What innovating tec and/or companies do you expect to boom in the future..

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I appreciate any further information about the company that I can get. I understand that you've only got a couple days of R&R and you probably don't want to spend them addressing the curiosity of ATS. But since you're here, I've got a request. In the past, you've remarked that you haven't talked about certain topics or events because you figured that we probably already knew about them. I can't speak for the rest of ATS, but I had never heard of the 'seven days in April' or synthetic defensin-mimetics or LED-accelerated healing until you posted about them. Can you start a thread detailing anything else that you haven't discussed because you felt it might have already been covered? I know I'm not the only one on here that would enjoy a reality based discussion and a break from the inevitable HAARP ravings after the recent storm.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Tajlakz
 


I guess the problems are two - it either seems so mundane I don't think about it or I can't talk about it.

If I get a chance, I'll start noticing things that I run into a lot but don't see in the MSM. A few things I've talked about here long ago.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. Real tidbits, no matter how much we have to read between the lines or research ourselves, is better than heaps of imaginary drivel.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Tajlakz
 


Heh. A lot of this stuff is emotionally charged around here.

Take HAARP. Are there bits and pieces of it that aren't run by UofA? Yep. Are there secret research projects going on that the civilian users don't know about (or more correctly, didn't really pay attention to), yep.

Are they particularly interesting to 99.999% of the world? No, it's totally boring crap to most people, or uninterpretable geekdom. I like it, because it's up my tree, me being primarily a comm theory engineer. But most people don't give a rat's ass.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tajlakz
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. Real tidbits, no matter how much we have to read between the lines or research ourselves, is better than heaps of imaginary drivel.


Hm. Well, did you know that we stole a rig from the Russians to let you look backward in time (effectively, at least...) down a laser beam? That seems a bit esoteric, BUT, you can use the thing to look back in the history of the beam. In practice, that means that if the beam passes through some scattering or dispersing medium, say seawater, so that pretty much nothing is left but a few real photons, you can run them into the rig and look backwards along the beam's history to a point before it was dispersed. It involves virtual photons traveling forward and backward in time that are instantiated as real photons by the rig. So, say, you've got a comm laser coming down through some seawater from a satellite, you might have nearly nothing but a handful of photons left. Run them through the conjugator, and out pops the beam as it was at the origin. Nice trick.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Jeez, starting a little heavy aren't ya?
My understanding of the subject is very limited. Does this have any connection with what John Cramer is trying to do?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Tajlakz
 


Don't think so, but I'm sort of thinking I've heard the USAF has already done some work in that field along with one of the TLA's. Something something near-zero latency comm sat something unbreakable encryption something. Not my field, tl;dr.

On the other hand, you can take the same basic time conjugation trick and do some laser targeting and focusing work that borders on, well, magic.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


"Since the fourth wave is the time-reverse of the incoming wave it will go back along precisely the same path taken by the incoming wave. If the original wave was spreading out from a source point, the new wave will converge back to that source point. If the original wave was distorted and diffused by irregularities and dust particles in the intervening air, the new wave will travel back through the same irregularities and undo the distortions to produce a wave just like the one which originally emerged from the source." - www.npl.washington.edu...

Now this sounds a lot like what you described...



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Tajlakz
 


It's similar - there's some tricks that can be done beyond conjugate mirroring by giving the conjugator part of the thing some depth, that gives you more flexibility in dealing with transit delays and the like.

(big grin) See also "guidestar", Kirtland AFB, in conjunction with the part of your article that discusses flooding the target with laser light to get that first reflection...

They SAY that's just to let their flexible mirrors adjust for distortion. But why bother with mirror setups when your conjugator can just do ALL of it in essentially zero time, no mechanics, no computers.

A funny lab observation - if you have one of these rigs in the lab with the covers off and turn the pump laser on low, it'll pop everything in there that's the least bit reflective. Lab goggles, metal bits on instruments, buttons on your lab coat, you name it. Panic time while everyone mills around going for the off switch.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Oh, and there's another funny bit you HAVEN'T heard of, or seen. Well, I did see someone blab to Wired but not in detail, they got close to a description of it though.

You can start with the original setup and sort of turn it inside out. That is, if you look at the system block diagram, you can sort of see how one became the other.

With that rig, you can arrange a sort of virtual image farther down the beam the way you can look down the beam in time with the original setup. At the focus, it instantiates virtual photons that mimic a real image elsewhere in the setup, in practice, they showed this thing off at a weapons conference back in something like 2006, it was set up in a darkened corridor with the works hidden behind a wall, and it looked like there was a guard at the door, only it was a free-standing image. It had back-face culling but not opacity, which is why the corridor was dark and the walls were dark grey. But it was pretty convincing until you started picking it apart. It's the best volumetric image without a physical screen I've seen, but it's not practical. Was probably fun working on though. You also have to keep the dust and aerosols down or you see sparkly dust motes in the beam path, or the beam itself through aerosol dispersion.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



This is completely unrelated, but I was wondering whether you've ever heard anything about an anomaly in the orbit of the U.S.'s first satellite, Explorer I? I stumbled across this guy's blog a couple weeks ago and am quite intrigued. - astroengineer.wordpress.com... Working as a project manager/senior engineer for NASA for 20 years, he claims to have heard some peculiar stories from bosses and colleagues, as well as having quite a strange experience of his own, involving the mars rover Spirit. astroengineer.wordpress.com... Truth or not, it's worth a read.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join