tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-322627792024-03-12T21:13:59.090-07:00Chiron Bramberger's BlogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-87515241175173588062010-09-01T21:03:00.000-07:002010-09-01T21:31:02.072-07:00Gravity Is Dead - How Gravity is Just a Side-Effect of the Expansion of the Universe<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;">My Ideas on Gravity - by: Chiron Bramberger</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Gravity is dead. There is no gravity. Since Newton we've been all wrong. Gravity is not a force. It doesn't exist. It's just an illusion; a fake; a side-effect; an emergent property of another process. We've been had.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>The following is an informal discussion of my collection of ideas on gravity and how I think it works. </div><div><br /></div><div>Before going into the ideas, it's important to outline certain observations about gravity and the universe.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkings and others, have given us many pictures of gravity. Gravity describes that objects warp space-time such that they accelerate towards each other. More specifically, the following lists what we think and know about gravity:</div><div><br /></div><div>- Objects accelerate towards each other</div><div><br /></div><div>- Without an external frame of reference, a person in spaceship accelerating through space wouldn't know if they were in the presence of a gradational field, for example if the box were sitting on the surface of the Earth, or actually accelerating</div><div><br /></div><div>- Time appears to go by at a different rate in a gravitational field than outside of it. For example, orbiting a black-hole in a spaceship would be like travelling into the future, thus time would appear to move more quickly if you were to observe something far away from the black-hole. </div><div><br /></div><div>- Gravity works over great distances, seemly instantly or at least the speed of light, without being blocked by any confirmed known substance of method. For example, nobody has created a gravity shield that blocks the effects of gravity.</div><div><br /></div><div>- Gravity has been hypothesized to work via waves or particles, yet neither gravity particles have been discovered, nor have gravity waves been directly measured, although they have been measured indirectly.</div><div><br /></div><div>- Although there are various hypothesized methods for which gravity may work at the quantum level, there isn't definitive quantum model for gravity. In fact, gravity and quantum mechanics have a history of not getting along together. </div><div><br /></div><div>- Light is bent by gravity. </div><div><br /></div><div>- The universe is expanding. </div><div><br /></div><div>- The speed limit of the universe is the speed of light. </div><div><br /></div><div>- Time slows down when travelling at near the speed of light, similar to that in the presence of a gravitational field.</div><div><br /></div><div>Going into detail on the above points is outside the scope of this discussion. </div><div><br /></div><div>-----</div><div><br /></div><div>The main idea in my vision of gravity is that gravity is simply an emergent side-effect of the expansion of the universe, and that there is no real gravity in this sense. I think that there may be something like waves in space-time caused by gravity, but that there is no real gravity that is made of waves or particles.</div><div><br /></div><div>With the expansion of the universe, I think of the universe like a sheet of material, such as a piece of plastic wrap. As plastic wrap expands, it gets stretched. Like the skin on a drum. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think that masses grip space-time such that prevent the expansion of the universe, or using the above analogy, the stretching of the universe is reduced when compared to the rest of the plastic. Like a piece of tape stuck to a piece of plastic wrap, the tape keeps the stretching from taking place evenly, and the unevenness creates areas where near the tape the tightness is reduced. However, unlike a piece of tape on plastic wrap, in space masses can move. I believe they move through the universe without releasing their grip on the space-time around them. </div><div><br /></div><div>If there were a single object in an expanding universe like I describe, then there wouldn't be any gravity to readily observe. However, when there are two objects in an expanding universe, they each grip the space-time changing it's "tightness", such that there is a pocket of "looser" space-time between them. Since objects can move without releasing this grip on space-time, the objects experience a "tightness" or "pressure" of sorts all around them, effectively pushing them towards the pocket of "looser" space-time between them. </div><div><br /></div><div>This idea of space-time having a density goes along with the Einstein view of gravity, but in this model the density or "tightness" is the result of the competing expansion of the universe verses the pockets of more slowly expanding universe between the masses. </div><div><br /></div><div>Here are some pictures of plastic-wrap and circles of duct-tape to illustrate the effect describing a moment in a 3D universe, as projected onto the 2D universe of the plastic wrap. The silver grid acts as a reference to the "stretching" of the universe. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OwuE8g9p7zI/TH8jCrtJ2EI/AAAAAAAAAEI/-F0IpCVknhY/s320/IMG_4570.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512162997923600450" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px; " /></div><div><br /></div><div><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OwuE8g9p7zI/TH8jkCqyM3I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/r7F-LvzBPMI/s320/IMG_4571.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512163571023360882" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px; color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; " /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div>(pictures of before and after we expand our plastic wrap model of space-time and it's duct-tape masses)</div><div><br /></div><div>This would explain how gravity works over large distances while being unaffected or blocked by anything. These pockets of "looser" space-time form between all objects, and their formation would instantly affect the "tightness" of both nearby space-time as well as the entire universe. Even distant object would create a sightly less "tight" pocket of space-time between them, and as the universe expand, the surrounding universe is "tighter", and the pocket is "looser", thus the objects are "pushed" by the differing "pressures" of space-time between them. The objects would have nowhere else to go but to be "pushed" by this "pressure" into the pocket. The pocket would then be smaller and the pocket would have more "looseness" than before since the space between the objects would be smaller, all while the universe expands more increasing the "pressure" and increasing the overall effect and hence the acceleration. </div><div><br /></div><div>This would also explain why time seems to run differently in a gravitational field. An object near a massive object would be in a "loose" pocket and therefore as it travels it is moving through more dense space-time as compared to a tighter area of the universe where the expansion would be proceeding unabated. As you move through a "thicker" or "looser" area of space-time, you travel across a greater distance of space and time, therefore, compared to another observer, you seem to be moving through time as well as space, more than they are, and thus it appears they are travelling forward in time, compared to us. </div><div><br /></div><div>If we look at the weird things that we observe with gravity, we can try to explain these observation with these ideas.