Arugela

I was thinking you could make thin long ones that are the shape of a rocket or similar to reduce drag. Maybe rigid body if absolutely needed. I was hoping you could choose your dimensions well to get the same result. that or a long thin flying wing concept but more like a tear drop with points on both side or similar that is aerodynamic enough... Or a long cylinder. Those are the worst designs aren't they. Make it like a specialized bullet or something. If you can make it big enough why not float and use reduced thrust to go up like a rocket propelled blimp. If not maybe a cool lighter than air reentry vehicle. http://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2012/01/can-lighter-than-air-spacecraft-enter.html https://www.seeker.com/airships-offer-alternative-stairway-to-space-1765492330.html Here's is an example. Obviously not a rocket design but... Another idea. If you are going with vacuum and loose fabric and frame could you design a morphing shape body that can change in flight to meat various needs. It's not necessarily hard to design wires potentially with curves or other things to change shape logically. https://geekswipe.net/research/engineering/supersonic-bi-directional-flying-wing-html/ combine with this concept maybe.

Or could make a speedy submarine that shoots out a rocket from it's length/nose instead of it's top and use that vacuum tube concept. 8) It's a bit extreme but potentially reusable... >< Then fire a special rocket with lighter than air enhancements to get more lift. I still wonder if there is a speed to get to maximize the gain in height before igniting the main rockets. If needed use an inner tube in the submarine to help protect the rocket or a shell to make it like a giant bullet to maximize air speed or something. The shell could eve hold the lighter than air properties or a large portion to enhance the rocket ascent. AKA this is now a bullet/rocket/zeppelin shot from a submarine/gun. 8) AKA firing a large navy shell with a giant rocket in it that when the shell separates leaves you with a rocket to ignite in the air. And it's enhanced with lighter than air properties to make it go higher!(possibly both the rocket and the shell.) ^ this is basically what I edited after you posted. 8) I'm just seeing how far it can be taken logically. Even jokingly. I imagine any such sub would either not need to go very fast or be built like a giant tuna. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74240/what-happens-if-a-rocket-is-filled-with-a-vacuum-instead-of-high-pressured-air/74243 This is interesting. 8) Could this be used to help expel fuel and then fill the chamber with a vacuum to create bouyancy in air. Maybe to help gain lift as it empties or to help ascending reusable parts land more safely? Or am I misunderstanding the concept? Maybe if it has the next stage lighting it up with fire on the outside to help get the last of the air out to help it get down to earth again for reusable stages. If it needs it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ki9Kta8g14&feature=youtu.be I found this also. It looks like fun. Edit: Oh, I read something wrong. I was thinking the vacuum tube was to create propulsion to launch like a bullet into air(The first one that is.). Misread that. that would be cool to see a balloon space elevator. 8) If it doesn't scale then at least we have hope for the future of SSPPppAAaaACCEeeEE PPIiiiZZZAaaaaA!!!!! We could even use the atmosphere and other heat sources to cook the pizza on the way up!(or down.) Actually in this case it would be like a vacuum oven. I think those cook pizzas. Edit2: That underwater gun concept is conveniently hooked onto a large drilling platform. You could so easily just hide that and wait till night and secretly launch from your, "Underwater drilling equipment!" Maybe BP has a secret space service and those oil spills are to cover up the equipment. I wonder how many of those oil platforms are conveniently on really good launch sites along with all of those oil pocket discoveries...(GB: We do not have any mysterious launch sites near the american coast. Oh look a spill... Oh god the environment! What will we do!? We shall get the first boats there to help clean up and help remove that drilling equipment and plug that nasty hole up!) Edit3: And trying to use vacuum(or gas) would be the same as the parachutes for the airplane dropped rocket(assuming you can get anywhere near the same performance.). Except it might give some aid beyond the parachute deployment. I also wonder if that could be useful for reentry. If you could slow the decent a little would it help with safer returns to use vacuum chambers. You would even easily get vacuum chambers from space by letting out oxygen or things on the way back. If drag is not so much an issue on the way back from space why not Zeppelin landers. You could make the structure capable of deploying to larger sizes for returns to hold vacuum to slow down/aid in descent. If larger sizes are needed. Maybe sent up some heavy stuff and empty the cargo hold and fill with vacuum to slow down return trips. Or do we do this already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship According to this it could potentially lift 1.28g for every liter of vacuum air. How much could you potentially lighten a normal rocket? Could you simply vacuum out those large orange tanks and not separate quite as quickly from the space shuttle and get a little extra oomph?(obviously structure and other issues aside.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank LOX tank: 553,358 liters?! I'm assuming this is not straight forward. But if it was that is: 553,358.24*1.28=708,298.24grams= 0.78076516146US tons? 58,500lbs(empty)=29.25tons; 0.78076516146/29.25=2.67% of it's weight Not including the shuttle. I'm assuming that in no way works as i'm using fuel amounts and not air in liters. Anyone know how to convert fuel in liters to how much air would fit? Does this include all the space as that is only for the LOX tank? let alone the wrong values from pressure etc of fuel to vacuum. LH2 tank: 1,497,440 l. This added with the same math would be about 10% gain. If you could somehow gain that in flight while the fuel is draining then it could be useful I would imagine. You would in essence reduce your dry mass in flight. Edit4: Oddly that sea dragon fits my other notion. Super large rockets. Although having one where the top of the rocket is in lesser depth compared to the bottom would make a rocket of a few thousand feet long(or even a few hundred.). Although I bet the numbers would be interesting on how that affects launch. I think I saw a post on that once about super high in the atmosphere to avoid fuel use or something. But I have no idea how it went or how it would work starting in water. Water would support more types of structures until you got into the air. The blimp concept and other things could be applied to actually aid structure instead of primarily lifting if it's something that is better off in ocean/space compared to water. And if something goes from water to air it could easily inflate under the difference and use this to launch if it doesn't add drag sufficiently. maybe it gets longer and is loose like a deep see fish and inflates with hot air on the way up. That would be a undersea launched hot air balloon rocket. I guess that would be a more pure rockoon but from water and it has to inflate on the way up. It's either hot air or a structure that can inflate but still hold a vacuum. Maybe a metal structure(like a round tomato cage) with fabric held taught enough?! Edit5: Final note, if I can stop editing. What about a water bottle rocket that the fills with air in a vacuum to get as high as possible. 8d If anything it might make a cool toy. If you are already using vacuum why not increase pressure then do the opposite and maybe add a balloon concept like above(tomato cage that inflates and holds taught fabric to hold vacuum.). Might win a model rocket contest with it or something if it works well. 8) Edit6: Maybe if a descending vehicle can be made it can work like a boat that rides on the layers of the atmosphere. Maybe if done right it can be made into a space rescue vehicle in case of accidents in space and collect crew if they get detached in a worst case scenario. Or just a really cool descent vehicle. Think a boat descending through the atmosphere that is also a blimp lie inflatable structure and can ride the clouds and atmospheric layers. Maybe enough stuff could be added to the ISS to safely bring it back from orbit without it burning up to reuse or put in a museum. Same for some of the russian stuff.

