening variables in physics."

You would almost think it was a hundred years ago …. 😉

Dan Steele

Port Ludlow, WA

FTL Neutrinos & All Things Dark In Physics

Jerry,

Don’t worry about the state of modern physics too much on the account of dark matter and dark energy. These things are at least replicably measurable entities. The moniker of "dark" is a frank admission of the physics community that they do not know what the stuff is, beyond the fact that dark matter must be matter of some kind, some where, as it has a gravitational influence and that dark energy must be energy of some sort because it causes the expansion of space-time to accelerate. There are many theories as to what each is, and they are indeed theories because they are each falsifiable through observation and experimental testing.

Where physics gets into a little trouble these days concerns theories of multiple universes, many of which are inferred from our current theories of the universe — general relativity theory and quantum field theory — but which are not falsifiable or experimentally testable. So, they cannot claim the mantel of "theory" but they are still discussed as such. The physics community needs to come clean and call them what they are, speculations. Speculations are important as they provide the seeds of future observation and experiment, but they should not be elevated to the status of evolution, relativity, or quantum field theory just because someone with a PhD dreamed them up.

Kevin L. Keegan

Ofer Lahav on dark energy

Subject: Ofer Lahav on dark energy

The head of the science programme at the Dark Energy Survey on the rapidly expanding universe and the future of dark-energy research

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/ofer-lahav-dark-energy?fsrc=nlw%7Cnewe%7C2-22-2012%7Cnew_on_the_economist

Tracy

Dark energy, like the aether, is inferred from indirect observations. Some of those observations are recent and there hasn’t been a lot of though given to alternate views. We’ll see. Meanwhile the space telescopes tell us more…

clip_image002[1]

re: UFO’s and Burkhard Heim

Dear Dr Pournelle,

I’m reading A Step Farther Out and just got through the chapter about UFO’s. Something struck me: you cite a remark by Robert wood that "these things are generally reported accompanied by a really overwhelming magnetic field".

A by-product of Burkhard Heim’s unified theory is that a strong enough (as in tens of thousands of Teslas) magnetic field cancels inertia. A common theme in UFO stories is their ability to move as if they had negligible inertia – seemingly unlimited acceleration , including "turning" at very sharp angles.

As you say, it’s all conjectures.

On a different tack, it’s often stated that special relativity is what prevents us from interstellar travel. Staying with Newton doesn’t really make things much better.

Assume only Newtonian physics apply and you want to travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri in a week.

Under constant acceleration/deceleration, you’ll have to generate and handle about 22,000 g’s.

Assuming you somehow manage to survive this, your speed at turning point will be about 220c, meaning your kinetic energy will be equivalent to about 24,000 times your mass.

Let’s be optimistic and assume you have near-perfect mass-energy conversion and know how to generate and control black holes so you can store all that mass in a small enough space.

You’d still have to accelerate all this at 22,000 g’s.

The math to compute how much reaction mass you’d need to achieve this is beyond my ability under a scenario in which you also convert mass to energy to accelerate your reaction mass, but I note that with a reactionless drive, you’d need about 5 PetaWatts to do it and get a 1,000t spaceship in orbit at Alpha Centauri. Using marine nuclear reactors, we’d need (using the only figure I could find, 54kg/kW, and that for the Savannah’s power plant) 270 billion tons of power plant to generate them.

So even if Einstein were wrong, to get the the closest star system in a week we’d still need to

1) learn how to survive 22,000 g’s

2) learn how to generate energy densities about 2 (based on rocket engines) -3 (based on nuclear plants) orders (the 1,000x kind of order) of magnitude higher than we’re currently able to.

It doesn’t sound really less far-fetched than the Alderson drive.

Best Regards,

Jean-Louis Beaufils,

Paris

Nobody ever said it would be easy.

I like the Alderson Drive – I wrote the specs for it, sort of, as the input for Dan Alderson to work with – but I fear that the only way to the stars is generation ships. Those are possible.

clip_image002[2]

Medical Revisions

An interesting article on how smartphones change healthcare outcomes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/personaltech/monitoring-your-health-with-mobile-devices.html?_r=4

I’m surprised it took the NY times long enough to figure this out. I’ve been using search engines to diagnose myself for over a decade; now I use WebMD. Before I go to the doctor, I do my research and my recommendations are often followed. Medicine is analysis, plain and simple. You use the same structured analytical techniques that you use in matters of statecraft. The only differences are vocabulary and the composition of the information — really.