</div><div><br /></div><div>"- Objects accelerate towards each other"</div><div><br /></div><div>As the universe expands, massive objects create pockets between them which act to shield the pocket from the expansion of the universe. But because the objects can move while keeping their grip on space-time, they are eventually "pushed" or "sucked" into the "looser" pocket of space-time by all the more "dense" or "bunched up" and "stretched" areas around it. This "bunched-up-space-time" "differential" creates these interactions that the object are both pushed and fall into each other.</div><div><br /></div><div>"- Without an external frame of reference, a person in spaceship accelerating through space wouldn't know if they were in the presence of a gradational field, for example if the box were sitting on the surface of the Earth, or actually accelerating"</div><div><br /></div><div>When we are standing in an elevator, we can't tell if it's acceleration through space, or sitting on the ground. Using these ideas, we can see that even sitting on the ground, we are accelerating. The universe is stretching, and pushing down and out from under our feet so-to-speak, the effect is the same as accelerating, only it's the energy of the acceleration of the universe and the differential in space-time "squeezing" down on us that creates the same conditions that looks and feel like acceleration.</div><div><br /></div><div>"- Time appears to go by at a different rate in a gravitational field than outside of it. For example, orbiting a black-hole in a spaceship would be like travelling into the future, thus time would appear to move more quickly if you were to observe something far away from the black-hole."</div><div><br /></div><div>As we travel though a region of space near a large body, like a sun or black-hole, we are traveling through more "dense" or "thick" or "bunched up" space-time and therefore appear to be moving through time more quickly. </div><div><br /></div><div>"- Gravity works over great distances, seemly instantly or at least the speed of light, without being blocked by any confirmed known substance of method. For example, nobody has created a gravity shield that blocks the effects of gravity."</div><div><br /></div><div>When objects move through space, they exert their influence of the "bunched-upness" of space-time, without releasing the "bunched-upness". The reason objects' gravity work quickly over large distances is because all the points between the two objects "stretch" or "release" their "tension" at the same time. The effect is not instant, which is why we can indirectly observe gravity wave-like effects, but the waves aren't actually carrying the force, like for example the way light waves are both waves and carry the force of the light energy within them. </div><div><br /></div><div>"- Gravity has been hypothesized to work via waves or particles, yet neither gravity particles have been discovered, nor have gravity waves been directly measured, although they have been measured indirectly."</div><div><br /></div><div>Gravity doesn't actually exist, therefore we'll never find gravity particles or waves like we do for light. Gravity, as we know it, is just a side-effect of the interaction of masses on warping space-time and the energy of the expansion of the universe. </div><div><br /></div><div>" - Although there are various hypothesized methods for which gravity may work at the quantum level, there isn't definitive quantum model for gravity. In fact, gravity and quantum mechanics have a history of not getting along together. "</div><div><br /></div><div>There isn't a quantum model of gravity that really feels right, because there is no gravity - it's just a side effect. The quantum model that would work would be a model that explains how masses effects space-time. I suspect that space-time, when compressed to be dense enough, actually becomes or converts into matter. Just like matter and energy are related and interchangeable, I think space-time and matter-energy are interchangeable. In this sense, masses moving through space-time are like icebergs moving through the ocean. They are both water, just in different forms. A quantum model of how matter, energy, space, and time actually convert between these forms would explain how the energy of the expansion of the universe, as imparted through the big bang, is converted into space-time, and how mass is converted into space-time, and how the conversion works, perhaps through the squeezing we think of as gravity. Once we understand that, we'll understand how this weird side-effect of gravity takes place. </div><div><br /></div><div>"- Light is bent by gravity. "</div><div><br /></div><div>As light travels through space-time, masses creates loose pockets, and as light travels through the pockets, it is bent because inside the pocket the same apparent distance is full of more space-time and therefore contains more time, so the light is moving through "denser" space-time and, just like light passing through glass into air or another liquid, the different "densities" cause part of the bean to slow down vs. the other part, and change the course of the beam of light. But also, light having it's own particles, creates and fall into the pockets of other masses, but like any other masses in the universe. Nothing really changes here other than how we think about gravity.</div><div><br /></div><div>" - The universe is expanding. "</div><div><br /></div><div>The big bang an explosion of energy. Whatever this stuff originally was, I think matter, space, energy, and time all comes from this base. As the universe expands, parts of the universe eventually turn into matter, and the matter start creating pockets and, as above, we have what looks like gravity. The engine of gravity drives everything else in the universe, through condensing into stars, which then create other elements, release other energies, etc. Therefore, gravity isn't the engine that creates everything in the universe, the expansion of the universe is the energy of the universe from the big bang, and that energy drives and is converted into matter and everything else. This looks like gravity, but it's just a process, not a force onto itself. The big bang creates everything, and gravity is just a description of a part of that process. </div><div><br /></div><div>"- The speed limit of the universe is the speed of light. "</div><div><br /></div><div>If the expanding universe drives what we think of as gravity, then the speed of light is probably related to the speed or the amount of energy needed to outrun the universe. But you can't outrun the universe, because you'd have to leave the universe and can't get outside of the universe. I think that speed of light is related to the speed of the expansion of the universe, such that nothing ever gets enough energy to outrun the universe itself, because that would require all the energy that exists inside the universe itself. So we can never leave the universe. It is the stuff, the power, and the container and the clock, all in one. The speed of light is the only way the universe can exist and be stable without any given