Question about rotating structures

> > A radio system, OTH, could have transmitters and receivers in
> > various places rather than at a nexus such as the slip ring.
>
> Sure. That's why I suggested that in the first message. But since
someone
> was stuck with his obsolete models, I've then replied "even a
laser system
> would be better than that".

Perhaps I should step aside and let you argue with yourself. You
continually make a claim and then proceed to refute it. I'm not
involved in this process at all.

In my original post I wrote "If there is hard wiring, rather than
radio connection, between the control stations and the equipment on
the rest of the ship, my question is how do they make the hard wire
connection when the control station is rotating with respect to the
stationary equipment on the Discovery?"

How is it that you now take credit for introducing the concept of
radio into the discusion?

If I'm seeking information on how hard wiring will function through
a rotating interface, how does that make me "someone was stuck with
his obsolete models."

>
> > > BTW...
> > > So I doubt you'd need lots of slip rings, just a bigger one.
> >
> > Why? How does one big one handle different transmission
standards?
> > How does it address conflicting signals? Does the necessity of
> > having one slip ring require that every control station must be
> > designed as part of a whole system.
> >
> > Isn't the entire circumference of the slip ring used to transmit
the
> > data because the rotation prohibits localized transmission points
> > within the slip ring circumference?
> >
> > If you design it as you advocate, then you'd have a series of
slip
> > rings clustered together (next to each other), and they'd be out
of
> > synchroniztion with their counterparts on the other surface as
they
> > rotated around their axis.
> >
> > Am I understanding your vision correctly?
> >
> > I don't see how this could work.
> >
> Since you now seem to agree that a radio system would be
> preferable all the above is totally redundant anyway.

It was never a question of which method is preferable; I wanted to
know how it could be done with hard wiring. (see original post
again.)

You proposed a solution by clustering slip rings and I'm not at all
clear how this could work. So I don't think it's redundant at all
because it addresses the original question. Would you care to
address the questions I've asked about your proposal?

> > >... Think with your head, don't follow stereotypes,
> >
> > Thanks for the advice, but I'm quite happy with my thought
processes.
>
> I've noticed that.
> Shame really, arrogance is not going to help you learn anything I'm
> afraid...

You may also have noticed that an intelligent and courteous response
will be returned in kind (see EVERY other message in this thread,
except yours), while a baiting and insulting tone will get similar
back.

It's not arrogance, it's just me utterly dismissing your method of
argument as a model to emulate.

First you presume to ascribe to me what I'm thinking, then you make
an argument against it, and you conclude by insulting me by implying
that I don't think but rely on stereotypes.

As I've already written, you're creating your own arguments. Need
proof? Here's a quote:

BEGIN QUOTE

"Thinking of copper cables wiring

(I never wrote anything about them)

for a self-supporting space station advanced and efficient enough
for supporting traditional farming in its interior

(I didn't bring this up - I wrote about the Discovery in the movie
2001)

is a bit like Victorian engineers thinking of supersonic flying
machines made of wood and canvas IMO... :)

(Nice rebuttal, but unfortunately you're rebutting your own point.)

New technologies will be in place, today's latest toys like fiber
optics and microprocessors will be as obsolete as vacuum valves and
VHS tapes today much before habitats will be technically feasible...

(Nice rebuttal, but unfortunately you're rebutting your own point.)

I know, mainstream SF programs have got yourself used to things like
pressing a button for jumping in hyperspace,

(How would you know?)

but what a nonsense if you think about it! A technology so advanced
as to allow for feats beyond our understanding of what is possible
within the physical laws of our universe can hardly be still using
something so primitive like a button!

(Yeah, I guess that's why the caveman inventions of wheels aren't
used anymore, or clothing to keep us warm. Both are so primitive!)

Is like thinking of driving an automobile with a whip... :) You are
much more likely to have to nod your head to a 3d projection of your
favourite pop star... Think with your head, don't follow stereotypes"

(Talk about sterotypes. Mindless techno-worship for stylistic,
rather than substantive, purposes.)

END QUOTE

>
> > Have you ever heard of the acronym of KISS? Keep It Simple,
Stupid.
> >
> > Why introduce more complexity and room for error and
> > misinterpretation when a simple binary solution will suffice. A
> > button is either on or it's off. You make a decision to activate
it
> > or not. Simple.
> >
> > Why create a computer program that has to control this process
for
> > you? What if the computer glitches, or doesn't function at the
> > instant that you need to execute a command. Now you have no
option
> > because you've removed a button from the activation process.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting you can manually control something of
the
> complexity of an Habitat?
> Actually clicking buttons?
> You'll be busy...

First off, shame on me for taking your bait. From your recent posts
on this message board, I'm learning about your style of
argumentation.

You introduced the whole scenario of button-pushing into a topic
that had nothing to do with buttons.

Then you argue against buttons and invoke techno-mumbo-jumbo.

Now, you're thick-headedly twisting what I wrote and and asking
whether I think a Habitat can be entirely controlled manually. Where
did you get that from? Oh, it's just more of your style of
argumentation. Introduce a point, ascribe it to someone else, and
then refute it.

Then you imply that I do indeed hold this belief but the only
evidence you can muster is the strawman argument you've constructed.

Lastly, you ignore the KISS principle. If it is simpler to have a
human control a particular function, then why introduce more
complexity into the system by automating it?

>
> > Computer and automated systems have their place, but mindless
> > implementation should be left out of the design criteria.
>
> Thanks for this gem of patronizing nonsense, ROTFL!!!!

You're welcome. You deserved it!

> I think you should tell that to NASA, I'm sure they'll see you
wisdom and
> stop wasting taxpayers money on automated systems immediately...

Are you really this dense? Do you not read what other people write?
Do you always make a habit of responding to your own strawmen
arguments?

> > Have you considered that your thought process is more a
stereotype
> > of future mumbo-jumbo, rather than one based on engineering
> > fundamentals?
>
> My dear Tango, have you got the slightest idea of the number of
electronic
> switches there are inside your mobile phone? Do you really think
replacing
> any one of them with a button would improve the design, or that
doing
> something like that would be "based on engineering principles"?

Once again you're supplying both sides of the argument without
acknowledging the point I made.

To make my own point: If it is more efficient and reliable to punch
in the phone number via a keypad on the phone than it is to use a
voice interface, then dispite the gee-whiz factor of the voice
recognition program, and the electronics overhead it requires, I'll
opt for the keypad.

The many processes within the phone don't require human control,
thus they can be automated.

Am I getting through to you?

> There are too many good reason for automating every single one of
the
> million billion processes that will be required by an habitat at
every
> second to even bother list them all really... There may be a
handful system
> that can benefit from having a manual overdrive, as a third or
fourth backup
> system that is. Everything else will have to be automated.

Well, it's a good thing that you've joined this group, because until
now, I'd say most of us didn't know ALL of the systems that'll be
required on a Habitat.

It's reassuring that you know everything there is to know and can
state unequivicably that each system can be fully automated and that
human judgement can be completely removed from the Habitat.

TangoMan