Laser Research Optics is introducing a new line of gold plated copper mirrors for Mitsubishi high power lasers that are available for immediate delivery to minimize production downtime.
Laser Research copper Laser Mirrors are manufactured with > 99% pure gold deposited on OFHC copper and are offered in three plano types: zero phase shift, 90 degree phase shift, and 98.8% resonator mirrors. Featuring OEM quality, they have 1/20 power flatness, 1/40 irregularity at 10.6 μm, and surface quality of < 5nm RMS and 40-20 scratch-dig.
Available in 50mm, 60mm, and 3" dia. sizes with +0/-0.12mm tolerance, Laser Research copper Laser Mirrors for Mitsubishi lasers are suitable for beam bending in all beam paths and beam guidance systems, from simple measurement setup to high performance cutting, claims the firm.
Laser Research copper Laser Mirrors for Mitsubishi lasers are priced from $149.95 each. Price quotations are available upon request.
About Laser Research Optics
Laser Research Optics is a division of Meller Optics, Inc., a leading manufacturer of hard crystalline materials such as ruby and sapphire since 1921. The company maintains one of the largest inventories of stock CO2 optics in the country. Available for immediate delivery, the optics are ideal for direct field replacement in low power CO2 lasers currently being used for laser marking, laser engraving, laser cutting, and low power scribing and welding.
The hope is that everyone will join.
“If you are an individual who likes to experiment with things, try new ideas out, you don’t have to be a techie,” says Knight. “Just to get your hands on something, this is the place to come.”
City Paper visited several makerspaces to compare and contrast, and talk to members and founders about their goals.
The Baltimore Hackerspace is a big warehouse bay in a warehouse district full of guys chewing cigars and driving pallets around on 18-wheelers. Just inside the main door is a concrete floor area with tables and people working on projects. The rules—including Ohm’s Law—are hung on the walls. Picture the garage of a mad scientist who is married to a performance artist. There is an air-conditioned inner sanctum crowded with another communal table and shelves and computers. Mark Haygood is there, chatting with Powell and King, the latter of whom wrote the computer code that controls Haygood’s robot, HEX (“Robocop,” City Folk, May 1).
Powell shows off an amplifier kit he and King are marketing on Ubld.it, the company they just launched. It’s a kit of parts the size of a very big sandwich, with some diodes, a vacuum tube, and instructions. It puts out 8 monophonic watts and it sounds pretty good hooked up to a homemade speaker.
“Our mission is to build a whole bunch of different kits here with good instructions so people can learn and get into the hobby,” Powell says. “We tell you not only, ‘solder this here,’ but also what it does.”
Out in the main space, Knight, a network administrator for Philips Healthcare, explains why he’s building a robot. “We have a telemedicine unit,” he says, and a few months ago his boss asked him to look into getting a rolling robot, head high to a seated person, so medical specialists could potentially examine and interview many patients remotely. That’s how Knight knows they cost $10,000.
Read the full story at scfwindturbine.com web! If you love wind turbines, welcome to contact us!
2013年8月14日 星期三
2013年4月7日 星期日
Continuity is what the MC leaves out
Decisions taken in one tenure of the Municipal Corporation seem to be forgotten as the next one starts. The proposal of the civic body to purchase machines for collection of leaves had been rejected by the councillors in the previous tenure. The same is once again doing the rounds with the demonstration of the machine held last week.
While time and again a need for having some mechanism in place to maintain continuity has been highlighted, little has come of it. This time, the MC is contemplating purchasing machines which was opposed by the councillors in the previous term of the civic body. The proposal has raised eyebrows with the previous councillors crying foul.
Former Congress councillor Chander Mukhi Sharma says that a demonstration of the machines was held in 2009 as well. However, the consensus was that there was no need to purchase the machines as the problem of leaves did not occur throughout the year. Instead, it was proposed that the machines could be hired for a few months every year. He adds that officials are quick to purchase machines.
