Posted by Morris Dovey on May 1, 2012, 12:55 pm
On 5/1/12 4:13 AM, mike wrote:
<Rossi demo remarks snipped>
If/when I ever have a credible demo, I won't need development cash.
Game changer? That's naive. The impact within the G-8 nations would be
minimal. Work it out for yourself - and if you like statues, get
yourself a yard gnome or a flamingo.
You don't even get excuses from me. My interest is in learning enough to
power a no-mechanical-parts generator - and yours appears to be in
maintaining ignorance, making easy money, and being famous.
You have the recipe and an offer of enough powdered nickel to run your
own uncontrolled reactor for about 6 months. So what's /your/ excuse?
Have you actually been invited to do that? No one invited me, either.
To the contrary, I don't gotta do anything at all. I remind myself at
least daily that I /could/ just get a cable subscription and watch TV
for the rest of my life. :-)
I've never found much interest in empty offers - and I'm even less
interested in putting myself at risk for the benefit of folks who make
'em. No thanks.
What you choose to believe, or not to believe, doesn't much matter to
anyone except yourself.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on May 1, 2012, 4:23 pm
You might consider exposing this project on rec.crafts.metalworking to
gain the benefit of the participants' very considerable experience in
metal fabrication and computerized industrial controls, and science
and technology in general. Read it first, though, as r.c.m can be MUCH
nastier than this group.
Posted by Morris Dovey on May 1, 2012, 5:25 pm
On 5/1/12 11:23 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
r.c.m is on my resource list. A decade back when I bought my first CNC
router, I read r.c.m (and posted occasionally) for the better part of a
year. Aside from a expressing destain for machining "mushy" stuff the
folks there were a huge help - to the point of e-mailing photos to show
me what their explanations described.
I won't be bashful about going back to lurk for a month or so, and then
asking questions - but when I do, I want to have a solid design about
which I can ask clear questions. IOW, I want to have done my homework.
I'm still working on that.
Before that I spent close to a decade as a regular on comp.lang.c -
which is/was useful precisely because there was no tolerance for error
or failure to RTFM / STFW, etc. I'm not quite sure when it happened, but
at one point I realized that if I ever had to do a software project
bigger than I could handle alone, my dream team would be made up of the
nastiest of the bunch. Funny how that works. :-)
Posted by Jim Wilkins on May 1, 2012, 6:18 pm
You should see me bash neo-nazi myths of the secret technology that
coulda/shoulda won them the war.
And the creator of "The Big Bang Theory"
Still an amateur curmudgeon.
Posted by j on May 1, 2012, 6:36 pm
On 5/1/2012 1:25 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
All of the comp.lang don't suffer fools. I would imagine that
comp.lang.c would be the toughest. comp.lang.perl had an insult bot
, so I can imagine what c was like!
I'm not quite sure when it happened, but