Aug 262024
 

A scientific paper published more than 20 years ago was recently rediscovered by the internet:

Sugawara et al. 2003, “Destruction of Nuclear Bombs Using Ultra-High Energy Neutrino Beam”

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305062

A lot of this goes over my little post-Covid head, but the summary seems to be that, theoretically, an advanced high energy collider, similar to but larger and more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider could slam muons into each other and create a laser–like beam of neutrinos. OK, cool. But where I get fuzzy is the discussion of the “mean free path” of the neutrinos. By tinkering with the exact energy of the neutrinos, you can set the MFP to the exact distance from the collider to the target. The beam of neutrinos pass virtually unhindered through the Earth, then, at a fairly specific spot, they create a shower of hadrons. That’s where I’m lost: do the neutrinos suddenly decide “ok, let’s interact with the atoms in dirt right here,” or what, exactly? I’m puzzled.

But in any event, that shower of hadrons *is* perfectly capable of interacting with normal matter, such as the fissile material in a nuclear bomb. In a matter of seconds or minutes, the uranium or plutonium will heat up enough to cause the surrounding high explosives to catch fire or detonate, while messing with the nuclear properties of the warhead itself. They estimate that the bomb will “fizzle” with about 3% the yield it was designed for.

The anti-weapon weapon is hilariously impractical: even with advanced superconducting electromagnets the collider will be on the scale of kilometer in size, costing hundreds of billions. Each shot will require the power output of a nation, and will only target a single nuclear weapon, whose position must be known to just a few feet. And it kinda seems like this vast ring-like structure must be aimed physically. Good luck with *that.*

It seems like “physically possible, engineeringly impractical, financially impossible” project. Something nobody could pull off on Earth. On the other hand, the sci-fi possibilities are clear. Aliens, say, show up. Their scouts check out Earth, realize we’re loaded with troublesome nukes, so their von Neuman bots start carving up the moon. They dig a trench around the moons equator and fill that trench with a vast accelerator… with the reaction chamber pointed right at Earth. A relatively small jiggering of the chamber can aim the resulting neutrino beam to any desired spot on Earth; slight adjustments to the colliders power sets the precise range. Nukes in solos start melting down. Nukes on planes kept in constant motion, however, would likely be safe. Nukes on subs? If they can precisely track submerged boomers, they can probably target them.

 

 Posted by at 11:29 pm
Jun 172024
 

Videos have come out showing President Biden doing bad things (specifically, acting like what he is: an elderly man who is well into cognitive and physical decline), and his PR machine is spooling up the defense that the videos are “cheap fakes” and “deep fakes.” The videos are clearly *not* fakes, neither “cheap” nor “deep,” but have in most cases been shot by reputable media sources and broadcast on national news. However, we’re now at the point where people are coming to know and understand deep fakes, and as I’ve been saying for a long time, bad actors will start claiming that valid videos of them behaving poorly are actually deep fakes.

 

The era of video as useful evidence is coming to an end. They’ll be good for a while longer, but not much longer. In maybe five years, the courts will be in complete chaos as every defendant on trial who was seen by cell phones or security cameras will be able to rightly claim that deep faking is now so easy that it would be simplicity itself for the prosecution to slap it together over lunch.

 Posted by at 7:12 pm
Apr 102024
 

For all the documentaries and such about the 1960’s Gyrojet “rocket gun,” this is the first time I’ve seen rounds fired with this sort of clarity. The rounds cost $200 each… which once again makes me wonder why someone hasn’t decided to put them into production. If there’s a market for them at $200 each, you can bet there’d be a market for them at $20 each. And the thing is… they’re not that complex. I imagine the biggest thing holding back someone from making them is legalese and bureaucracy… many layers of government to jump through to build and sell something that I’d bet good money the US FedGuv would slap an ITAR label on for no good reason, as well as whole armies of attack lawyers lining up to line their pockets the first time a round goes off course or rapidly disassembles.

A Gyrojet round is basically four parts: a body made out of machined or extruded steel; a base made of machined steel; a propellant grain; a conventional primer. The base might be manufacturable from modern ceramics.

 

 

 

 Posted by at 11:29 pm
Mar 172024
 

Giggity:

And…

 

Said it before: this is some sci-fi stuff right here.

 

From one perspective, this was another failure. The booster failed at the end… it had difficulty with engine restart for the final landing burn and either kerploded just before hitting the water, or smacked into the water going *real* fast. Starship itself broke apart during entry. So both recoverable stages failed to demonstrate recoverability. But it *did* achieve the low orbit that was intended. It demonstrated the ability to serve as an expendable launch vehicle. An incredibly capable expendable launch vehicle, much more powerful than even the Saturn V. It could start throwing massive payloads into orbit even while attempting to perfect recovery. Large numbers of Starlinks, of course… but also large numbers of, say, Brilliant Pebbles, or tanks of water, or rolls of sheet aluminum and beam builders and PV arrays.

 

 Posted by at 5:08 pm
Feb 242024
 

Fortunate is the man who has this coffee table. Fabulously wealthy is he if he has a woman who looks at that table and thinks “that’s awesome, I picked the right guy.”

 

It’s a spectacular piece, and I kinda really want one. However… before I’d plunk down money I don’t have for this sort of thing, I’d demand some improvements. From a distance it looks great, but in the closeup shots you can see the pretty strong layer lines. This appears to have been filament-printed, and little effort seems to have been made to smooth out a lot of it. But as a prototype, it’s fantastic.