Doctors must learn all sorts of vocabulary and rules, but the analytical framework is basically the same. What a concept? That’s what the modern education system tried to erase, but they failed with some of us. Doctors are expensive consultants who speak a different language and are authorized by law to do things I can’t, like write prescriptions. I only go to the doctor if I need antibiotics, etc. Else, you’re candy on a stick, lazy, or incompetent.

—–

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

Well, my professional career was in Operations Research, which is generalism par excellance. Gradually I learned less and less about more and more until…

clip_image003

Day of the Drone

I got a kick out of InvenSense’s disclaimer.

"InvenSense sensors should not be used or sold in the development, storing, production and utilization of any conventional or mass-destructive weapons or any other weapons or life-threatening applications as well as in any other life-critical applications including but not limited to medical equipment, transportation, aerospace and nuclear instruments, undersea equipment, power plant equipment, disaster prevention and crime prevention equipment."

While it is a precision accelerometer for -16G to +16G, it’s survivable at 10,000G shock tolerance. Doesn’t say what the temperature range for operation is (probably 50 to 100 degrees F?), nor what the tolerances were for electrical, magnetic or ionizing radiation interference or damage; although you can write to the company and ask for that information.

I wonder how durable these would be for a reusable space vehicle? At $150 a piece, you could easily have a light weight, multiple-redundancy system without worrying too much about one or two dying on a flight.

Michael D. Houst

I am told that the accuracy of these microgyro guidance systems requires correction by gps, and ICBM’s don’t do that. But drones get their position fixes from gps as well as inertial memory… It used to be that we talked about cruise missiles. Drones seem to be related…

Re: Drones or the do-it-yourself cruise missile

These pages have everything needed for an autopilot:

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?Ntt=arduino

Parts are on the peg at the local MC for what amounts to pocket change.

For once, the electronics are cheaper than the airframe. Build one in your garage. One fellow in NZ pointed that out a few years ago and got in big legal trouble. See:

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

This guy has been messing about with pulse jets for quite awhile, so the results were somewhat predictable. On another part of the site, he shows where he built every kid’s dream machine, the jet-powered go-kart.

Just not sure why we haven’t seen any terrorist cruise missiles yet, maybe because it’s easier for the terrorists to program humans to do the job than microcontrollers.

Stan Schaefer

clip_image002[3]

Inertial Guidance

Jerry:

I worked on inertial guidance systems at Wright Field from 1955 through 1958. Part of my job was to look for non-mechanical alternatives to rotating-mass gyros and moving-mass accelerometers. I came across a report on experiments by a Frenchman named Georges Sagnac. He had placed an interferometer on a ship and demonstrated that the interference fringes would shift if the ship were driven in a circle. That sounded like a lead to what I was supposed to work on. I found that the sensitivity of the interferometer depended on path length (longer path = more sensitivity) and on wavelength of the illumination used (shorter wavelength = more sensitivity). Knowing the maximum size that we could get away with in an airplane, I calculated the wavelength needed to get the sensitivity we required. It came out gamma rays. That was out. There are no mirrors for gamma rays, so you can’t make them follow a closed path. Good idea, but not feasible.

Years later, after I was long out of the inertial guidance business, I read an article in AVIATION WEEK about a laser gyro. The headline puzzled me. How do you make a gyro out of a laser? About two paragraphs into the story I realized they’d found a way to get a long path length, and make a Sagnac gyro work in either an airplane or a missile.

This is one of the tricks I learned to use in my later career as a technological forecaster. Ask "what’s missing" from a potential innovation, that makes it not feasible, then watch for something to provide that missing piece. The laser provided the missing piece for the Sagnac gyro.

Joseph P. Martino

Dandridge Cole said long ago that you can’t predict the future, but you can invent it. Of course your inventions will have effects you didn’t predict.

clip_image002[4]

Presidential Campaign

Jerry,

Gingrich definitely won the debate. Santorum will win some primaries and delegates, but not the nomination. I remembered that I didn’t support Santorum but couldn’t remember why. Ron Paul refreshed my memory while confirming my opinion that Santorum was the kind of kid who was always getting robbed of his lunch money.