Those are interesting. I always liked the idea of getting into atmosphere before launch. I was at one point working on an electric ascent for eve but It never got fully of the ground. It got a ways up there but It was tedious. Although it looked like a potential for in game. The other idea with water is the fact you are in a space like environment. You hypothetically are giving launch a full 3d 360 infinite runway with virtually no limitations on distance and other factors. Or like the long balloon idea make something so large the bottom is in one region and the top in another. 8) The other thing I was thinking is like sub missiles but not necessarily going straigth up. If you encapsulate them you can literally make a sub carrying a traditional rocket(or any rockets. use it deal with underwater pressures and make it reusable. Then it and the underwater stage basically stay in or on the water surface and you collect them afterwords. on top of this use lifting body concepts to get more out of the normal rockets via adding to the current rockets or via a stage on top or on the bottom to give extra life. Or like you mentioned it could be like a water based firing chamber using negative pressure. Maybe it could be run from the deep or use ti to gain momentum and fire like a plane firing a gun. If you are getting enough re usability out of it then maybe it would help. If not maybe the buoyancy issues and lighter than air stuff could help lower fuel a little in order to need less full for things like the reusable parts from spacex or similar. if it helps at all it could get more efficiency out of stages from it potentially. If you already have air pumps and can make pump it all out fast enough you could make it ascend better on the way down by using it's existing structure to some extent to remove air. And the other advantage of water, although what i already mentioned, is that you can go from the waters surface at any angle. You are not stuck with an initial vertical launch if it's helpful. And you don't need to take straight launches. You can use any convoluted path you want potentially. Even a circle to gain speed and try to breach like a whale to gain max altitude and velocity. Could you use the water speed and lighter than air concept(or reduction of effective mass) to get it in the air without thrusters with enough momentum? I would imagine there is a way to calculate how much speed would be needed to get to a certain altitude. I'm asuming you can reduce drag more with shape and things. Although i have no idea how much. with separate stages you could specialize the shape. If the underwater one is literally a sub made out of engines and a sheath around the entire rocket you could customize pretty nicely. At least hypothetically. I didn't think about the heatsink part. If it helps you could use more powerful or smaller engines on the underwater portion. I was basically thinking of a rockoon with a stiff body, or applied to a stiff body, like a zeplin body, being projected from underwater, via a distinct underwater phase, and then made more efficient on the way up. Plus I was wondering if the lighter than air applied underwater could enhance the water breaching stage to increase the height or velocity. Then you use a more powerful underwater stage to pull it or keep it under at a safe depth and then launch. if you can even stay at a shallow depth but move horizontally underwater you could then pull up with the right depth launch at a steeper angle. But I'm guessing it would depnd on the struture, which is why a dedicate shell around the entire rocket as an underwater stage might be good. You could make a speedy submarine that shoots out a rocket from it's length/nose instead of it's top and use that vacuum tube concept. 8) It's a bit extreme but potentially reusable... >< Then fire a special rocket with lighter than air enhancements to get more lift. I still wonder if there is a speed to get to maximize the gain in height before igniting the main rockets. If needed use an inner tube in the submarine to help protect the rocket or a shell to make it like a giant bullet to maximize air speed or something. The shell could eve hold the lighter than air properties or a large portion to enhance the rocket ascent. AKA this is now a bullet/rocket/zeppelin shot from a submarine/gun. 8) AKA firing a large navy shell with a giant rocket in it that when the shell seperates leaves you with a rocket to ignite in the air. And it's enhanced with lighter than air properties to make it go higher!