process having the ability to use up all the energy in the expanding universe in trying to outrun the expansion. </div><div><br /></div><div>-----</div><div><br /></div><div>One implication of these ideas is that if the expansion of the universe were to stop, gravity would appear to change instantly throughout the universe. My gut feeling is that gravity would seem to disappear altogether, or more likely, gravity will change from being an acceleration to a simple velocity. The differences between masses would still create pockets, but without the expanding universe around it pouring energy into it, I think that objects would appear to fall at a constant rate instead of an exponential rate. This would probably complicate things for everyone, if all the stars in the universe don't all explode at the same time. </div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, I believe that it will be possible to manipulate what we think of a gravity. I'm really not sure how it would work, but my guess and gut feeling is that space-time is probably like non-Newtonian fluids. If we can find a way to create a tiny pocket of expanding universe, even if only for a moment, inside a large loose pocket (inside what we think of today as a gravitational field) then I think if we switch on and off this tiny pocket of expanded universe, it will "appear" to other objects in the universe like a "tighter" area of the universe, without actually needing to constantly expand, and hopefully disrupt or even shield the effects of "gravity" nearby. The effect would probably not work over large distances and probably be a very local phenomenon. So my very big guess is that a very large and powerful oscillating electromagnetic field at the right energy levels and frequency should simulate a "tight" pocket of universe and create what we would think of as a gravity shield. These non-Newtonian fluid-looking standing wave patterns would "tighten up" an area in the pocket and appear to everything else like the rest of the "tight" expanding universe. This would have the effect of appearing to block the sliding of masses further into the "pocket" and look just like a "gravity shield" of some sort. I think that manipulating the universe to appear `just like the expansion of the universe is the key to manipulating gravity.</div><div><br /></div><div>-----</div><div><br /></div><div>It is important to note that I am not a professional physicist nor am I even remotely well practised in the mathematics required to engage in a certain level of discussion in this area. However, after my own research, it is clear that these ideas are new and possibly interesting enough to openly share. It is in the spirit of sharing that I write this. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you are well versed formally in physics and mathematics, and are interested in working with me, I've love to hear from you. Maybe together we could actually try to put some real work into these ideas and create the foundations for a new working model of gravity… or at least have a lot of fun trying. </div><div><br /></div><div>Get in touch. Leave comments below, visit my website <a href="http://www.chironbramberger.com/">www.chironbramberger.com</a> or email me: chiron (at) bramberger (dot) com. Thanks!</div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-53687662504010903012009-10-16T21:58:00.000-07:002009-10-16T22:14:04.540-07:00I Justed Launched the open-source PetSynth.org and I've already got picked up by 3 websites!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://petsynth.org/"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://petsynth.org/_Media/pet_running_petsynth-3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>In just these last few days I launched <a href="http://petsynth.org/">PetSynth.org</a>, to share with the world the program I banged out, that turns your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET">Commodore PET</a> into a playable synth. It's open-source (<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html">GPL v2</a>) and runs on a stock PET computer without any modifications. <div><br /></div><div>The wonderful people at <a href="http://www.retrothing.com/2009/10/commodore-petsynth-hardcore-chiptunes.html#comments">Retrothing.com picked it up</a>, and said it's "surprisingly good considering the hardware limitations..." as well as "...I fear the potential audience for PetSynth is constrained by the number of functional Commodore PETs lurking in attics and basements. Of course, that just makes it cooler."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>:)</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, the terrific people at <a href="http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/search?q=petsynth">MatrixSynth picked it up</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>As well, the great people at <a href="http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/10/16/petsynth-turns-commodore-pet-computer-into-a-synthesizer/">Synthopia also picked it up</a>, saying "It’s starting to look like old 8-bit computers are the new Roland TB-303."</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm excited at all the wonderful attention, and I look forward to hearing from anyone who tries it out, or decided to actually dive into my messy punk-rock source code. </div><div><br /></div><div>Woot!</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-8184444123436837372009-10-15T17:36:00.000-07:002009-10-15T18:57:29.702-07:00The Original Tiny living room inside a PC<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/267402108_7dcaa7780b.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 375px;" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/267402108_7dcaa7780b.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I took some pictures back in 2006 that have been getting a lot of internet attention lately!</div></div><div><br /></div><div>You can find the originals here on Flickr:</div><div><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/267402360/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/267402360/</a></div><div><br /></div><div>They've been posted and re-posted to several sites, but apparently most of them don't know who originally took them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, it was me, the original author and photographer, Chiron Bramberger! I took the living room inside a PC pictures that were posted to modding.ru, as well as the other PC case mod sites! </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe I should take some more :)</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2338.html">http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2338.html</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/12/worlds-cutest-pint-sized-living-room-sets-up-shop-in-a-pc-case/">http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/12/worlds-cutest-pint-sized-living-room-sets-up-shop-in-a-pc-case/</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://dvice.com/archives/2009/10/tiny-cozy-livin.php">http://dvice.com/archives/2009/10/tiny-cozy-livin.php</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://forum.modding.ru/viewtopic.php?t=31539">http://forum.modding.ru/viewtopic.php?t=31539</a></div><div>(translated)</div><div><a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.modding.ru%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D31539&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=">http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.modding.ru%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D31539&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://freshome.com/2009/10/09/cute-tiny-living-room-inside-a-pc/comment-page-1/#comment-79030">http://freshome.com/2009/10/09/cute-tiny-living-room-inside-a-pc/comment-page-1/#comment-79030</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://technabob.com/blog/2009/10/02/tiny-living-room-pc-casemod/comment-page-1/#comment-29785">http://technabob.com/blog/2009/10/02/tiny-living-room-pc-casemod/comment-page-1/#comment-29785</a></div><div><br /></div><div>The Gizmodo.com article has had 57,000 or so views!!!