In Popular Science of 99 or so they say about the rooms they make high tech machines with often it costs a lot because they must be clean. It's believed by some and me that if they add an electric charge to the machines and ionize the air around the machine so the dust is repelled and moved to absorption, most of the dust wouldn't reach the machine. This idea of cleanup by like ionzation of the surface and it's room may also be of use for cyber drives. Eventually they say all computers are stopped. A main cause is even about a bit of dust or other stuff in the air around the machine that causes it to go. So they may have mostly one + or - charge that would save it and the room in the box would be cleansed via a real fan of softwear like me. They may have cyber for vending machines! You just put a chip in the box!
..
Friday, January 12, 2007
SETI SIGNAL, ET OR PROSAIC (Monday, Much Better!) PLUG? .
On the New Scientist site at This Link is what some think may be a possible signal from an advanced civilization, considered "the most promising signal in all the history of SETI". The signal is drifting as if on a planet spinning around but it would have to be spinning 40 times as fast as the earth, and the overall drift would be changing they say, but it always starts at the same frequency. Another puzzle is that the signal is in an empty region far from any known star. On the New Scientist site they consider all the possibilities like a hacker in the softwear or a bad telescope, but they dismiss these for reasons like the sighting of the same signal by more than one observer, and it's as yet unknown how the telescope could make the error, if so.
On the New Scientist site they say
"The fact that the signal continues to drift after this correction is “fishy”. “If [the aliens] are so smart, they’ll adjust their signal for their planet’s motion.”
But we're so smart, and we don't adjust our TV signal of the 50's going out at the speed of our washers, radios, and I Love Lucy will be in reruns 1000 years!
It's the most interesting of all the SETI finds and they aren't just in up mode alone about it just yet. And there's one other possible explanation I can think of that would fit the evidence. Perhaps it's a large space station far from a star system, not impossible that an advanced civilization may have fusion power of their own (or other types of atomic power like my atomic motor.) so for whatever reason in the complex evolution of a civilization they may be or have to be far from their place of origin. If a source like this were distant from a star, it wouldn't change frequency with motion around the star in siderial time (stationary relative to the stars, not in motion so much relative to just one star) this would be why no general phase shift was seen. The fast phase shift observed in this interpretation would be with the rotation of the space station to generate artificial gravity, perhaps for industrial use. A relatively small spinning space station would be easier to explain than a high speed planet because to spin 40 times as fast as the earth would take a lot more mass to hold it together, and this mass would fuse, so we could see the star that was the source (Our giant worlds like Sarurn were almost massive enough to be stars). That it's a faint signal and that the phase of 1420 mhz modulates would be perhaps because the signal they watch would be intended just for them and not boosted to reach us.
A more mundane possiblity since they say the signal doesn't seem like information from an evolved civilization may be it's one of the so named exosolar planets, far from the star that formed it, formed as stuff attracted mass, not yet a star even if massive. If on the surface of a spinning world some sort of natural atomic reaction would be taking place, it's in the wavelength of hydrogen because it would go through the hydrogen rich atmosphere of the planet. So it would have some absorption lines of the spectra (if it were a large enough plug, it might be mostly above the atmosphere of the distant world for a time before it was more compact, a prediction of this explanation.) Astronomers and others consider the option that most planets and stars have a natural atomic reactor inside to light up the stars not impossible, otherwise they would be unable to light with just the amount of mass they have. So if atomic reactors are mostly mundane radiation this would be a possible explanation of the source of the signal, far from the star where it was born. A radioactive asteroid or other moon with natural heat could plug in the side of the massive planet and emit radiation with each rotation and also without the general phase shift if far from a star like "the extrasolar planets" of astronomers. A prediction of this explanation is that the one source would go in and out of line of radiance to the earth as it rotates. The space station explanation wouldn't have this necessarily because light would be of use all the way around the station. If it were an accident like an explosion of the fusion or other power on the station the source might or might not go in and out of our line of sight. If it's a wheel it wouldn't have to go out of our sight, and other more complex light of more faint sort just from the usual activities that would go on in the station from day to day would possibly be seen if this explanation were true. If it were an accident by an advanced civilization's star ship or spinning station, they might be too busy repairing the damage or unable to stop the radiation from leaking out the information about their whereabouts, or for some other reason. Perhaps they know of us and were a bit suprised at the catastrophe on the ship if that's actually the explanation of the signal, but figured with no way we could do them any harm due to our slow starships, they would't think we were of import to conceal their signal from, or may welcome our wit and savvy. If so it would seem they would have already let us know before this, thus it may be explained by way of the civilization's being advanced enough to build a large machine, but still unaware of our presence. Carl Sagan in Cosmos says the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy at any one time has been imagined to be just 4. While it would seem too much good fortune in the search for life to have found a civilization so near we would see the radiance of a starship, if fusion is known to them (and there may be many advanced civilizations with fusion) they may have the power of a star and we see stars all the time when we look up. The New Scientist site is a good science site, one of the best, and it may be a bit wild to see how this turns out in light of this.
