h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A minature replica of a 1940s mobile searchlight, with motion
detectors and a small but powerful light source. Tracks and
illuminates small flies as they meander irritatingly around
your room. Particularly useful for target re-acquisition after a
failed swatting attempt.
Not particularly necessary
for big, noisy bluebottles, but
excellent for fruit flies and other small, quiet insects whose
flight path seems to invoke Brownian motion and hence
makes me lose track of them.
Vickers QF 3.7-inch AA gun
https://en.wikipedi.../QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun
Quality [8th of 7, Jun 18 2017]
the right L. E. D.s
httAs://www.nightse...uorescence-florida/
although a few decimal places maybe needed. [wjt, Jun 23 2017]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Can it have an accessory kit of four scaled-down Vickers QF 3.7-inch AA guns ? |
|
| |
What's needed, shirley, is also a miniature electric Spitfire that can scramble from its charging dock and intercept the fly. There'd be no need for miniature guns (sorry, [8th]), since encounters between flies and propellers invariably end badly for the fly. |
|
| |
I'm imagining what a moth might do, if caught by that
searchlight beam. Perhaps the light should be a laser, low
power on scanning, but higher power after acquiring a
target. You have to clear the moth bodies piled up against
the light emitter somehow.... |
|
| |
This should be possible to do with laser pointers -
so, you could have laser pointers sited at strategic
points around the room all directed at the fruitfly.
This would look impressive and the multiple lasers
may be enough to stun the fruitfly. The risk of laser
beams waving about temporarily (or permanently)
blinding people in the room is a small price to pay. |
|
| |
This is just going to start an arms race, where the
survivors
breed ever peskier flies. Does no one think long
term? |
|
| |
Clearly a political solution is needed. We must
become
united with our enemy and be at peace. Genetic
combination, as per the trail blazed by Dr. Seth
Brundle, is the
only way. Once some bugs are worked out of the
technique,
the potential for the creation of a superior species
is
apparent. |
|
| |
Wasn't there an idea around here somewhere for a mini AA
laser system complete with image tracking and single or
multiple lasers to fry the flies/mosquitos? |
|
| |
You could style it after the Centurion C-RAM or other similar
systems - the CIWS component of Iron Dome, etc. |
|
| |
Very interesting. How does that assist in killing them ? |
|
| |
I'm astonished that [Ian] managed to not use the word
"stochastic" in that annotation |
|
| |
//how does that assist in killing them?// |
|
| |
By adding some prediction into the targetting algorithm, and thereby
extending effective range presumably. |
|
| |
My grandfather taught me a trick (but it only works in
houses with low ceilings or tall residents):
3/4 fill a jar or glass with warm water, add detergent,
cover and shake - make a good "head" of foam.
Sneak up below a fly on the ceiling, and slowly raise the
uncovered jar toward the fly.
Because flies "take off" vertically downwards for 2-3 inches
before flying off, they will usually fly straight into the
foam, get trapped and quickly die. |
|
| |
Of course this technique could be adapted for a laser-
guided CNC rig, but where's the fun in that? |
|
| |
Cool. Another neat factoid, (just based on personal childhood observation), is that flies are blind directly in front of themselves, so if one is at rest you can slowly poke it in the face. Since they can not take-off backwards, with a little practice it is possible to just raise and lower your finger at the right speed to trap them when close enough. |
|
| |
Not really sure what made me try touching that first fly's face as a kid. Prolly pissed me off in a past life or something. |
|
| |
I wonder: Can flys and mosquitoes be blinded by a laser?
Do they attempt to fly afterwards? |
|
| |
There is a product on the market that can scan an
environment with a laser, and save it as a reference. A re-
scan can detect changes (fly). This gives the targets
position. The rest is light pointer/pilot blinding process. |
|
| |
Probably works with helicopters, too. |
|
| |
I think that weapons designed to cause blindness are prohibited by the Geneva Convention. |
|
| |
So how do you account for the fact that Mick Jagger is allowed to go out in public without a burkha, then ? |
|
| |
//I think that weapons designed to cause blindness are
prohibited by the Geneva Convention.// |
|
| |
A brief experiment involving Hillary Clinton and a standard Snellen chart tends to indicate that the answer to that question is "Yes". |
|
| |
//Another neat factoid, (just based on personal childhood observation), is that flies are blind directly in front of themselves, so if one is at rest you can slowly poke it in the face. Since they can not take-off backwards// |
|
| |
[2fries], I hate to do this, but I feel honour-bound to point out that both of those facts are incorrect, as per numerous sources, such as the one below (just Google "can flies take off backwards?"). One of these days you'll say something that's true. One of these days even I might. |
|
| |
"For example, the videos showed that if the descending swatter—actually, a 14-centimeter-diameter black disk, dropping at a 50-degree angle toward a fly standing at the center of a small platform—comes from in front of the fly, the fly moves its middle legs forward and leans back, then raises and extends its legs to push off backward. When the threat comes from the back, however, the fly (which has a nearly 360-degree field of view and can see behind itself) moves its middle legs a tiny bit backwards. With a threat from the side, the fly keeps its middle legs stationary, but leans its whole body in the opposite direction before it jumps." |
|
| |
Can some of the LEDs' wavelengths be 320-400 nm? |
|
| |
^^ Grocers' Apos'trophe' ! |
|
| |
//[2fries], I hate to do this, but I feel honour-bound to point out that both of those facts are incorrect, as per numerous sources, such as the one below (just Google "can flies take off backwards?"). One of these days you'll say something that's true.// |
|
| |
I guess a bit more research needs to be done on houseflies then because you 'can' poke them in the face, and if you raise and lower your finger at just the right speed they will 'jump' underneath it and become trapped. |
|
| |
Hours of fun as a kid. I would let the flies go after, and my brother would pull their wings off and turn them into 'walks'. |
|
| |
//^^ Grocers' Apos'trophe' !//
Where???? I'll get my swat. |
|
| |
But //Can some of the LEDs' wavelengths be 320-400 nm?// contains only one perfectly placed apostrophe ("Can the wavelengths of the LEDs be..." --> "Can some of the LEDs' wavelengths be..."). |
|
| |
In fact, [wjt]'s apostrophe is fine upstanding representative of correct punctuation. |
|
| |
'Thought we agreed that pluralizing and possessifying model numbers and acronyms is best accomplished by preapostrophysying the 's', eg: M16's, 1970's, LED's. |
|
| |
Arguably, of course, acronyms are self-pluralizing; "light emitting diodes" --> "LED" ; QED. |
|
| |
hmm maybe we were only able to poke female flies in the face. |
|
| |
From Insect Vision: "Often the density of the facets is
greatest in certain parts of the eye - those parts that are most often used for more accurate vision.