</div><div><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5373393/russian-casemod-freak-builds-a-miniature-living-room-inside-his-pc">http://gizmodo.com/5373393/russian-casemod-freak-builds-a-miniature-living-room-inside-his-pc</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://nmy.tumblr.com/post/203167776/tiny-living-room-makes-its-way-inside-pc-casemod">http://nmy.tumblr.com/post/203167776/tiny-living-room-makes-its-way-inside-pc-casemod</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Also, I'm not Russian! I'm Canadian! Oh those Russians!</div><div><br /></div><div>Special thanks to Todor Delev who got the ball rolling at techpowerup.com and who's kept me updating on all the blogging and re-blogging! Thanks!</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-30859387229365475522009-10-02T17:48:00.000-07:002009-10-02T17:53:25.409-07:00New Music WebsiteI've been making music with old computers and video games for a while now, but I haven't put anything up. Well, today I start. <div><br /></div><div>Broken Happiness Machines</div><div>http://www.brokenhappinessmachines.com/</div><div><br /></div><div>I've got <a href="http://www.brokenhappinessmachines.com/music/">a short demo track up</a>, but I'll be adding to it in the future. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is the original project that <a href="http://www.flytrapgear.com/">Flytrap Gear</a> grew out of. </div><div><br /></div><div>:)</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, as an aside, the graphics were made in <a href="http://sketchup.google.com/">Google Sketchup</a>. It's great and free!</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-5532484118910792802009-09-29T11:06:00.001-07:002009-09-29T11:06:14.055-07:00networked printer FAIL!<div style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3965986501/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3965986501_e153143e26_t.jpg" alt="networked_printer_FAIL" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3965986501/">networked_printer_FAIL</a>,<br /> originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/chironbramberger/">chironbramberger</a>.</span></div>HP makes great stuff. Honestly, I've been impressed lately. Also, HP makes new ink cartridges out of old ones. So right on for HP being actually green (and not just greenwashing). <br /><br />However... my printer, which was great, was also hit with a power surge I think. There was a recent storm. Anywhoo.....<br /><br />Take a look at the picture, and tell me what's wrong with it? It'll take a second or two. Think of it as an IQ test or sorts in problem identification, Personally, it took me far too long to realize it. :)<br clear="all" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-51979363976394297032009-07-09T14:31:00.001-07:002009-07-09T14:31:30.673-07:00Walking-out on the web<div style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3704680451/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3704680451_ba20989f9f_t.jpg" alt="Walking-out on the web" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3704680451/">Walking-out on the web</a>,<br /> originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/chironbramberger/">chironbramberger</a>.</span></div>You know those web pages where someone walks out and talks to you?<br /><br />I totally did it. I was worried it wouldn't work, but I setup a little green screen movie studio set in my house, and did a bunch of work, and I did it.<br /><br />I've got a quick little demo on my homepage now:<br /><br /><a href="http://chironbramberger.com/">http://chironbramberger.com/</a><br /><br />Hit refresh to see me run out again!<br /><br />So yeah, it's a lot of manual work, and getting the lighting right is really hard, and it would need a boom mic done properly to get good sound, but with some elbow grease, and hard work, it lives!<br clear="all" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-53656864926903406422009-04-08T02:12:00.000-07:002009-04-08T03:31:23.197-07:00Flytrap Gear<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.flytrapgear.com/"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 148px; height: 272px;" src="http://www.flytrapgear.com/Site/Flytrap%20Gear_files/droppedImage.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Check out the guitar pedal I made!<div><br /></div><div>Okay, I'm excited to share, but it's been almost a year since I first sacrificed an old computer upon the alter of the God's of Rock and created a guitar effects pedal. That's right, it's made almost completely from parts recycled from an old computer. </div><div><br /></div><div>Not only does it work with guitars, but synthesizers, old computers and old video games. I've got a samples of some Commodore 64 being processed by it.</div><div><br /></div><div>You can check it all out here:</div><div><a href="http://www.flytrapgear.com/">www.FlytrapGear.com</a></div><div><br /></div><div>It's also made from high-gloss plastic. The graphics are not screen printed either - they are hand transfered and then hand painted by me without any special tools. Since the graphics are on the inside, you can't scratch them off! If you do scratch it, you just need to buff and polish it up - good as new!</div><div><br /></div><div>I've recently re-designed the electronics for better noise performance and durability. This means it's less susceptible to noise from nearby computers and wireless routers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like the first one, it also has a Sizzle switch which turns on the circuity to help noise gate some of the background noise in the signal. It also adds a light fuzzy effect and some nice overtones as well. This makes the old Commodore 64 sound like it's been glam'ed up with an edgy drive. </div><div><br /></div><div>It also is designed to work with an internal rechargeable battery that's externally charged, like a laptop, without having to open it up. It also uses so little power that you'd need to charge it once every six months or more, depending on how much you use it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I'd love to hear what you think!</div><div><br /></div><div>Cheers!</div><div>-Chi</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-25355968121775890372009-01-24T19:35:00.001-08:002009-01-24T19:35:18.754-08:00Apple Mighty Mouse - 2 Second Fix!<div style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3224502278/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3224502278_bb8f6c8c2b_t.jpg" alt="Apple Mighty Mouse - 2 second fix!" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3224502278/">Apple Mighty Mouse - 2 second fix!</a>,<br /> originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/chironbramberger/">chironbramberger</a>.