Another conventional cause might be a compact star with a strong magnetic field that spins in opposite motion to the more usual spin of the star. These would cancel out so the field would form a bubble without jets. With spin there are poles. With no overall spin there would be no usual jets and with a strong spherical field with strong field lines the star would be invisible in most wavelengths because it would cut the lines of radiance outward of the heat. With a massive small and dense star, an incoming comet or asteroid if impacting would radiate out much power as it would become part of the star's own mass. This would spin around fast like these dense massive sources are believed by most to. The energy of the comet stuff would be strong enough on conversion to radiate through the field lines and reach us but not strong enough to energise the entire field of the star so all that would be seen would be the light of the comet embedded in the star with each revolution, in the wavelength of hydrogen because there would be an atmosphere of the hydrogen and oxygen from the comet or other impacting mass through which the light of the mass as it was made more energised would reach us. I tend to favor this second explanation more, because as they say on the New Scientist site the light seems to be unlike a more complex source. On this page (about the solar systems they find having massive planets in unusual oribits) I say why I think extrasolar planets may be common and may add a lot of the unseen mass to the universe. If the signal in the above was far from any star this would seem to fit in better either with the advanced life cause, or the extrasolar planet, but not the magnetic star. If the proto cloud formed a star it would have been massive enough to form more, but smaller masses could exist more often by accretion of leftover rocks from older star systems in rooms of greater volume, they would be in these realms to close the cosmos in general.
No doubt it's probably just a more massive power source, or we may have actually even found advanced life, finally we may have reached the sign of the feline, mine will always ignore meece!
On the New Scientist site at This Link is what some think may be a possible signal from an advanced civilization, considered "the most promising signal in all the history of SETI". The signal is drifting as if on a planet spinning around but it would have to be spinning 40 times as fast as the earth, and the overall drift would be changing they say, but it always starts at the same frequency. Another puzzle is that the signal is in an empty region far from any known star. On the New Scientist site they consider all the possibilities like a hacker in the softwear or a bad telescope, but they dismiss these for reasons like the sighting of the same signal by more than one observer, and it's as yet unknown how the telescope could make the error, if so.
On the New Scientist site they say
"The fact that the signal continues to drift after this correction is “fishy”. “If [the aliens] are so smart, they’ll adjust their signal for their planet’s motion.”
But we're so smart, and we don't adjust our TV signal of the 50's going out at the speed of our washers, radios, and I Love Lucy will be in reruns 1000 years!
It's the most interesting of all the SETI finds and they aren't just in up mode alone about it just yet. And there's one other possible explanation I can think of that would fit the evidence. Perhaps it's a large space station far from a star system, not impossible that an advanced civilization may have fusion power of their own (or other types of atomic power like my atomic motor.) so for whatever reason in the complex evolution of a civilization they may be or have to be far from their place of origin. If a source like this were distant from a star, it wouldn't change frequency with motion around the star in siderial time (stationary relative to the stars, not in motion so much relative to just one star) this would be why no general phase shift was seen. The fast phase shift observed in this interpretation would be with the rotation of the space station to generate artificial gravity, perhaps for industrial use. A relatively small spinning space station would be easier to explain than a high speed planet because to spin 40 times as fast as the earth would take a lot more mass to hold it together, and this mass would fuse, so we could see the star that was the source (Our giant worlds like Sarurn were almost massive enough to be stars). That it's a faint signal and that the phase of 1420 mhz modulates would be perhaps because the signal they watch would be intended just for them and not boosted to reach us.
