DrP

Wiki suggests the die yields are pretty secretive between manufacturers but can be 'as low as 30%'. (sorry - off topic I know - it seemed relevant to the conversation at the time).

I saw a program/documentary about chip manufacture about 25 years ago. On every Si wafer they made, lets say, 50 CPUs (can't remember how many they get per wafer).... and they expected about 2 or 3 to work. I am pretty sure with the development of better resists for microlithography that the yields have improved over and over as the years have gone by, lol. Do you know what kind of yield they get these days? I might look it up when I get home tonight if I get the chance. I would 'guess' that the yield have been getting better and better.... but as the writing has been getting smaller and smaller this could still throw up errors.

what 'new evidence'? How obnoxious - you come across as a pissy, ignorant, little twat. I wasn't going to say anything as it is rude - but you set the tone.

A few years back we had a couple of companies from the middle east trying to buy a product that contains a lot of the above chemical. They didn't want the finished product - just 'the powders that go into it'.... they would add their own water, additives and polymers and so on. Our MD got excited as they wanted quite a lot. I vito'd it... I hope I wasn't being racist or anything but I did NOT want to be the one responsible for sending a tonne of penta out to the middle east in a powdered form. I can't say for sure... I am probably wrong and the request was innocent... but they aren't getting that from me thank you very much. Did I do the right thing here do you think John or was I being over cautious?

When my Nan died I was with her. I have heard that a persons last moments of consciousness could seem like a very, very long time to the person dying (no idea if this is true or not but I decided not to chance it). I tried to ensure that she received as much love and positivity for a good half hour or so afterwards just in case there was a small spark left somewhere that could register stimuli or input..... especially if the perception is distorted and it seems to last a long time for the person. I tried to keep the area as calm and as loving as possible. The nurse wanted to take her rings off and busy about but I asked her to wait just for a little while to avoid any stressfulness.

Yea it does... there are loads of examples of false memories, memories fading/changing with age and time. What are illusions if not tricks of the mind. Many things get misunderstood all the time... the mind has been tricked. It isn't a perfect thing - it doesn't detect everything and often misinterprets and invents things. What about imagination? What's that then? It can create not merely re-create. This has been shown to be untrue. If you paint a number on the ground in the next room.... the person who has the OBE or NDE in one room and goes to that other room cannot tell you what the number on the floor was.... This shows they have imagined the experience and were not actually there.

imo- They are 'evidence'... but not proof. Once the evidence has been scrutinised though it becomes clear that it is poor evidence as it can all be explained with how the mind works and any actual testing turns up a big negative.... All these NDEs and out of body experiences and astral projections are all imaginations... for example - if I write a number on the floor in one room the person claiming to astrally project there cannot read that number. They aren't actually there.... it is in their mind. You could run the experiment 50 times and someone might fluke the answer... this is only proof of fluke. If the person were to get 50 out of 50 then we can start to take it seriously.

.... I'm an industrial chemist... I just know some things. I usually assume I know less than I think I do... maybe I know more than I think I do when it comes to poisons, explosives and drugs - I don't know. You can't get through a chemistry education without knowing/learning some things. Regarding the nitrating... I think I might have been told that at school. ... also - that's how you get TNT from toluene, no? There are other energetics that are also nitrated as far as I am aware. Not something I am interested in playing with anyway. I work with a substance called pentaerythritol - I am certain that I do not want to nitrate that one as it is a precursor for a number of things that go bang. I'm not saying all knowledge should be deleted from the internet - it wasn't me that said that - I agree with the sentiment that the knowledge is not necessary for the public domain and that I personally do not care for making bombs.

Good point. (I thought I replied to this the other day but can't find the post) - I still stand by my not being interested.... but I guess I know enough not to go around nitrating stuff for fun/no reason... and if I was trying out something unknown or with potential problems I would research it a bit first.

It seems to have omitted my reply about surfactants, lipophilic and hydrophilic sections of the molecule, micelle formation and the suggestion to look up surfactants in general on Google....

I always thought that it was knowledge. Science - the word, actually means 'knowledge' I always thought - that is what they taught us back in school anyway. The knowledge you have can be updated as more information is revealed about a system. As for 'absolute truth' - how could anyone ever know what they believed was absolutely true. You always have that unproven - 'what if' behind you.

