h a l f b a k e r yIt might be better to just get another gerbil.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
There is a growing market for underwater drones, and a
lack of certification.
Brings forth the NMRM Co underwater drone Model A,
certified
to depths of 429 metres, and the more hardcore one
(Model B) is certified to 3.9km, 100% guaranteed.
Both are cunningly made of compressed cardboard
covered
with clingfilm, which the customer do not know until
they
they open the delivery crate.
This is all achieved by Model A being tested in the Dead
Sea, and the Model B, in a tin bath in the Western Deep
No.3 Shaft, South Africa.
To be honest, I'm not sure why no one is doing this
already,
as it's the only way to do depth testing without any more
complex equipment than a pair of wellies.
[link]
|
| |
This is devious, immoral, and quite possibly entirely legal. |
|
| |
For independant certification you would of course need a sutably scruple-free and totally amoral test house who didn't care about end users and were only in it for the money. |
|
| |
Cute, but I suspect you'll sell about 10 of these until the bad
publicity effectively shuts it all down. But then again, the
homeopathic industry is still around, so why not? |
|
| |
Depth and distance being different things, and your customer base being in the habit of specifying their requirements in pounds per square inch, I don't think the NMRM company stock will see much action. |
|
| |
// specifying their requirements in pounds per square inch, // |
|
| |
Weeeeeellll .... it wouldn't actually be necessary to quote the pressure simultaneously over the entire surface ... if there was a piece of metal somewhere on the exterior, and pressure was applied with the point of a needle, the actual force at the point of contact could be extremely high without applying excessive force to the whole structure. |
|
| |
Then you could reasonably claim that "the structure has been shown to be resistant to point loads of "n" Bar", where n is a very large positive integer. |
|
| |
<scribbles amendments on test protocol> |
|
| |