A more mundane possiblity since they say the signal doesn't seem like information from an evolved civilization may be it's one of the so named exosolar planets, far from the star that formed it, formed as stuff attracted mass, not yet a star even if massive. If on the surface of a spinning world some sort of natural atomic reaction would be taking place, it's in the wavelength of hydrogen because it would go through the hydrogen rich atmosphere of the planet. So it would have some absorption lines of the spectra (if it were a large enough plug, it might be mostly above the atmosphere of the distant world for a time before it was more compact, a prediction of this explanation.) Astronomers and others consider the option that most planets and stars have a natural atomic reactor inside to light up the stars not impossible, otherwise they would be unable to light with just the amount of mass they have. So if atomic reactors are mostly mundane radiation this would be a possible explanation of the source of the signal, far from the star where it was born. A radioactive asteroid or other moon with natural heat could plug in the side of the massive planet and emit radiation with each rotation and also without the general phase shift if far from a star like "the extrasolar planets" of astronomers. A prediction of this explanation is that the one source would go in and out of line of radiance to the earth as it rotates. The space station explanation wouldn't have this necessarily because light would be of use all the way around the station. If it were an accident like an explosion of the fusion or other power on the station the source might or might not go in and out of our line of sight. If it's a wheel it wouldn't have to go out of our sight, and other more complex light of more faint sort just from the usual activities that would go on in the station from day to day would possibly be seen if this explanation were true. If it were an accident by an advanced civilization's star ship or spinning station, they might be too busy repairing the damage or unable to stop the radiation from leaking out the information about their whereabouts, or for some other reason. Perhaps they know of us and were a bit suprised at the catastrophe on the ship if that's actually the explanation of the signal, but figured with no way we could do them any harm due to our slow starships, they would't think we were of import to conceal their signal from, or may welcome our wit and savvy. If so it would seem they would have already let us know before this, thus it may be explained by way of the civilization's being advanced enough to build a large machine, but still unaware of our presence. Carl Sagan in Cosmos says the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy at any one time has been imagined to be just 4. While it would seem too much good fortune in the search for life to have found a civilization so near we would see the radiance of a starship, if fusion is known to them (and there may be many advanced civilizations with fusion) they may have the power of a star and we see stars all the time when we look up. The New Scientist site is a good science site, one of the best, and it may be a bit wild to see how this turns out in light of this.
Another conventional cause might be a compact star with a strong magnetic field that spins in opposite motion to the more usual spin of the star. These would cancel out so the field would form a bubble without jets. With spin there are poles. With no overall spin there would be no usual jets and with a strong spherical field with strong field lines the star would be invisible in most wavelengths because it would cut the lines of radiance outward of the heat. With a massive small and dense star, an incoming comet or asteroid if impacting would radiate out much power as it would become part of the star's own mass. This would spin around fast like these dense massive sources are believed by most to. The energy of the comet stuff would be strong enough on conversion to radiate through the field lines and reach us but not strong enough to energise the entire field of the star so all that would be seen would be the light of the comet embedded in the star with each revolution, in the wavelength of hydrogen because there would be an atmosphere of the hydrogen and oxygen from the comet or other impacting mass through which the light of the mass as it was made more energised would reach us. I tend to favor this second explanation more, because as they say on the New Scientist site the light seems to be unlike a more complex source. On this page (about the solar systems they find having massive planets in unusual oribits) I say why I think extrasolar planets may be common and may add a lot of the unseen mass to the universe. If the signal in the above was far from any star this would seem to fit in better either with the advanced life cause, or the extrasolar planet, but not the magnetic star. If the proto cloud formed a star it would have been massive enough to form more, but smaller masses could exist more often by accretion of leftover rocks from older star systems in rooms of greater volume, they would be in these realms to close the cosmos in general.
