The music of the quarks

[mike coleman]

Now how can anything the LHC presents come anywhere near the marvel of the
RG-400 smart towel??

On 6/24/10, Owen O'Neill <owen.01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nice! I should stay more interested in what's going on at the LHC. 9
> years ago I worked at a place where they were designing and building
> instrumention equipment for the collider, and it was the coolest job I
> ever had. I got to use a comparitively "little" accelator, Large for
> 1940. Very large magnet that would tug at anything ferromagnetic you
> were holding from 5m away, even rip it away--- but it got used as a
> proton beam source for verifying the "heavy ion" radiation damage
> survival of components used in instrumentation that's monitoring the
> muon drift tubes. Most of these tests that were a huge part of my job
> I knew were completely pointless but that's beurocracy <sp> in a
> worldwide colaboration to build a Large Hadron Collider.
>
> Also, some peices of instrumentation equipment have labels on the side
> that say "Hawkwind", camoflauged amidst all the other useless labels
> saying "power", "standby" "1,2,3,4,5", "data out"...etc.
>
> Working on pointless stuff, also being coerced to work inneficiently
> then get called inneficient as a result...... I s--t you not: (I think
> I've said it before on this list) there was a component (Texas
> Instruments?) called REG104-GA. It's a "Low Drop-out Voltage
> Regulator", with lots of bells and whistles, the most at the time,
> like some circuit designer's pathetic little wet dream. If not for the
> Captain Lockheed I'd never have ordered this embarrassing component
> for evaluation. It was a stupid rectangular chip with 8 pins, looking
> nothing like a voltage regulator should look like. You could just KNOW
> somehow it's going to be the worst candidate for a bad-weather
> radiation environment. If radiation criteria was realistic for
> electronics in proximity to the LHC...f*cking.;/ --- what I'm getting
> at is I could have effectively caused an important circuit to FAIL, I
> bet right when some really important "collision infomation" needed to
> get analyzed. Because of MY POWER, set back PHYSICS.
>
>
> By the way, did you know that much of scientific research involves
> people successfully getting funding for their shit, skewing everything
> they say to make their work sound promising, making results look as
> such?
>
> Not as much in Physics I don't think, but that's only because it's
> very accountable. What's the most unscrupulous type of science?
> Biology? Oh and especially Cancer reseasrch, with the money there.
> Who's a Biologist here? You've got something to hide. Everyone who
> makes money does. Tell us your stories about phony research you know
> of, maybe were involved with as a student.
> --
> .:.;:'¬;˚˚∆:;:,:;';,,';':;.:,:;:;',,':;.';:¬;;';-,,`⁄,
>