</span></div>My Apple Might Mouse wasn't working properly; the scroll ball wasn't scrolling down anymore. It would scroll up, left and right, but not down. Both on a Mac and Windows machine. <br /><br />I could have spent an hour or more taking it apart. I even found a guide here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/technology/watch/v378809PrA5a3pg">veoh.com - Taking apart an Apple Might Mouse</a><br /><br />However, I've taken a part an Apple IIgs, PIsmo, PowerBook, and MacBook, and iPod mini, as well as various keyboard, and in both the best of worst sense of the term, Apple engineers to the edge. <br /><br />I've fixed all the above, however, there are so many little tags, clips, slots, special shallow screws, and other things in hard to reach places. It's all too easy to scratch or bend things during the process. It's impressive, but neither fast nor fun much of the time. <br /><br />After watching the guide above, which does do a decent job by-the-way, I had an idea. What about my new favorite cleaner?<br /><br />Deoxit FaderLube!<br /><br />I tired dripping a tiny little bit right onto the ball, wiped it several times with a cloth to get out any extra fluid... <br /><br />..and it works as good as new!!!<br /><br />It took longer to blog about this than to fix it!<br clear="all" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-43586140595376853642009-01-23T15:29:00.001-08:002009-01-23T15:33:36.132-08:00Rocking the PICAXE!<div style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3221400614/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/3221400614_4f0b6fb756_t.jpg" alt="PICAXE!" /></a><br /><span style="margin-top: 0px;font-size:0;" ><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3221400614/">PICAXE!</a>,<br />originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/chironbramberger/">chironbramberger</a>.</span></div>I recently received a bunch of little PICAXE chips to work with, and after downloading the software, building an easy cable and an easy circuit, I'm off and away!<br /><br />I was surprised at how well everything seems put together. The chips are even internally coupled so you don't have to worry about the dreaded ESD getting you! They also have a visual flow-chart programming mode with is also really great in educational environments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/">http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/</a><br /><br /><object height="295" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w3LHkCm6rXE&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w3LHkCm6rXE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="295" width="480"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-33638753630667892922008-12-31T14:22:00.001-08:002008-12-31T14:22:33.141-08:00CPU Cores - Removing without Fire<div style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/2697674367/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/2697674367_a7758dbe09_t.jpg" alt="Blue CPU Core with Droplet - Wallpaper 1440x900" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/2697674367/">Blue CPU Core with Droplet - Wallpaper 1440x900</a>,<br /> originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/chironbramberger/">chironbramberger</a>.</span></div>This picture is of a Pentium Classic CPU core I removed from it's ceramic packaging. <br /><br />Here's how I did it. I put the CPU in a vice very carefully and used a fresh, sharp razor blade and hammered it to cleave off all the pins. This looks nice, but it messy to clean up. However, it's needed for the next step. <br /><br />I then took the razor blade and hammered it between the gold plate covering the bottom of the CPU and the ceramic it's glued it. If you're very careful, you can do this without harming the CPU core inside. <br /><br />Once that's off you've got a nicely exposed core. However, it's still attached to the ceramic behind the CPU. <br /><br />I wish I could tell you how it did it, but I can't. It just popped off one day. Since the ceramic was cracked and smashed behind it, there was a tiny bit of core exposed. I guess that was all that was needed. Perhaps I'll get a boatload more someday and try to see how to pop out the core without cracking or annihilating it. <br /><br />For now, just having a collection of 386, 486, and 586 core's exposed is great!<br /><br />Also, the Flickr to Google blogger tool works well, as I used it to make this post. But you probably knew that.<br clear="all" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-20440210867015569152008-12-31T13:36:00.000-08:002008-12-31T14:09:11.016-08:00DeoxIT FaderLube - Really Works!For years I've been fixing and trying to fix lots of everything. I'm that guy that people bring their broken stuff to. <br /><br />However, there's one thing I never could get quite right. Volume controls, and other pot (potentiometer) based controls. I'd manage to get the crackle out, but if always came back within a short while. I'd even take the entire pot apart, clean each piece manually, and put it all back together. But even then, it was never quite right. <br /><br />I tried WW-40 but that's stinky and yucky and generally not the best idea. I'd try 99% Isopropyl alcohol and that would work for a while, but generally not long. I even went to Radio Shack and got their "Tuner Cleaner" or whatever it's called (they also have a "Contact Cleaner") but that never seemed to do the trick either. In fact, it left a greezy film on the board, which was almost unavoidable since the spray can would go off like a rocket and hose down just about everything in the immediate area of the room (walls, floors, your face, whatever). <br /><br />I even tried a few electronics cleaners from Canadian Tire, but without any better results. Everything barely worked. <br /><br />For a while, before playing a game of Super Breakout on the Atari VCS, I'd take the big knob off and drop a few dips of alcohol into it, which would last only as long as the game. Plus, since my cleaning process removed the original lubrication of the pot, it would turn as smoothly. You can see the effect of all this while playing the game, the player paddle at the bottom of the screen would wiggle and wobble and generally react jerky and poorly during gameplay. <br /><br />I've been reading a lot of online forums and blogs and whatnot, when I finally started reading about the DeoxIT line of products. They seemed great, and I finally managed to get my hands on some. <br /><br />It's truly and wonderfully great. It's exactly right. It cleans and lubricates and lasts. You can see the difference in the video game controllers onscreen, and you can hear the difference in the volume controls. It's amazing. When compared to all the other crap I used, it simply kicks everything else in the butt. It's as great as everyone on the internet says it is. It lives up to the hype. I wish I had this stuff years ago. I want to treat everything in the house I have with it. It's really that great. <br /><br />Here's a picture of the stuff I've used it on so far with great results.