No doubt it's probably just a more massive power source, or we may have actually even found advanced life, finally we may have reached the sign of the feline, mine will always ignore meece!
Earth Rooms Save Heating and Cooling Costs
.
Build An Earth Room Anywhere and Start your Own Resort, You May Win the Olympics at Crustmas!
At thanksgiving they used to say that the pioneers invented the log house, actually it was invented by the Indians. I once read in Reader's Digest about a Ohioan in the South who was digging up his field with an earth machine, and decided to make a big hill of dirt. Then he realized it would be good in the snow to slide down the side of this behemoth at Christmas, started his own winter resort and got rich! I saw this room built by the indians, it has the door as usual, and then the house is actually a wide cone of earth with a rounded top. This was where they must have dug down and put up the room and then piled all the dirt up there. This is like the rooms they dig out of the side of a slope with usual earth movers. Wood has the "astounding" R value (for insulation) of R32 but these rooms have low or no heating or cooling costs whatsoever (except on the outside wall, but this can be sealed, also) because the temperature in the earth is almost constant whatever the weather. This conical room has been invented so it's unnecessary to have just a room where the slope is, no heating and cooling, and when you marry a mountain woman, you marry the whole mountain. And it would make a great slope up North. It has no heating bills and takes up just the room for the pile of earth, with the rooms inside, and without the extra rent for the Lodge. This is like the WhorlRwe tribe, that old tribe near here, like me and lots of us, they climb up on the roof, and say Where The WhorlRWe!?
***!!!
Build An Earth Room Anywhere and Start your Own Resort, You May Win the Olympics at Crustmas!
At thanksgiving they used to say that the pioneers invented the log house, actually it was invented by the Indians. I once read in Reader's Digest about a Ohioan in the South who was digging up his field with an earth machine, and decided to make a big hill of dirt. Then he realized it would be good in the snow to slide down the side of this behemoth at Christmas, started his own winter resort and got rich! I saw this room built by the indians, it has the door as usual, and then the house is actually a wide cone of earth with a rounded top. This was where they must have dug down and put up the room and then piled all the dirt up there. This is like the rooms they dig out of the side of a slope with usual earth movers. Wood has the "astounding" R value (for insulation) of R32 but these rooms have low or no heating or cooling costs whatsoever (except on the outside wall, but this can be sealed, also) because the temperature in the earth is almost constant whatever the weather. This conical room has been invented so it's unnecessary to have just a room where the slope is, no heating and cooling, and when you marry a mountain woman, you marry the whole mountain. And it would make a great slope up North. It has no heating bills and takes up just the room for the pile of earth, with the rooms inside, and without the extra rent for the Lodge. This is like the WhorlRwe tribe, that old tribe near here, like me and lots of us, they climb up on the roof, and say Where The WhorlRWe!?
***!!!
They've added fat enhancers to lunch so we'll buy more. What I like about this is it makes me think I've eaten more when I have no weight!
.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Quantum Codes, How Sound Is The Web?
.
MORE ABOUT QUANTUM CODES
Some are saying we should base the web on quantum physics, i.e. when you take two subatomic motes like electrons and twirl them in the fields, it's well known they are linked. So by the (no doubt) unusual motifs of subatomic physics, when you seperate them by a distance and you change one, the other one "knows" even if it's 10 million miles away, and it knows fast. This would presumably be via a faster than light signal between the particles. The idea is to use this, well proven by experiment, to make it so no one would be able to tamper with information enroute between source and destination. If the electrons "know" they say it would be safe to send and retrieve web based information via this motif.
I think this is way ahead of our time, even if it's Memorial Day 1979! My belief is, all physical systems like this must have some loophole that would make it fail, and the only real safe codes may be by just using the same method to make the web safe already in use.
Here's why I think the above idea about using this motif if it makes a link supposedly safe, is unsound.