More and more analysts are speculating about if not predicting a brokered convention. I believe that energy policy is the salient issue. If we don’t get energy policy right for a change, nothing else will matter. In spite of that infamous flirtation with Global Warming Theology posing with Pellossi on the couch, Gingrich is rational about energy policy. Santorum is also rational on energy policy and AGW. Ron Paul is also rational but would have a far too passive approach to energy policy. My fantasy is a brokered convention that nominates Governor Palin who is absolutely maniacal about energy policy. Obviously her activist approach to energy is policy is the result of the importance of oil production to Alaska, but she also understands how energy impacts the economy, foreign policy and national security. Alternatively, she could be the VP nominee and given authority over energy. If a President Paul, Romney or Gingrich reneged on such an agreement, she could seduce them. I have no doubt that the excitement of having sex with her would kill them then she would be President.

Jim Crawford

The Problem With Gingrich

I think the problem people have with Newt Gingrich is that he doesn’t care if people don’t like him, and he won’t apologize for having made someone mad. Everyone else will immediately rush out to apologize for and try to take back any statement that made someone feel mad. "Telling people who’ve spent their whole lives here that they have to leave is heartless! Um, wait, that doesn’t play well? Oh, well I didn’t *mean* it." Gingrich won’t play that game (or make that concession, if you want to see it that way.) And that’s why people get upset; not so much that he says things, but that he doesn’t pretend to feel sorry for having said them.

Mike T. Powers

clip_image002[5]

"We thought they would support the other parties emerging from the womb of the revolution, but they didn’t."

<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-09/egypt-revolution-activists/53183038/1#.T0MRqyS8Kno.email>

Surprise, surprise.

Roland Dobbins

clip_image002[6]

Bacevich: ‘As Israel has discovered, once targeted assassination becomes your policy, the list of targets has a way of growing ever-longer.’

<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175505/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_uncle_sam%2C_global_gangster/>

—-

Roland Dobbins

I am working on an essay about proscription lists. We seem to be legalizing them.

clip_image003[1]

Spacecraft volume/mass calculator

Dr. Pournelle:

This may interest you for both practical / fiction use; an online calculator for spacecraft volume and mass calculations.

http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/structure.php

Pete Nofel

"It ain’t fair? Hey pal, ‘fair’ is where you buy funnel cakes."

Pete Nofel

Thanks. Useful

clip_image002[7]

Norman Spinrad publishes rejected Star Trek script via Kindle Store.

<http://www.amazon.com/STAR-TREK-He-Walked-Among-ebook/dp/B007AJZAZY/ref=pd_zg_rss_ms_kstore_digital-text_6>

—-

Roland Dobbins

clip_image002[8]

Subj: Do we need more Solemn Excommunications?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnxJyEF4qLE

Rod Montgomery==monty@starfief.com

clip_image002[9]

Mumbai Attacks

Remember when I said the terrorists in Mumbai spoke a certain Hindu dialect?  That made it very hard for me to believe that Muslim terrorists undertook those attacks; later I found evidence of certain outside intelligence agencies.  As always, the discouragement fraternity had their baseless insults, accusations, denials, and disagreements.  But, once more the truth rises to the top like the cream of the crop:

<.>

An Indian court on Saturday approved a request by prosecutors to charge an American citizen, David Coleman Headley, in connection with the 2008 terrorist attacks here, according to an official with the National Investigation Agency. The decision, which is the first step in seeking an extradition, sets up a possible confrontation between the United States and India.

Mr. Headley has confessed in the United States to playing a major role in the Mumbai attacks, which killed at least 163 people, but he testified against another man tried in the attack to avoid both the death penalty and extradition to India.

The plea deal has angered many Indians, already frustrated by the slow progress in the investigations into the brazen attack that unfolded over three days and shook this city. So far, only one person has been convicted in the case in India: the sole surviving gunman in the attacks, Ajmal Kasab, who has been sentenced to death.

The court on Saturday also approved charges against seven Pakistanis and another man in the United States, Tahawwur Rana. It was Mr. Rana whom Mr. Headley testified against in a United States court. Mr. Rana was eventually acquitted of helping to plot the Mumbai attacks, but he was found guilty of supporting plans to attack a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

</>

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/world/asia/india-allows-request-to-charge-us-citizen-in-2008-attacks.html?_r=1

Just because certain intelligence agencies were able to use Hindu operatives to pull this off does not mean the sponsor of those operations was a Hindu sponsor.  It is quite possible to convince people to work against their interests, even if you are their greatest enemy.  In fact, KGB operations revolve around these deceptions — consider Operation Trest.  As time goes on, operations become more complex and this is not an accident.  I don’t know why this is a shock to the average person. 