 

It’s also interesting to point out that with 6 years worth of Star Trek to choose from, the stuff people *really* seem to like, to the point they’ll spend time, money and effort on, is the TOS and TNG stuff. A similar coffee table using the 1701D bridge? I can definitely see it. Ops from DS9? Meh. Bridges of NX-01 or Voyager? *Maaaaybe.* Kelvinverse Enterprise bridge? Unlikely. STD or SNW bridges? Literally no.

A lot of that is because the TOS and TNG designs were brilliant, while the later ones have been kinda bleh. But also, TOS and TNG are beloved. The shows themselves inspire interest in the designs. nuTrek inspire little more than dismay and fatigue.

I’d be interested to see a kickstarter for a production run of these, with the layer issues dealt with. Pretty sure it’d be far beyond my means, but I’d wish ’em well.

 Posted by at 4:33 pm
Jan 262024
 

Styropyro takes a an off the shelf 2 kilowatt fiber laser welder/rust remover and makes it a long range laser sniper weapon. There are a  number of issues… the mount is rickety and there’s no scope, primarily. But it’s remarkably capable, burning holes relatively quickly through steel plate and cinderblocks.

 

This would seem to indicate that a refined version with a better mount, better aim and a much faster reaction time/slew rate would serve as a dandy anti-drone system, easily mounted to something like a Hummer, small truck or as an add-on to armored vehicles. If one kid out in the boonies can do this on a YouTuber budget, I’m left to wonder why the Russian military *hasn’t* done it on a large scale.

 

 Posted by at 7:41 pm
Dec 182023
 

Movie and TV remakes are often garbage. But covers of songs? Sometimes the remake is a triumph. Some examples:

 

“My Body Is A Cage” by Arcade Fire, then covered by Peter Gabriel.

“Smooth Criminal” by Michael Jackson… then perfected by Alien Ant Farm.

 

“Hurt” by Nine Inch Nails. It was good… but what Johnny Cash did with it is astonishing.

 

“Tainted Love” by Gloria Jones from 1964 was utterly eclipsed by “Soft Cell’s” 1981 cover.

 

Cylon and Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence” is peak 60’s pretentiousness. But Disturbed’s remake kicks substantial ass.

 

David Bowie’s “Heroes” is OK. Peter Gabriels’ cover gives it emotional depth wholly lacking in the original.

 

And… what the heck. “All Along The Watchtower” by Bob Dyna was meh, the Jimi Hendrix cover was pretty good, but Bear McCreary reworked it into the best season-ending cliffhanger music ever.

 

 

 

 Posted by at 4:03 am
Dec 022023
 

On one hand, the utility of this ad for selling Chevy’s seems limited. After all, it doesn’t tell you much about how they perform or what they cost, though there is the suggestion that they can last a long time. On the other hand, the nature of the ad is such that people will be talking about it (and they are), and any publicity is good publicity. On that latter score it’s a remarkably effective ad, very effectively mastering the “holiday tearjerker” trope. If this *doesn’t* work you up a little, I can only assume that “Jurassic Bark” left you unmoved and the Iron Giant’s final “Suuupermannn” was met with a shrug.

 

 Posted by at 4:31 pm
Nov 212023
 

Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song “Born in the USA” is famous not only for having been incredibly popular, bit for being “misunderstood.” Springsteen’s intent, as is pretty clear by a straight reading of the lyrics, is to tell the tale not just of a Viet Nam vet (the US was barely a decade out from that expensive but successful war and incredibly unsuccessful peace), but of a nation in disrepair. But it was grabbed onto by the political right – such as President Ronald Reagan – as a a rah-rah USA USA USA song to rally around. Then as now, leftists explain this as Republicans & conservatives being “media illiterate” or simply dumb. But is that really the case? Consider my own experience.

When it came out I was a dumbass early teenager with no particular political leanings. Yet I also saw the song as pro-USA, and I loved the hell out of it. And, yes, I listened to and understood the lyrics, and saw the darkness therein. But I – and I suspect a whole lot of other people – simply interpreted them differently from the intention of Springsteen. Yes, the lyrics reference the dire economic situation faced by *many* people at the time, coming out of the OPEC oil embargoes and Carters economic flailings and the collapse of the Apollo program and all the rest. But here’s the thing: two people can look at the same thing and see very different results… same screen, different movies.

Everybody in the US in the early 80’s knew that things sucked. You could hardly experience Carter and inflation and stagflation and Iran and the Soviets and the collapse of the iron, auto, farming and a bunch of other industries and not notice it. But there are two ways to deal with “things suck:” despair and determination. And thus we had two different approaches to understanding the song:

Leftists: “Things suck in the USA, therefore the USA sucks.”

Rightists: “Things suck in the USA right now. But we’ll fix it.”

In 1984, things sucked. But they didn’t suck quite as bad as they had a few years before, and things were clearly improving. Those in the middle and on the right saw this, and interpreted “Born in the USA” in that light.

And we got this for the 1984 Presidential campaign:

Essentially, “Born in the USA” was a negative ad against the US that got turned into a positive ad for the US. And that irritated the hell out of a lot of lefties who wanted to wallow in despair… and wanted everyone else to do the same.  Turning it into a nationalistic anthem was a giant middle finger to the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Positivity and optimism can do wonders in an election, and in society. “I Like Ike,” JFK’s “Camelot,” “Morning in America,” “Make America Great Again,” etc. Turning a negative into a positive is a sign you’re on the right road.

 Posted by at 11:44 pm