Einstein believed there must be some way around the Uncertainty Principle, this is derived from experiment in subatomic physics. The Uncertainty Principle says because the probe and the seen particle are about at the same level of energy you can't change the energy without ricochets that change the size or you can't change the mass without changing the time. Einstein believed if you had a probe of small enough energy you would be able to find out the time and space occupied by the particle and other motifs to any level of resolution, just like a beam of light is small when it illuminates a sofa, and then our eye. From this Einstein may have gotten his belief it was just a coincidence that the probe and the baryon or mesons were at about the same power level.
I agree with Einstein because gravity is the foundation field, all the other forces speak gravity but not necessarily to other forces than gravity. The history of gravity has influenced science more than any other physics. And the conservation laws in subatomic physics go from simple to more and more conserved properties conserved; all that's true of each force is true of the forces below it plus more, a sort of pile of power. The lowest energy field would energise up to the higher one up, gravity to electromagnetism, then electromagnetism to higher up, and more explaining the uniformity of nature and energy conservation of energy. All the physics is from the lower field at higher or lower levels. If gravity creates the other fields by bunching up the lines of force, the strength of and the relative power of each force is determined by the strength of the gravity. If gravity were more powerful it would cause more bunching and the ratio of the strong force to electric and or the electric to gravity would be changed. This would change the energy of the probe like light to the measured particle so it would be more like the light to the sofa cushion which has no Uncertainty Principle, and I think this is what Einstein was saying. There is no necessity for the measured particles to be at the same energy level as the observed particle-the moon doesn't have to be of the same energy as the light, because the gravity that would energise up to the levels of the other forces and their relative energies are arbitrary. Since the strength of gravity determines the relative strength of the probe and the measured subatomic mote and it's strength is by axiom, the Uncertainty Principle would not be the deeper physics which is based on gravity being the foundation. (Four Possible Ways around the Uncertainty Principle).
Schrodinger believed that if it were so about the Uncertainty Principle and you couldn't say where or if a meson was, if you had a cat in the box it may be both alive and dead, and no way to say if this was proof or disproof, this is the famous Schrodinger's Cat. Einstein got lots of hoots about this when he said, "Do you seriously think the moon is not up there when you don't look and see?" The Uncertainty Principle also says because the probe and the measured are about the same, you can't measure the mesons or other motes of subatomic physics without changing it. So it was assumed to measure would be to observe, which Einstein believed was not enough proof.
Einstein's way out of this was like what is now being used in the low energy quantum experiments. If you can't see the cat, send a mouse by and see if the mouse moves like a cat is in the box. He believed a low power probe might see without changing what's seen so much. While the experiments up to about 2000 seemed to disprove Einstein, these more recent low power experiments of this sort are indeed in favor of Einstein. This makes sense if the 20th century experiments were assuming what they were trying to prove by using a higher power probe see with.
If the low power experiments are proven this would mean it was of no worth to base the web on, if any physical event has a way to encode and decode, it has a way to encode and decode. This can be used anywhere. A signal must have a change, and any change causes other change, which can be seen by another machine of the same type. Events in physics are mostly simple, but the number line is more complex, so tougher to solve. Any signal in it's basic physics will be simple, it's just made of linear and angular motion, and easy to solve by a like motif.
Some say high speed computers may be bad for the web, I think Quantum Computers are not a threat to the web if based on the number line more than physics even if they're super high speed, because of the way codes are made and decoded. This is by the usual modus vivendi of the codes. It's a bit complex but the essence is it's much easier to multiply up to a huge number and make a code out of it than it is to divide out the code. In the Oct. 2007 Scientific American about "Diamond Spintronics" the authors think if much higher speed computers are developed they would be able to divide (and unmultiply) so fast that the web and others who use the codes would be brought down. But I believe this is in error since the number line allows any level of complexity just by multiplying a more huge number up to make the codes. No matter how fast the computers may divide, it will always be easier to multiply than divide the numbers that make the web safe. This might be achieved by changing the codes more often with higher and higher numbers, the way they use to make automobile locks. A web a month saves Dr Mom with more than the same password all of us are using!
.
.