Was JJ Thompsom 'right' when he modelled the atom as a plumb pudding? Was what he was postulating 'true'?

Did you not get the answers you were after in the last thread you opened about this?

Thanks Guys - I have already used tape to hold it in place - I didn't want to admit it in case it was a stupid idea, lol. The tape does help a lot but it still comes loose after a bit. That racket grip looks like a good idea - similar to the tape idea I had but better - I might try that sometime... or just get a chuck. Will be a while before I get round to using it again anyway. Thanks again.

We need to sort world peace out quick so we can jointly collaborate on the first Death Star project - you can never be too careful! Jack Black has the right idea:-

Putting a small chuck on it is an awesome idea that I just never thought of - thanks. That one in your pic does look a lot chunkier than mine but might work. I will look for a chuck that I can attach... as long as that doesn't slip out also.

Being fair - the laser is only there to raise the Nitinol above it's activation temperature for molecular rearrangement. The laser could hit each spring respectively at the right time if aimed and timed right. I was wondering how the spring was cooled fast enough with enough precision to return it to a spring. Devices on the internet are pretty rudimentary compared to this diagram in the OP (apart from the obvious hoaxes).

I agree with you. As a chemist, everyone expects me to know how to make drugs and bombs.... although I probably could, I don't and probably wouldn't do a very good job of it anyway because, like you, I actively go out of my way to avoid the knowledge. I made a decision NOT to research any of it or even allow myself to get into conversations about how to do these things as I was leaving school - my chem teacher said the same thing and I liked and respected her so I followed her example (and your's here) to actively avoid the knowledge as far as possible. Where I work I had to sign a form saying that I would not make bombs from one of the chemicals we use that could be used as a precursor to an explosive. I thought about it and worked out how it could be converted into something else - it is so, so easy - but I would never even consider it, even for fun. I have a job to keep and a reputation to uphold.... and morally - I was a christian for many years and still hold dear to the idea of trying to be a good person... I am with you - I don't even want to know how to make a bomb. Some things though are taught in school - like stabilizing TNT to dynamite and the history of TNT- so it isn't that easy to stay totally clueless. - One occasion where wilful ignorance is praised maybe? I am a member at another science site where they discuss energetics all the time. I stay away from those threads.

Is it really strong enough to drive an engine? What's the plan? The laser heats the wire to straighten it pushing the piston up? How does it cool the wire quickly enough to return to the coiled position? How many cycles before the wire breaks? I guess it is just a drawing and not a working device though, yea?

I bought a cheap hand held etching tool - it is similar I think to those dremel things. I bought it for fossil preparation. It can spin a wire brush fitting like your's or wiggle a spike for etching. I CANNOT get any of the tools to stay in the chuck for longer than a few seconds. As tight as I force it with all my finger strength (and I am stronger than I look! ) I use it for a very shot while before the tool comes loose. Not so bad with the spinning brush because it still spins, but it makes the etcher useless. Are the more expensive ones any better than my cheapo one? I paid a bit more for one and I get the same problem.... can't get the tool to stay in the chuck. Sorry to crash your thread SJ - but do you think I would be better off with a higher end Bosch one or something like that or am I just being a spanner when it comes to fitting the tool into the chuck?

I was going to suggest a socket adaptor of some kind, but I-Now has beaten me to it - I wouldn't have even thought about grinding it down - if you are able too then why not? I would have thought it would take some time. I think you can get very cheap sets of those wire brush sets for Dremel and other spinning/grinding hand tools on e-bay pretty cheap. It might be easier to just but a new one with the right diameter shaft. The ones from China are dirt cheap.... but they could also be the one most likely to quote the sizes in mm but actually send you out an imperial one.

"Accurate picture of reality" - i.e. - the best model.... which should be updated to better reflect reality if more/updated information comes along. "models that describe how nature behaves" are what we build AS a picture of reality as good as we can get them. Are you misunderstanding this still or arguing for the sake of it to get away from some other point you refuse to concede?

Date and time?

It's a WRAP!

I'm afraid we are slipping back to the nonsensical again. I think you MUST know that this doesn't make any sense. Unless English is not your first language and you are trying to get some other point across - I sort of think that you are just making it up though for some sort of trolling game. You KNOW what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Read it back to yourself. Bye.