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3154779994/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/3154779994_4666ce99c6_m.jpg" border="0"> </a><br /><br />I fixed a flaky Atari joystick, Atari paddles, and guitar plugs, pots and switches so far. <br /><br />Plus, the spray nozzle at the top has a selector for how hard you want the spray to come out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3154780724/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/3154780724_cde5221a53_m.jpg" border="0"><br /></a><br /><br />This is a great feature, since I figure I waste about %50 of and entire bottle of the old junk I used just because it hosed down everything in sight with one burst. <br /><br />If you really want to make it last without wasting it, you can try what I like. I get an old bottle of eye drops, nasal spray (remove the hose inside to keep it from spraying up), or whatever small bottle that will let you drip it out, clean it and carefully fill it from the spray can. Now you can use a few drops when you need to, and wash out a pot in a hard to reach spot with the can if needed, and minimize waste. What's good for the environment is usually good for your wallet. <br /><br />I wasn't paid to promote this. I believe it's a great product and it helps restore and repair electronics so you can lengthen their life and stretch your dollar. <br /><br />Having said that, it's not cheap. You can order a diluted solution F5 can like mine from their website. <br /><br /><a href="http://store.caig.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.293/.f">DeoxIT FaderLube at Caig.com</a><br /><br />They also have 100% pure stuff in a tiny tube and squeeze bottle. It's actual pure lubricant and drips out thick and slow like honey. <br /><br />It's great. Gets the crackle out. Honestly wonderful stuff.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-19289519603671074982008-12-30T20:27:00.001-08:002008-12-30T20:36:00.818-08:00iPod Mini Repearing - Soldering an SMD connector on a ribbon cableI recently tried fixing an iPod Mini. It's not entirely simple. The hard part is getting the unit apart. There's two main pieces that go in when the manufacture the device. The first is the main board with battery and screen. The second is the thumb wheel keypad. They must first slide that in, then the main board, then finally connect the two.<br /><br />The problem is, the connector is a very tiny surface mount device on a ribbon connector, so when you try to unplug it, since you can't get a screwdriver in there, you end up ripping the flat ribbon wire away from connector while it's still plugged in.<br /><br />I've dealt with this kind of thing before, and since it happened again I came up with another way of fixing it which I'd thought I'd share for anyone who might be interested.<br /><br />In the first picture you see the leg of the connector separated from the ribbon wire.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3151929845/"><img alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3151929845_9b47e69407_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The second leg ended up getting pulled off the plastic ribbon as well, but the trace was still connected to the leg so it's fine. I used a little super glue (crazy glue) to try and keep things together a bit better. I was afraid I might end up insulating the wire but that didn't end up being an issue.<br /><br />I tired some rear window defroster paint to connect the leg to the trace, but it didn't have any grip on anything so it wasn't an option.<br /><br />Here's what I did. Since I haven't yet Dremeled a fine point on my soldering iron tip for SMD work, I didn't want to use the soldering iron. Based on past experience, I've noticed that it's too easy to overheat the ribbon connector and melting the whole thing.<br /><br />Step 1 - I used a pair of pliers to hold the part down. I didn't want to use my vice as it would probably scratch or break the part.<br /><br />Step 2 - I wrapped copper wire around some tweezers and make coil in the middle of the wire coming off of the end of the tweezers.<br /><br />Step 3 - I then cut a tiny piece of solder and placed it carefully beside the leg of the connector.<br /><br />Here's a picture of solder piece.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3152765504/"><img alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3152765504_f736194785_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Step 4 - I used a butane mini-soldering torch to heat the copper wire coil until it and the end of the wire was red hot.<br /><br />Step 5 - I placed the tip of the hot wire against the piece of solder and leg until it melted and fused with the leg and ribbon trace.<br /><br />Step 6 - Pulled away as soon as the solder was flowing.<br /><br />Here's a picture of the setup, complete with glowing hot copper wire.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3151933449/"><img alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/3151933449_bba4997c12_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />And here's a picture of the result.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3152848388/"><img alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/3152848388_70f7b1f521_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Now, why would someone want to do this instead of another solution? Well, I noticed that the copper wire at the tip cools down very quickly, so it's harder to over heat the ribbon. Since the tip isn't a fine point narrowing from a larger shaft, there also probably isn't a large amount of heat coming off the rest of a soldering iron.<br /><br />I also believe that, while heated the copper wire gets **much** hotter than the soldering iron. So, you've got the ability to heat a tiny part up to a very high temperature, in a very tiny area, with the ability to pull away and let it cool down fairly quickly as well, which gets the solder flowing, but then lets you stop things before they get too hot.<br /><br />Here's the final part, repaired and plugged into the iPod Mini.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/3152767850/"><img alt="" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/3152767850_a0a56755fb_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />So, if you rip this sucker apart, maybe this might help. Although you just can't beat a temperature controlled and finely tipped soldering iron for SMD work.<br /><br />:)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-65414710166539725692008-06-30T11:18:00.001-07:002008-06-30T11:18:05.124-07:00Comparing Mac2Sell with a real life eBay auctionI recently came across a site that apparently tells you how much your used Apple Mac computer is worth:<br> <br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mac2sell.net/">http://www.mac2sell.net/</a><br> <br> However, rather than taking it at face value, I instead did an <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ebay.ca">http://www.ebay.ca</a> search and found a recently ending Mac laptop for sale in Canada. <br> <br> Here are the details of the auction:<br> <br> MacBook Pro 1.83GHz 15" screen 2GB RAM 80GB HDD Intel Core Duo MA463LL/A<br> Item Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada<br> 26 bids<br> Winning bid: $1,147.56 CAD<br> Shipping to Canada: $35.64 CAD<br> Total: $1,183.20 CAD<br> <br> Here are the results of a <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.mac2sell.net">www.mac2sell.net</a> search:<br> MacBook Pro 15 inch Intel Core Duo 1.83 GHz 2048 / 80 GB / superdrive<br> The Mac2Sell Quoted Value is<br> Total: $1,190.00 CAD <br> <br> Difference: 99.43%<br> <br> Although taking only one sample isn't exactly science, after doing a few other searches I found that the site is good at giving back numbers I'd be expecting. It seems pretty much bang on to me. <br> <br> So the next time you want to pickup a Mac computer on ebay, instead of getting caught up in a bidding war and maybe paying too much, you could simply do a Mac2Sell search and set that as your maximum bid and see what happens. Worst case, you know you haven't overpaid in the heat of bidding. <br> <br> Or if it's <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.craigslist.org">http://www.craigslist.org</a> you're searching, now you've got a great reference tool for both buying and selling.