weshop's Blog
Category Reference-and-Education:Future-Concepts
Can we figure out experiments to use to see if we can disrupt bees with sound? Can we affect their flight path, control them or even defeat a swarm of bees? Can we do experiments to see if this is possible? What if we put them into a church and turn up the pipe organ music, would then become angelical? Find god, go back and prey to their Queen Bee? Sure, that was a joke, but how does loud sound or specific sound waves affect bees? Another experiment is to put a car with a huge set of speakers under a bee hive and turn it on when the bees fly away if they have a trouble then you win. You could put four surround a round speakers next to a bee hive where the bees have to fly thru to go to the favorite bushes each day and turn them on, there would be enough sound to disrupt with directional sound because each speaker put out sound and increases pressure in the center. Kind of like the firestorm with the Germans in WWII where a whole city was annihilated. Or like when a kid put pressure on their face to pop a zit. Of course if you are going to try such experiments to disrupt bees, I just do not advice you standing around while you piss off a swarm of killer bees. Rather hazardous to your human health wouldn?t you say? Consider all this in 2006. Lance Winslow by ?Lance Winslow?2008-01-24
 |
| |
In the future many folks will want to go up into space as tourists. Recently Space Ship One won the ten million dollar cash prize for the first private space craft to leave the Earth?s Atmosphere to the edge of space, safely and reliably. Since then over 30,000 folks have put their names on a waiting list with deposit check to go into space as tourists. Thus our space tourist industry is born. Now the entrepreneurs are talking about building a four passenger craft to take up three people at a time. NASA is funding seed money to assist in the privatization and commercialization of space with 500 million to assist private companies in building an orbital spacecraft. In fact there are many concepts on the drawing table now. I propose using the DARPA giant blimp Walrus concept to take these orbital space craft up as high as 50,000 feet and then launch the private orbital space craft concepts who want to have a go it from altitude, thus improving safety, payload and fuel economy. By assisting private industry in this way, we can help jump start the orbital spacecraft research and innovation. This will bring more players to the table and increase competition to build the best and most efficient spacecraft in the spirit of competition, which is the hallmark of American ingenuity. We can do this, so think on it in 2006. Lance Winslow by ?Lance Winslow?2008-01-24
|
| |
Have you ever noticed the excuses we have these days of why we cannot get rid of our enemies nuclear weapons programs? Because they have underground bases where we cannot get them. They are either inside of mountains as in North Korea or they are underground as in the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which threatens to; Blow Israel off the Map! Why is it that our enemy Al Qaeda was able to fly in airliner into the Pentagon and we cannot stop our enemies from building nuclear weapons because they are doing it underground? If it underground facility keeps your enemies away that easily and even the mighty United States Military cannot get to it then why are we not doing that? Sure we have stuff underground as well, but our Pentagon is not underground and exactly how do you win a war if you are attacked at your headquarters? I suggest we built a pentagon underground. Perhaps 500 feet underground where no one can get it. Then it will be safe and since it is underground no one has to know the shape for instance we could build a hexagon or an octagon or simply tell the world that that's all we built but it is really a pentagon and as long as it is underground it does not have to be horizontal it could be vertical to. If we can't kill our enemy or stop them from trying to kill us or kill our allies then obviously they are smarter than us for hiding underground. We should do the same thing. Please consider this in 2006. by ?Lance Winslow?2008-01-24
|
| |
The merging of man in machine is something that bothers many people to talk about. There are many reasons for this and one concerns religious belief systems. For instance if the human energy which runs the body and makes all this work connecting the brain in the body is considered a soul, then how can you add a bunch of robotic parts and expected to work. Without complicating the issue in understanding that whether we like it or not the researchers are moving towards the merging of man in machine. And that means robotic artificially intelligent androids and add on body parts will be available in the coming decades. Already researchers are working on ways to hook the human brain up to a computer, even the Internet. If you consider for a second that the human brain works on a very extremely low-frequency and the nerves are fired thru electrical impulses, then hooking it all up together is not so difficult to understand. However there are certain things the body does in certain things that the body needs. The body produces chemicals which one biological systems and if we add robotic parts, then he eventually we run into problems of not having the proper body parts to make the chemicals the body needs to run. For instance the production of amino acids and the uses of these chemicals in the body will need to be regulated. But if the human brain is hooked up to a computer and many of the body parts are robotic then there is a problem with the production of those amino acids. Yet, as the human brain part of the merger has less to do, as much of it will be done by the computer brain, then the human brain will be better be alleviated of its bandwidth requirements and be able to do more. If the brain is properly fed with the chemicals it desires then it can do even more. The production of chemicals in the body and brain may be a significant hurdle in the merging of man in machine, although it may be the answer to preventing rejection of the add all robotic body parts as well as the answer cooperative systems between man in machine. Although this is an introductory thought I hope you'll think on this in 2006. Lance Winslow by ?Lance Winslow?2008-01-24
|
| |
We have all watched in the last five year the amount of time and effort it takes to clean up after a massive Hurricane. The flying debris can be picked up fast and removed, but the flooding, well that is a whole other story indeed. Flooding damage is always substantial both from rain and storm surges. But what if we took a new approach to the clean up? What if we called in DARPA and contracted with US Robotics to build giant SUV size RoboVacuums? We would put hydro-twisters underneath and equipment similar to street sweepers and let them go cleaning things up? Recently an online think tank took up this issue and considered some of the possibilities as Swift from Las Vegas stated; ?It would certainly free up more humans for rescue efforts and keep them from being exposed to diseases. They could have a vacuuming and a cutting mode, as sometimes they would need to use both.? Sure this could be done and the robotic vacuums could operate along roads clearing trees and debris and work of GPS waypoints autonomously or some could be telerobotically operated via a temporary blimp communication station in the sky for a relay? Or use a broadband Internet connection via satellite with a 6-axis floating antenna on the giant RoboVac. (BTW all this technology exists now to make these a reality). Consider all this in 2006. Lance Winslow by ?Lance Winslow?2008-01-24 |