The Municipal Corporation has over the years purchased several cleaning machines that have not solved the intended purpose. The mechanised sweeping machines procured from Italy at a cost of Rs 5 crore have been a failure. Prior to that, two machines for road cleaning were purchased from Noida. That too did not serve any purpose. In previous years, a machine, "Bob Cat", was purchased for cleaning of back lanes. Within a few months, it became redundant.
Kamlesh, who was the mayor at that time, says, "I have time and again raised the need for having a system in place that would ensure continuity. The outgoing team should prepare a booklet containing the decisions taken. The officers are on deputation and are repatriated when the tenure ends. The councillors are elected every five years."
She adds that the proposal to purchase the machines had earlier been rejected. Objections had also been raised by the management of the garbage processing plant to the proposal.
Of the previous lot of councillors, five were re-elected when elections were held in 2011. Of these, H C Kalyan is the chairman of the sanitation committee that saw the demonstration of the machine held recently. He says that he does not remember seeing the machines earlier. All the members of the sanitation committee will be shown the machine and after examining all aspects, a decision will be taken on its purchase, he adds.
While time and again a need for having some mechanism in place to maintain continuity has been highlighted, little has come of it. This time, the MC is contemplating purchasing machines which was opposed by the councillors in the previous term of the civic body. The proposal has raised eyebrows with the previous councillors crying foul.
Former Congress councillor Chander Mukhi Sharma says that a demonstration of the machines was held in 2009 as well. However, the consensus was that there was no need to purchase the machines as the problem of leaves did not occur throughout the year. Instead, it was proposed that the machines could be hired for a few months every year. He adds that officials are quick to purchase machines.
The Municipal Corporation has over the years purchased several cleaning machines that have not solved the intended purpose. The mechanised sweeping machines procured from Italy at a cost of Rs 5 crore have been a failure. Prior to that, two machines for road cleaning were purchased from Noida. That too did not serve any purpose. In previous years, a machine, "Bob Cat", was purchased for cleaning of back lanes. Within a few months, it became redundant.
Kamlesh, who was the mayor at that time, says, "I have time and again raised the need for having a system in place that would ensure continuity. The outgoing team should prepare a booklet containing the decisions taken. The officers are on deputation and are repatriated when the tenure ends. The councillors are elected every five years."
She adds that the proposal to purchase the machines had earlier been rejected. Objections had also been raised by the management of the garbage processing plant to the proposal.
Of the previous lot of councillors, five were re-elected when elections were held in 2011. Of these, H C Kalyan is the chairman of the sanitation committee that saw the demonstration of the machine held recently. He says that he does not remember seeing the machines earlier. All the members of the sanitation committee will be shown the machine and after examining all aspects, a decision will be taken on its purchase, he adds.
2012年10月10日 星期三
LEDs winning light race to save energy
"The light-emitting diode lamp is a rapidly evolving technology that, while already energy efficient, will become even more so in just a few short years," said Marc Ledbetter, who manages PNNL's solid-state lighting testing, analysis and deployment efforts. "Our comprehensive analysis indicates technological advancements in the near future will help people who use these lamps to keep shrinking their environmental footprints."
The report examines total environmental impact, including the energy and natural resources needed to manufacture, transport, operate and dispose of light bulbs. Fifteen different impacts were considered when evaluating environmental footprints, including the potential to increase global warming, use land formerly available to wildlife, generate waste and pollute water, soil and air. The report examines the complete life cycles of three kinds of light bulbs: light-emitting diodes, also called LEDs, compact fluorescents, or CFLs, and traditional incandescent light bulbs.
Completed for the Solid-State Lighting Program of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, this is the first public report to examine the environmental impact of LED manufacturing in depth. Manufacturing processes contribute substantially to a light bulb's overall environmental impact, but companies generally keep manufacturing information private. The research team was able to gather manufacturing data with the help of industry consultants and some companies on the condition that the final report would not reveal individual company data.