<br> <br> Cool.<br> <br> <br> <br> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-953366651099309652008-06-03T02:28:00.000-07:002008-06-03T15:37:23.094-07:00Time Machine ready to rollAfter watching this YouTube video,<br> <br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q&NR=1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q&NR=1</a><br> <br> I have proceeded to build my own time machine, and I have switched it one and already have my emails from the future. <br> <br> It turns out that, in the future, gas prices are still high, and people are still douchbags.<br> <br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/05/27/ot-gas-080527.html">http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/05/27/ot-gas-080527.html</a><br> <br> Also, no space cards yet. <br> <br> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.glumbert.com/media/spacecar">http://www.glumbert.com/media/spacecar</a><br> <br> Damn.<br> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-28083695816565031072008-04-27T03:14:00.000-07:002008-04-27T03:28:25.606-07:00Apple IdeasAlright, I have to write about this, if only for my own personal time-stamp. It's probably in no way worth reading.<br /><br />A few years I started thinking "Why doesn't Macromedia and Adobe merge?" It seemed pretty obvious to me. Then a few years later it happened. At the time, I was also thinking that they could buy a Linux company and produce a bootable Live-CD with trials / serial activated version of their software suite. Well, that last part never happened.<br /><br />Then, when the SCO case came out, I was thinking "Hey, this is totally crap. It's not going to work out for them. Too bad I can't short their stock". It was all new then, but turns out that's how it turned out. Nothing exciting there, most slashdot nerd were thinking the same thing.<br /><br />I was also wishing I could buy Google stock way back when it was growing but everyone thought it was going to stop and have some kind of correction. That one would have worked out too. But alas, I'm not an investor.<br /><br />Anyway, I've been reading and watching and listening to a lot of personal computer history lately, and in particular I've been reading about Commodore in On The Edge. As I'm reading this, I'm thinking "Hey, how come Apple doesn't make even more stuff in house?"<br /><br />Think about it. Back in the day, making a computer was really making a computer. It lots of ROM code and chips and video circuitry and disk controllers and figuring out where things go and how they should work. Today it's basically a CPU, almost always an x86, and a chipset and you're ready to roll.<br /><br />I was thinking, like Commodore bought MOS Technologies in search of vertical integration, why doesn't Apple buy some chip company?<br /><br />I just about lost my mind just now when I happened to catch that <a href="http://gizmodo.com/382929/apple-buys-itself-a-little-chip-company-known-for-super-efficient-processors">Apple has done exactly that</a>.<br /><br />So, from now on, I'm going to post all my crazy little ideas of what I think could, or might, or even should happen, just so I can say, if only to myself, "See, I saw that one coming."<br /><br />Also, just for the record, and I have little hope, proof, or even supporting ideas, but I think Apple could get into the car market, as in building embedded systems for cars. Don't ask me why. I have no clue. I just see Apple in cars. The way Microsoft thought it would but never did.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-84949519624689955372008-04-23T05:12:00.000-07:002008-04-23T05:22:37.560-07:00Living Frugal Isn't very Rock and RollBeing rich isn't cool. Spending money like you don't care is cool.<br /><br />What's cool about being cheap? There's no payoff for bystanders. When someone is totally rich, drives a beat-up old car, shops at thrift stores, buys and sells things used on action sites and classified, and generally doesn't go out throwing lavish parties or having opulent dinners, then anyone else who's standing on the bylines isn't getting one very cool payoff. If they themselves aren't wealthy, it's always at least a little fun to watch and live vicariously through someone else's over-top-escapades.<br /><br />The interesting effect of this is that there's a social reward feedback loop that takes place when someone within a social groups starts earning what they perceive to be as a lot of money. You get to be a little famous for being Mr. Moneybags.<br /><br />The payoff is even higher if you do silly and outrageously unnecessary things. This is the essence of 'bling'.<br /><br />So if someone is in a peer group of people who don't come from a history of money, and that person then makes a lot of money, they are highly likely to take a few splurges here and there, which get the attention of others, creates some social validation, and re-enforces the entire cycle until the wealthy person is wealthy no longer.<br /><br />You can see this statistic that the average lottery winner goes back to having a job and roughly similar lives to their previous ones. All in about 2 years. [ref 1 needed]<br /><br />Anyone who's ever got a big raise at work knows that, when you do the taxes and deductions, it never ends up feeling like a who lot when you get your next paycheck. But it's not that numbers that ends up driving the purchases. It's the perception of wealth of whatever their current salary and position are dictating that drives this. It's probably different for everyone.<br /><br />But the net effect is the same. Saving money just isn't cool. It definitely isn't Rock Star livin'. Just ask Willy Nelson.<br /><br /><a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P75072.asp">http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P75072.asp</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-74355551924128781052008-04-19T00:35:00.000-07:002008-04-19T01:16:31.373-07:00LCD vs. CRT vs. Trees vs. Michael Bay?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chironbramberger/2424196115/"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2424196115_cc7bb74851_m.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Anyone browsing craigslist recently would have probably noticed something in the technology section. There are tons and tons of free CRT monitors unable to find a home.<br /><br />I don't know what the environmental harm this mass exodus of the mighty CRTs from our businesses and homes will be, but it'll probably be bad. In fact, one could figure out the 'environmental-return-on-investment' or EROI, by calculating some index of environmental harm, and comparing it to the environmental benefits of the power saving of LCD's.<br /><br />It's funny to think that something that solves one problem, power-hungry CRTs burning up energy, creates another, CRT landfill, and that at some point in the future enough time will have passed such that the second problem will be exhausted (the damage from CRTs) while the benefits of the first will have aggregated over time. I for one do **not** volunteer.<br /><br />However, what we can do is measure the power differences! Is it science? Who cares, it's fun! So I whipped out my Kill-o-Watt and did some measurements.