MORE ABOUT QUANTUM CODES
Some are saying we should base the web on quantum physics, i.e. when you take two subatomic motes like electrons and twirl them in the fields, it's well known they are linked. So by the (no doubt) unusual motifs of subatomic physics, when you seperate them by a distance and you change one, the other one "knows" even if it's 10 million miles away, and it knows fast. This would presumably be via a faster than light signal between the particles. The idea is to use this, well proven by experiment, to make it so no one would be able to tamper with information enroute between source and destination. If the electrons "know" they say it would be safe to send and retrieve web based information via this motif.
I think this is way ahead of our time, even if it's Memorial Day 1979! My belief is, all physical systems like this must have some loophole that would make it fail, and the only real safe codes may be by just using the same method to make the web safe already in use.
Here's why I think the above idea about using this motif if it makes a link supposedly safe, is unsound.
Einstein believed there must be some way around the Uncertainty Principle, this is derived from experiment in subatomic physics. The Uncertainty Principle says because the probe and the seen particle are about at the same level of energy you can't change the energy without ricochets that change the size or you can't change the mass without changing the time. Einstein believed if you had a probe of small enough energy you would be able to find out the time and space occupied by the particle and other motifs to any level of resolution, just like a beam of light is small when it illuminates a sofa, and then our eye. From this Einstein may have gotten his belief it was just a coincidence that the probe and the baryon or mesons were at about the same power level.
I agree with Einstein because gravity is the foundation field, all the other forces speak gravity but not necessarily to other forces than gravity. The history of gravity has influenced science more than any other physics. And the conservation laws in subatomic physics go from simple to more and more conserved properties conserved; all that's true of each force is true of the forces below it plus more, a sort of pile of power. The lowest energy field would energise up to the higher one up, gravity to electromagnetism, then electromagnetism to higher up, and more explaining the uniformity of nature and energy conservation of energy. All the physics is from the lower field at higher or lower levels. If gravity creates the other fields by bunching up the lines of force, the strength of and the relative power of each force is determined by the strength of the gravity. If gravity were more powerful it would cause more bunching and the ratio of the strong force to electric and or the electric to gravity would be changed. This would change the energy of the probe like light to the measured particle so it would be more like the light to the sofa cushion which has no Uncertainty Principle, and I think this is what Einstein was saying. There is no necessity for the measured particles to be at the same energy level as the observed particle-the moon doesn't have to be of the same energy as the light, because the gravity that would energise up to the levels of the other forces and their relative energies are arbitrary. Since the strength of gravity determines the relative strength of the probe and the measured subatomic mote and it's strength is by axiom, the Uncertainty Principle would not be the deeper physics which is based on gravity being the foundation. (Four Possible Ways around the Uncertainty Principle).
Schrodinger believed that if it were so about the Uncertainty Principle and you couldn't say where or if a meson was, if you had a cat in the box it may be both alive and dead, and no way to say if this was proof or disproof, this is the famous Schrodinger's Cat. Einstein got lots of hoots about this when he said, "Do you seriously think the moon is not up there when you don't look and see?" The Uncertainty Principle also says because the probe and the measured are about the same, you can't measure the mesons or other motes of subatomic physics without changing it. So it was assumed to measure would be to observe, which Einstein believed was not enough proof.
Einstein's way out of this was like what is now being used in the low energy quantum experiments. If you can't see the cat, send a mouse by and see if the mouse moves like a cat is in the box. He believed a low power probe might see without changing what's seen so much. While the experiments up to about 2000 seemed to disprove Einstein, these more recent low power experiments of this sort are indeed in favor of Einstein. This makes sense if the 20th century experiments were assuming what they were trying to prove by using a higher power probe see with.
If the low power experiments are proven this would mean it was of no worth to base the web on, if any physical event has a way to encode and decode, it has a way to encode and decode. This can be used anywhere. A signal must have a change, and any change causes other change, which can be seen by another machine of the same type. Events in physics are mostly simple, but the number line is more complex, so tougher to solve. Any signal in it's basic physics will be simple, it's just made of linear and angular motion, and easy to solve by a like motif.