Similarly, in humans, the density of sensory cells in the retina declines away from the central fovea toward
the edges of the visual field, which is why the edge of your visual field is so fuzzy. For the same reason,
one can often sex flies by the size of their compound eyes - male flies have larger eyes that almost meet
in the middle of the face, since they need keener vision to help them spot females!" |
|
| |
Did any of those videos show what a fly does when the swatter is coming from directly in front and slightly beneath the fly? |
|
| |
Hmm. So, you are suggesting that the plural of LED (light emitting diode) is also LED (light emitting diodes), and therefore it would be possessified the same way whether referring to one or many LED(s)? |
|
| |
I would have to disagree. If I have one LED, and someone gives me another LED, then I will wonder why. But I will also have two LEDs, not two LED, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
| |
So, if my two LEDs were both red, then my LEDs' wavelengths would be red. |
|
| |
As for 1970's (as in "during the 1970's")- ugh. I don't mean the decade (though it wasn't very good, really), but the apostrophe. What exactly is the apostrophe doing there? Is it meant to be representing "ie" (as in "seventIEs"? And if so, what's become of the "y" in "seventy"? And, if you use that apostrophe non-possessively, how do you make sense of "He was born in the 1970's, but it was the 1960's music that influenced him."? |
|
| |
So I watched all of the videos on the subject and it turns out that flies rely on changes in air pressure measured by tiny hairs on their body along with, (and perhaps more than), sight to detect incoming swats. |
|
| |
//One of these days you'll say something that's true.// |
|
| |
One of these days you'll extend me some credit for telling it like it is.
Until then, is attacking and then silent-treatment the new modus operandi? |
|
| |
Perhaps so, but they can certainly see forward. I think it has something to do with those huge hemispherical eyes on each side of their head. |
|
| |
//extend me some credit for telling it like it is.// You may rejoice to hear that I shall indeed do so, should the occasion ever arise. |
|
| |
//attacking and then silent-treatment// Damn. Have I missed a thread somewhere? I'm no good at silence. And I'm not so much "attacking" as "ridiculing". There are not many people I've met who are both articulate and whacko, so I'm making the most of it. |
|
| |
"The Fly Whisperer". All about attitude. |
|
| |
Also helps if they're country flies which - with the right confidence and approach - can simply be picked up... then tossed or flicked in the general direction of the person waving their arms about and complaining about "all these damnable insects". |
|
| |
City flies in their prime, not so much - paranoid little bastids, them's. |
|
| |
//LED// If the official rule is that the article is the same as for the fully hydrated version, ie : " a LED " , then implicit pluralization's pretty easy to swallow, despite sounding occasionally like an "English as a 14th language" speaker. |
|
| |
//they can certainly see forward. I think it has something to do with those huge hemispherical eyes on each side of their head.// |
|
| |
Maybe their sight is movement based. If you don't move really slowly you can't poke them in the face. |
|
| |
//extend me some credit for telling it like it is.// You may rejoice to hear that I shall indeed do so, should the occasion ever arise.// |
|
| |
//There are not many people I've met who are both articulate and whacko, so I'm making the most of it.// |
|
| |
Well good.
I am both of those things and accept those labels gladly. |
|
| |
If you've got flies in the lab you really should try poking them in the face. |
|
| |
<note to self, stop giving away thesis paper subjects> |
|
| |
// implicit pluralization // |
|
| |
LED singular, LEDs plural. Likewise, car/cars, spoon/spoons, vote/votes. |
|
| |
No apostrophe needed. Now, there are irregular plurals such as man/men, sheep/sheep etc. but most nouns are pluralised by the simple appendation of an "s". |
|
| |
Now, in the specific example, "the LEDs' wavelengths" is a contraction of "the wavelengths of the LEDs". |
|
| |
The case for the prosecution rests. |
|
| |
In the written word...
"an LED" - wrong
"a LED" - right, based on deacronymization, ie: it's supposed as being read as "light emitting diode". |
|
| |
so, since "light emitting diode" and "light emitting diodes" both acronymize to "LED", the same should apply. |
|
| |
"an LED" is easier to say, personally, If writing wants to be
literal. |
|
| |
I would of thought that L. E. D. were the correct way to scrieve it. |
|
| |
Laziness left out the dots (to go world wild) decades ago. |
|
| |
The periods in abbreviations and acronyms are somewhat redundant with the capitalization, no? |
|
| |
Would have, or even would've, would of been the write
way to right it.... |
|
| |