—–

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

I have no comment because I have no reliable information.

clip_image003[2]

Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad <http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/>

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1mebxY5XE <http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1mebxY5XE>

I missed this completely when it happened, and it’s not what I particularly want to hear from a member of the Supreme Court whose job is ensure this country follows the Constitution. It seems she would be inclined to change to meet her standards.

Tracy

Well, it has always been the fancy that the Supreme Court decides what is the law of the land, but in fact they decided cases, and only those cases that the Congress allows them to decide. (There are some cases in which they have original jurisdiction according to the Constitution, but most cases come to them on appeal, and Congress sets that up.) Jefferson abolished a number of courts when he took office; he did not care for some of the judges Adams had appointed. The relation of the Court to the other two branches of government is more complex than is usually taught in school.

clip_image002[10]

clip_image005

clip_image002[11]

Earmarks and a teaser

View 714 Thursday, February 23, 2012

clip_image002

In Defense of Earmarks

The Constitution gives Congress control of the purse strings. Congress works through a system of committees. It’s not possible for every Member and Senator to be an expert on everything the government spends money on.

Now on the principle of subsidiarity, that should mean that many of the decisions made by Congress ought to be delegated to much lower levels. Left to the states, or even to local school boards and tax districts.

On the other hand, to pursue a strategy of technology – as an example – specific decisions have to be made. In military research and development it is quite possible to have legitimate disagreements on policy. On the other hand, if you don’t have the technology you can’t take certain directions. You can’t build weapons that you don’t know how to build.

At these levels it is quite possible that individual Congressmen have good ideas for development projects that are not favored by the Administration. Much of our military technology has been developed due to funds specifically allocated in authorization and appropriation bills. Then there is service politics: the Air Force will no relinquish any fixed wing air missions, but in fact the Air Force doesn’t like to do close support of the field army, or interdiction and isolation of the battle area. The Air Force doesn’t like Warthogs, and being assigned as a Warthog pilot is generally considered a career ending post. Most of the close support and interdiction missions turn out to be flown by Air National Guard units – and most of the appropriations for the aircraft and weapons needed for those missions has been through legislative direction – i.e. earmarks.

I could give other examples, but I think the point is made. The Constitution specifically gives the Federal Government the right to build post offices and post roads, and in the early days of the Republic there was considerable competition for funding of post offices in various small communities. Log rolling – you vote for my local project and I’ll vote for yours – has been with us since the first Congress. It’s part of the oil that keeps the system running.

Now it’s true enough that Earmark Projects will increase without number if there is no limit placed on them. Part of that is the Iron Law – once something is established there is always a lobby for it, and since everyone pays but few benefit directly you get a force for the appropriation and only a generalized ‘turn them all out!’ opposition. That too is the way the world works.

Earmarks need to be controlled by rules. They should always be open, voted on by the relevant committee, not thrust into the appropriation in the dead of night by an influential Member. They should be debated. But they should not simply be ended. Sometimes individual Congressmen have pet projects that really do benefit all of us. That particularly happens in the sciences, where there would be very little contrarian research and development if the Big Science consensus controlled the appropriations. Earmarks can be for very silly projects, and fund very silly ideas; but they are not really a very large part of the budget, and for every dozen or two pork barrel museums and preservations of the birthplace of some obscure community favorite son, there will be sound research and development that leads to useful technology. The DC/X could be classed as an earmark; and the country is better off for having funded it. It was rammed down the throat of the expendable rocket industry which has no incentive to develop technology for reusable rockets.

I’m in favor of having a brighter spotlight put on earmark appropriations, but it would be a very bad idea simply to eliminate them.

clip_image002[1]

I’m still trying to recover from this upper respiratory things. I think I am recovering – I thought I would be recovered enough to go to my LASFS meeting tonight – but it’s slow. When it came time to go out, I stayed home and watched mindless TV. I’m now trying the zinc stuff: I don’t really believe in it, but I have recommendations from MD readers who say they don’t believe in it either but they’ve seen it work and use it themselves… I took a long nap after lunch and still didn’t feel up to going out. Sable is making it very clear that she is entitled to walks, and why aren’t we doing it>

I’m working on it.