Some say high speed computers may be bad for the web, I think Quantum Computers are not a threat to the web if based on the number line more than physics even if they're super high speed, because of the way codes are made and decoded. This is by the usual modus vivendi of the codes. It's a bit complex but the essence is it's much easier to multiply up to a huge number and make a code out of it than it is to divide out the code. In the Oct. 2007 Scientific American about "Diamond Spintronics" the authors think if much higher speed computers are developed they would be able to divide (and unmultiply) so fast that the web and others who use the codes would be brought down. But I believe this is in error since the number line allows any level of complexity just by multiplying a more huge number up to make the codes. No matter how fast the computers may divide, it will always be easier to multiply than divide the numbers that make the web safe. This might be achieved by changing the codes more often with higher and higher numbers, the way they use to make automobile locks. A web a month saves Dr Mom with more than the same password all of us are using!
.
.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
. COMPUTERIZED SHOPPING WITHOUT THE WEB
......If you've tried online food shopping, you know it's not cheap, and you may search a month to find general pizza that's not a specialty item just so stores may boost sales at the boxoffice (you may hear about the veggies the commercial says is good for breathing, better for health may be to breathe hot dish, brain food, make you rich!). You may have heard of the computerized shopping carts with the readout that has promotions and lists all the stuff you already put in the box. But you still would have to go to the store. Studies have shown that two thirds of the shoppers go in feeling good and just a fourth go out feeling so, so shopping may actually be bad for health. Where I live, you can't just pay a cab to shop for you, most messenger services (with real memos) don't buy food or other business in the stores for you and then deliver it. The box when it arrives at your roomwah of your chateau is where the egyptshine goddess rules, just if the box has 4 sides and is marked 2000 BC powders. If you had a box already bought at the store, this would be worth it to many and make them feel more loved about such as Christmas shopping, who here loves a great big hug? Me! For best shopping it's good to know what's on the shelves. So instead of just a shopping machine with promotions like the cyber shopping machine, a robo shopping method has been invented. Instead of a visit to the store, the shopper would look up the store online where they live. When they would type in what they were hoping to add to the list they would see an image of a store shelf, and click to compare. This is just the usual web shopping, no doubt. Once the customer has the whole memo he sends the list to the merchant with pay. The store then uses robot shopping carts instead of machines that just count the items. The wheeled robo computerized machines would roll around where all the items in the store to be bought would be. How to pick up the stuff off the shelf and put it in the box? Robot arms that pick up the dish cost about 10,000, not cheap, but big stores would be able to afford it by using the boxes in volume, and the price of robot arms may not be so high, not while worth is higher of merchandise sold. Or the items would go from the shelf to the robot machine on wheels via a simple unlocking shelf that would pour the items down a chute when the shelf or bin each item was held in was tipped over by the machine, also good to restock stores automatically!
This idea would make home grocery shopping viable because of low cost, high volume and small distances of the food to go. A more advanced way could be to use a whole warehouse that would be owned by the store, the warehouse would essentially be an assembly line to make the boxes of just what the doctor, chef, or superwoman (mom) ordered. It would have all the machines to lift the boxes and jugs fast and cheap in volume without the robo shopper that would have to wind in and out of the shoppers, especially at christmas when the most business is. For optimal use, the auto load warehouse would be perhaps in the rooms beside the main store, so the inventory could be used in both stores, they wouldn't have to move it far to sell if sales of one or the other were slow. "You can't eat your own mozzerela in here!" No problem, this is the wife's!
. Once all the items are in the box it would pay the store without stopping at the cashiers and rolls out when the cab or other van arrives to deliver the box. This might cost 15, 5 for the cab and 10 for the shopping, but this would be worth the cost by buying in volume. Or the buyer would just drive to pick up what they bought. This would be especially good for christmas and other holiday shopping. If there were a lot of people in the store the box would just rest a bit or find it's way via another route since it knows the store well. There would be a one way valve for the items like in a vending machine and it would be a safe on wheels with electric shock or other security to stop theft if in doubt.
.
Some say this would have the promise of web grocery shopping without the higher prices and with shorter trips, more security, and more options than all the web groceries I've seen so far, so for example if you like to eat for health you have this option.
.
Want A Real Challenge? A Fitness Boost While You Shop!
-
Business Links, How to Be Rich Cheap
-
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)