<br /><br />It turns out that, the way you use **both** changes the power usage. Here's the raw data:<br /><br />- CRT Monitor -<br />All White Screen: 90 watts<br />All Black Screen: 71 watts<br />Average: 80.5 watts<br /><br />- LCD Monitor -<br />All White Screen: 28 watts<br />All Black Screen: 29 watts<br />Average: 28.5 watts<br /><br />- Some interesting numbers -<br />The CRT uses 27% more power displaying an all white vs. all black screen<br />The LCD uses 4% less power displaying an all white vs. all black screen<br />The LCD uses 35% less power, on average, overall of a CRT<br /><br />It turns out that, as no surprise, a CRT monitor displaying nothing but black uses less power then when the screen is all white. This is because the gun firing at the screen is doing mostly nothing when drawing black. When the screen is white, the gun is firing all the time, in order to light up the whole screen, and so you get 20 more watts of power drain.<br /><br />This is pretty interesting, since we usually don't think about **how** we use something as affecting the environment, especially when it comes to technology. If you have a CRT monitor, and a really bright and mostly white screensaver and desktop wallpaper, you're using up as much power and money, and doing as much damage as possible.<br /><br />However, I didn't think that LCDs would register a noticeable difference, never mind the opposite effect! But it makes sense. With an LCD screen, the bulb inside is running all the time, regardless of what we are doing. However, the screen itself acts like a series of small, electronic sunglasses, turning on completely to block out all the light and create a black pixel, and turning off completely letting the light through and creating a white pixel.<br /><br />It may only be 1 watt of difference, but it's interesting just the same. That means, if your screensaver, desktop wallpaper, and daily activities are black or mostly dark, then your maximizing the power, money and adverse environmental effects of your monitor.<br /><br />But clearly, the LCDs use so much less power, you're still better off going LCD, for your power, money and environmental karma.<br /><br />But here's what I really want to know:<br /><br />What did Google's all white homepage cost the environment in carbon emissions back when CRTs were the common monitor?<br /><br />What does Windows XP's default mostly black screensaver cost the environment in carbon emissions now that LCDs are the common monitor?<br /><br />How many trees cry every time a Michael Bay movie explosion whites out a screen on a home theater system?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-84363696321477376032008-04-18T01:17:00.001-07:002008-04-18T01:57:07.217-07:00Old ComputersFirst of all, I love computers. New and old. Technology is great. Sign me up and plug me in!<br /><br />I was talking to my brother recently about old computers and what it is I like about them.<br /><br />There are a lot of things about old computers that are great. Just tonight I realized that you could actually have a fairly complete understanding of a 1980's personal computer from top to bottom. From the logic gates, to the CPU, whether it's a Z80, MOS 6802, or Intel 8086, through to the operating system, and right up into the program. Head to toes.<br /><br />Today when you take a computer science course, you learn little pieces here and there, a logic gate, or the ideas of a low level programming language, often in the form of a emulated CPU, or maybe a fictional CPU designed for learning. Maybe you even build a binary adder. But then it's back to learning something useful Java or C# or something.<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong, it's not like I'm in university right now, however, it seems like learning some of these basic things by making a logic gate or adder or something, feel like growing a single blade of grass as starting point of learning football. So far and away.<br /><br />It seems like making computers do things is mostly a case of taking an x86 based CPU, some fully realized OS, a byte code based virtual machine, a whole wack of libraries and API's, a editor and IDE environment with a full knowledge of the API's, and boom - you finally start making something.<br /><br />This makes sense as it evolved out of needs to encapsulate layers of very annoying details away so that it's easier to create and maintain your project. Or perhaps your piece of the project.<br /><br />I think this is all great, really I do. Ruby on Rails is really quite awesome!<br /><br />It all seems like so much. So many layers, and pieces, all of which are moving targets, and all of which need constant refreshing. It seems like we went from swimming in different, but well known ponds - Apple, Commodore, IBM, DOS, CP/M - to one great big ocean. It's just overwhelming to understand, and sometimes underwhelming to explore. Things got more complex and more homogeneous.<br /><br />Using computers today seems so much like watching TV. The web pages turned into databases which turned into web apps which turned into social web apps which turned into 1-click perpetual payoff. Meanwhile, desktop apps are more like web pages.<br /><br />But I think the experience of using computers today has lost something else.<br /><br />You see, the GUI interface changes the very idea of what using a computer should be.<br /><br />Let's take a side trip. Imagine your living millions of year ago in a thriving village, and things are so well, that there's lots of food and no worry of war or scary animals. No imagine your belly is full and looking out into the wilderness. What would you be thinking?<br /><br />Now imagine your living in a modern city today, and you sitting at a restaurant, after eating, and looking at a desert menu. What you are thinking now?<br /><br />When the GUI first come out on the scene, it offered a very friendly way of using a computer. Instead of having to know a bunch of stuff, you are presented with a list. All the functions and programs of the computer are laid out in a nice little menu, complete with pictures.<br /><br />What this is saying to the user is "We've figured everything out for you, and here's all the things you can do. Wouldn't you like to pick something to do? We've made a nice menu for you to choose from."<br /><br />With the advent of the modern internet, that desert menu is pretty damn big. So big, in fact, that you can spend an almost indefinite period of time getting entertained by it.<br /><br />But way back in the early days of the personal computer, this is what it was like.<br /><br />You got a prompt. A flashing green cursor.<br /><br />You don't get to pick from a list of things to do. You can do anything you want. You can do anything.<br /><br />There's no list. There's no waitress walking you pleasantly through glossy catalog of choices.<br /><br />You're faced with your own two hands and ability to explore and create. That flashing green cursor is sitting there waiting for you to go, or do, or be anything you want it, or yourself to be.<br /><br />It's a canvas, not a catalog.<br /><br />I realize that most people know what they want, and they like it when someone else has figured it all out for them. What I wonder about is the kids.<br /><br />They get blasted into the ocean full of high speed internet whiz bang, instead of sitting on the shore, wondering what's out there, and maybe making their own raft.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32262779.post-20228641155904711752008-04-18T01:16:00.000-07:002008-04-18T01:17:06.496-07:00WritingI'm going to start writing now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com