But at least some things get done. I think we have the final version of the latest Niven-Pournelle-Barnes project.

clip_image002[2]

clip_image003

Coming soon to an eBook site near you. Note I said coming soon. It’s not up yet. This is a teaser. It’s a novella set on Avalon.

clip_image002[3]

clip_image004[1]

clip_image004[2]

clip_image006

clip_image004[3]

No FTL neutrinos; The Mesa Az debates; Every person’s personal drone

View 714 Wednesday, February 22, 2012

ALAS:

‘FTL neutrinos’ result caused by inattention to Pournelle’s Law?

<http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/neutrinos-faulty-cable/>

Roland Dobbins

The applicable Pournelle’s Law was one of troubleshooting: 90% of the time it’s a cable. I first formulated that back in S-100 days, and it’s still true. Now it may be that we’re better off without faster than light neutrons, but I for one regret that they’re going away. Of course this was always the way to bet it, but it was a more intereresting universe when everything we thought we understood was fundamentally wrong…

Of course we still have the situation where some large portion of the universe is composed of dark matter which we can’t see or detect, and dark energy which we can’t find but have to believe in on faith. Of course one explanation of the data that forces us to believe in these undetectables is a revised aether theory such as Petr Beckmann’s aether as an entangled gravitational field – see Einstein Plus Two by Beckmann, and that would be interesting. Do note that I’m playing games. I do wonder about the proliferation of hypothetical constructs and intervening variables in physics. I thought those were a monopoly of the social sciences…

clip_image002

The Republican Debates

I watched the CNN-moderated Republican candidate debates that took place this evening in Mesa, Arizona.

The clear winner was Newt Gingrich. The clear loser was Senator Santorum, who was often petulant rather than presidential. It wasn’t a fatal loss, but Santorum must learn to stop taking the bait. The moderator, and others, all tried to get him to jump Romney rather than be presidential, to defend some past record rather than state what he would do now, to be apologetic rather than positive – and Santorum rose to the bait every time. Then he got into a long term slanging match with Romney. Neither of them looked very good in that, and neither came off all that well, but Romney looked more presidential than Santorum. Senator Santorum really has to learn the first rule of campaigning: don’t let the opposition set the agenda. Don’t respond and react. Santorum’s touchiness won’t hurt him as President. He’s sound in principle, and unlike British Prime Ministers, don’t have to engage in debates unless they want to, and being able to debate isn’t terribly important one way or another in actually governing the country. Debate talent is important for campaigning for the office of President, but not for executing that office.

That, of course, is one of the major flaws of democracy. We require those who would be president to spend most of their lives learning how to get the office, and almost none on learning how to be President once they get there.

Incidentally, Newt knows this. Campaigning actually bores him. He prefers to be among smart people discussing possibilities, in a situation in which he doesn’t have to be guarded but can say what he thinks as the ideas spring up. Most fresh and original ideas aren’t all that useful. They can lead to something useful, but we don’t use the phrase ‘half baked” for no reason. Many half-baked ideas do bake out, sometimes into very good things indeed. But of course campaign debates are not the place to spring new concepts; those need discussing in private and among friends who aren’t playing ‘gotcha’. When Newt was an unknown Congressman making speeches about the nature of the Constitution to the empty House chamber after hours, he was quite different from when he was Minority Whip, and when he found that it might be possible to win a Republican Majority for the first time in forty years and he went into campaign mode he had to change once again. Part of that was time, but part was the requirements of campaigns.

His experience at this came across during the debate. He stayed on target, didn’t rise to the bait and use his time on petty denunciations of others or in reacting to some accusation, and he pretty well stayed on point: we’re in big trouble, and it’s going to take some fundamental and profound changes to get out of it. We’re going to need energy independence to break our enthrallment to the Middle East. Breaking our energy dependence is a first requirement for independence and liberty. Fortunately we have the resources; all we need is to get the government out of that way.

Ron Paul came off well. When asked what single word best described him, he said “consistency” and he’s right. He doesn’t have plans and programs for education because the Constitution doesn’t give the government any rights or powers over education. It’s not a matter for either Congress or the President. He applies this principle to most of the matters brought up. He’s also keenly aware that we are spending money we don’t have, much of it on matters the Federal Government has no Constitutional power to spend it on. His return to the first principles of Constitutionalism seems absolute, and as the campaign goes on you begin to realize that he really means it. Whether that’s possible – whether the American people even want such a thing – isn’t clear to me, and I suspect it is not clear to him; but that’s his position, and he’s going to stick to it. Ron Paul reminds me of John Quincy Adams. We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but we are the guardians only of our own. We do not go abroad seeking dragons to slay. We have enough to do preserving our own liberty.