To do the analysis, the team chose specific bulbs that best represent what's most typical and widely available for each of the three types of lights they studied. They then used a database to calculate the resources needed to produce the various components of the three light bulbs. That analysis revealed both LEDs and CFLs are substantially more environmentally friendly then traditional incandescents, which consume far more electricity. For example, the specific incandescent light bulb the team studied consumes 60 watts of electricity, while the LED model they studied uses just 12.5 watts and the representative CFL only uses 15 watts to create about the same amount of light.
"By using more energy to create light, incandescent bulbs also use more of the natural resources needed to generate the electricity that powers them," Ledbetter said. "Regardless of whether consumers use LEDs or CFLs, this analysis shows we could reduce the environmental impact of lighting by three to 10 times if we choose more efficient bulbs instead of incandescents."
The energy consumed by lights when they're turned on makes up the majority of their environmental impact. But, with power consumption being similar between LEDs and CFLs when they are lit, the research team found the difference between those two bulbs' overall environmental performance is largely determined by the energy and resources needed to make them.
CFLs were found to cause slightly more environmental harm than today's LED lamp in all but one of the 15 impact areas studied. The one standout area was generating hazardous waste that must be taken to a landfill. This is because LED lights include a component called a heat sink, a ribbed aluminum segment that is attached to the bottom of LED bulbs. Aluminum heat sinks absorb and later dissipate heat that's generated by the light bulb, preventing it from overheating. The process to mine, refine and process the aluminum in heat sinks is energy-intensive and creates several byproducts such as sulfuric acid that must be taken to a hazardous waste landfill.
The report examines total environmental impact, including the energy and natural resources needed to manufacture, transport, operate and dispose of light bulbs. Fifteen different impacts were considered when evaluating environmental footprints, including the potential to increase global warming, use land formerly available to wildlife, generate waste and pollute water, soil and air. The report examines the complete life cycles of three kinds of light bulbs: light-emitting diodes, also called LEDs, compact fluorescents, or CFLs, and traditional incandescent light bulbs.
Completed for the Solid-State Lighting Program of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, this is the first public report to examine the environmental impact of LED manufacturing in depth. Manufacturing processes contribute substantially to a light bulb's overall environmental impact, but companies generally keep manufacturing information private. The research team was able to gather manufacturing data with the help of industry consultants and some companies on the condition that the final report would not reveal individual company data.
To do the analysis, the team chose specific bulbs that best represent what's most typical and widely available for each of the three types of lights they studied. They then used a database to calculate the resources needed to produce the various components of the three light bulbs. That analysis revealed both LEDs and CFLs are substantially more environmentally friendly then traditional incandescents, which consume far more electricity. For example, the specific incandescent light bulb the team studied consumes 60 watts of electricity, while the LED model they studied uses just 12.5 watts and the representative CFL only uses 15 watts to create about the same amount of light.
"By using more energy to create light, incandescent bulbs also use more of the natural resources needed to generate the electricity that powers them," Ledbetter said. "Regardless of whether consumers use LEDs or CFLs, this analysis shows we could reduce the environmental impact of lighting by three to 10 times if we choose more efficient bulbs instead of incandescents."
The energy consumed by lights when they're turned on makes up the majority of their environmental impact. But, with power consumption being similar between LEDs and CFLs when they are lit, the research team found the difference between those two bulbs' overall environmental performance is largely determined by the energy and resources needed to make them.
CFLs were found to cause slightly more environmental harm than today's LED lamp in all but one of the 15 impact areas studied. The one standout area was generating hazardous waste that must be taken to a landfill. This is because LED lights include a component called a heat sink, a ribbed aluminum segment that is attached to the bottom of LED bulbs. Aluminum heat sinks absorb and later dissipate heat that's generated by the light bulb, preventing it from overheating. The process to mine, refine and process the aluminum in heat sinks is energy-intensive and creates several byproducts such as sulfuric acid that must be taken to a hazardous waste landfill.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)