insane_alien

right, basically a lathe works by spinning the object in question and a blade is moved in from the side to shave bits off of it until it is the desired shape. the way you move the blade in and out is usually by turning a handle. this can move the blade in and out. you can use a screw mechanism or a gear mechanism to move it. by being clever with your gears and screws you can reduce the movement cause by one turn of the handle. right down to one turn results in the blade moving one micrometer. but this is usually only on computerised machines(who wants to move something at a micrometer per turn right?). by using fine control such as this a 4mm diameter combustion chamber is easy to make. they just use the same method the use on larger thrusters. but use more precise machines.

C++ can handle more than 16 colours. i'm not sure what limitations it has as its used for a LOT of stuff out there.

typically gearing mechanisms on the controls to make a large action smaller.

the parts arent micrmeter scale, they just have that sort of precision.

4 millimeters across does not require a microscope. magnifying glass perhaps. but anyway, the machines likely to be used like lathes have controlls that are much finer than that, you can get high precision ones that have micrometer control. not that much of it will be done by hand, it will likely be a computer controled process.

same way bigger ones do but smaller.

so there was no point to this at all. riiight. allow me to be the first in a long line of people who will call bullshit on this.

because in the past loud noises usually meant something was going down that we should really pay attention to because we might need to run and hide from it. you know like a tree falling, an elephant approacing etc. thus when we hear bangs, our inbuilt defence mechanisms give us a nice jolt of adrenaline to increase our alertness.

well then you should probably be submitting your evidence and claim to a peer reviewed journal related to the topic than here. we'll give it a crude form of peer-review if you want but you'll have to post details.

well, from what i've read they are millimeter scale so i assume a miniturised form of milling.

and you're delusional. yay.

a mythical book? really? thats where you recommend we get answers oh for f***s sake. put down the crack pipe.

in order to do your own research on something you need to first have some basic information on it. most regulars to this forum are really extremely good at finding out stuff for themselves. iirc a few are self taught as well. but they all had something to start off with. the name of it for a start. you never supplied one. 'i have this awesome method. you'll have to figure it out for yourself though.' is not enough to figure something out. stop talking crap.

no, they're far to big for that.

i think the troll has run out of things to say.

and you still haven't explained anything. so lets try this again, what is your method?

science is not religion. science requires no faith and evidence. religion requires no evidence and faith.

ah the bible. about as reliable as a reliant robin.

so this is just religious stuff. did you read the rules you agreed to when you registered?

neither.

blood_pardon, the data is presented in the articles(it has to be made available for peer review) so you can determine for yourself whether it is correct or not.

blood_pardon, it isn't your place to dictate what sisyphus believes. nor to misspell his name.

it would appear so. i also suspect crowned is deliberately not being explicit about that 'math' he posted simply in an attempt to make us look retarded but only making himself look like a decietful moron in the process.

ah so anything you don't agree with is fabricated. have fun with that.

you haven't told us how to use your method chart remember? you need to tell us how to use it inorder to prove anything with it. but still 91*4 does not and never will equal -12