Santorum said little I disagreed with, and many things I liked, but I found myself shouting at him when he took the bait and went off on another silly tirade either attacking someone else, or defending his record in the Senate. I know why he does it, but I would far rather he showed himself being presidential rather than reacting as if — but no, I’m not going to frame that image. Let’s just say that he’s capable of looking presidential, and has done so, notably the night he won in Iowa but at other times as well. His positions are consistent and generally defer to the constitution. He’d do better if he displayed them rather than apologizing for voting for No Child Left Behind.

clip_image003

Day of the Drone

The two links below point to something astounding.

There was a time when I was the world’s most informed authority on inertial guidance. This wasn’t because of my expertise, it was because I was editor of Project 75, the USAF comprehensive survey of ballistic missile technology, and I had both the clearance and the access authority – need to know – for all of that. The result was a report that I wrote or edited every page of, but which was classified at a need to know level above mine – which makes sense because it literally had everything we knew about our missiles and everything we thought we knew about everyone else’s. Naturally I could get at every part of the document, but not all of it at once, because the number of copies was limited for very good reasons. Anyway, in those days inertial guidance depended on mechanical gyroscopes, and electronics to get the gyroscopic data. We were developing and hoped soon to deploy gyros which used lasers to pick off the spin rates and other pertinent data, which would increase accuracy because reading the data wouldn’t affect the gyroscope as much as the current electronic means would.

But for all that, an inertial guidance platform with three axis gyroscopes and three axis accelerometers was a fairly large and terribly expensive thing. Moreover, the computer that this had to feed was large too. Our other analyses indicated that the major improvement we needed in the ICBM force was not number of warheads or large yields, but accuracies at intercontinental range; and that required on-board guidance computers. (Obviously you couldn’t use any kind of midcourse correction system: no ICBM could be allowed to accept instructions from the outside because that would instantly become the major one point vulnerability of the missile. But that’s another story for another time.)

On board guidance computers had to be made smaller and more powerful and one result was a recommendation for major investments in large scale integrated circuits.

Once all that was done – we had smaller and lighter gyros and accelerometers, and much more powerful and smaller computers with kilobytes of memory, we still ended up with guidance packages that were large, heavy, and expensive,

Now go look here: http://invensense.com/mems/gyro/mpu9150.html

What’s described is a gyro and accelerometer system. In chips. Micromachines. You can buy it to put into your game controller. You can add GPS if that’s not already in it; it’s just another chip. And for about $1700 you can get a quadricopter, a four motor helicopter, complete with control system, GPS, battery life of more than ten minutes, payload of more than a pound. It will fly to where you send it, to an accuracy of a couple of meters, using GPS to find it. It can be given altitude constraints. Such as stay more than 20 and fewer than 30 meters above the local ground level (there’s a camera so you can see obstacles to go over or around).

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to think of the sort of things a geeky kid who has decided he really hates his school and those bullies who make his life miserable might come up with in a week of thought. I can think of things I might have done with something like that on a particularly lousy day. They’d probably involve sprayers and agar agar, or perhaps inorganic chemicals. Fortunately my geeky kid being bullied experiences were all when I was too young to do anything; by the time I was able to make nitroglycerine I didn’t have any such motives. I didn’t get bullied in high school because my friend was a very large guy who really really wanted to pass Latin…

But I do leave you with the thought for the day. Also I point out that guidance systems for drones don’t cost much. They’ll control fixed wing “model” aircraft of sizes up to tens of kilograms just as easily as they’ll control a small one pound payload quadricopter. The day when any geek can have his own personal drone is not only coming, it’s pretty well here.

Sleep tight.

https://store.diydrones.com/APM_2_0_Kit_p/br-ardupilotmega-03.htm

http://invensense.com/mems/gyro/mpu9150.html

clip_image002[1]

Newt makes his case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M415AGqnVrg&feature=player_embedded# !

If he would just keep this up.

Phil

Well, it does make his positions quite clear. I can say from personal experience that Newt talks like this and has done so since the 1980’s. He’s being interviewed so it’s not an interactive conversation, but he is paying attention to the questions. I’ve had conversations like this with him many times.

If you’re wondering about Newt, he directly answers the questions about his temperament. And as my reader says, he states his case quite well.

clip_image002[2]

clip_image002[8]

clip_image005

clip_image002[9]