Technically this is not true. The only absolutely correct scientific answer is always, "I don't know." Anyone saying anything else is full of you know what.

Could you dual purpose things enough to not add extra weight. Or get enough vacuum to compensate for the extra weight on the bouyancy stagings? A vacuum would be made from a pump and you already use pumps for fuel don't you? You'd just have to make it well enough to not add mass overall. Outside of any structural increase needs. Could you get anything from current structural uses with just adding vacuum to current stages? Maybe it could be added to lighten the current rockets a little with current equipment. Or is that not realistic? If you could take current equipment and apply the principle to current empty compartments could you within the current structure of a rocket hypothetically get any significant gains? Even for a land based rocket? I'm also proposing entire stages dedicated to being a blimp to get the rocket higher before launch to reduce overall fuel payload. Assuming that is even possible meaningfully. If added to current units without adding much mass could you get more efficiency with the current easily safe structural integrity. Maybe the principle could be applied to eak out enough performance for things that are currently just barely not possible. Or to help stabilize rockets in some way. If it's applied to a side, given balance and other considerations, maybe the concept could be used to aid in flight. That or maybe it's useful for smaller rockets as proposed. Say, super cheap fresh pizza delivery to the ISS.

Yea my calculator had 1019.45454545. Not sure how the game rounds things though. You can also do a multiplier: Ox= 1/0.55*.45=0.81818181818181(IE 9/11); 1246*0.818181818=1019.45454545454 LF=1/0.45*.55=1.222222222222(IE 11/9); 1019.45454545454*1.222222222=1246 This is technically simpler and easier to remember if you realize the numerator values of the other formula are 9|11. (ox=smaller number first as it is the larger value; LF=bigger number first as it is the smaller number) Although, I never remember that...

I just had a fun idea. The though came to me randomly that sometimes maybe you need to go down to go up... Stupid random thought, but.. What about making rockets that use buoyancy and water to make them go faster to help get out of the atmosphere. They could use, buoyancy, and things like, hopefully light/redundant, electrical systems to do what a jetski does or similar and maybe loose the bottom part or separate near the surface in order to reuse it. This part could be collected. Example. A rocket dives very deep(maybe the water thrusters in reverse.) then go upwards at a speed to seperate the above rocket in order to make it separate like navy/sub missile and bounce into the air and then use that momentum to maximum upward thrust and then ignite the rockets and get into orbit. Could you make more interesting rockets or more efficient ones. I imagine they could be larger to fit in gasses or things for upward thrust or use compressed air or a vacuum to create things to aid in rocket propelled ascent partially. How feasible is this and has this been considered over land rockets. Also a mid stage filled with helium or vacuum could be either made to land (possible similar to a blimp, or at least to minimize descent forces) Or if filled with viable materials used as part of the rocket stage as fuel. Has this been attempted or proposed before? I was also looking at something about vacuum blimps recently. The blimp stage could either just aid the water ascent and stay when reaching the surface or it could help propel actual rocket stage higher in order to gain altitude to lessen the overall craft fuel needs. I imagine for a designer it would be nice to add negative weight to a craft for once. I imagine one problem could be getting the potential lighter than air stage to not hit he other one. Maybe you would need it to be on the nose and come off and float at a different trajectory than the main stage. It could also have some rockets to help pull it away and in a different direction before attempting to land. And with it being a water based rocket it could potentially just land in the water nice and soft like. 8) We don't have any lighter than air portions for rockets in stock to do we?! Either way, how high could you get a rocket before igniting main thrusters? Could this sort of hybrid design save on launch costs or allow new things to be done? You could also add in blimp like negative air aspects to staging to make the stages land softer or have a slower natural decent to save on fuel if using reusable stages. At least hypothetically. What if fuel tanks were make to fill with negative air vacuum after being spent on top of any additional outer vacuum chambers. If this could be done while expending fuel you could increase air buoyancy while ascending. Maybe this could be used to increase efficiency of the rocket.

Unless something has changed. Calculate pure LF and ox/LF tanks separately by weight.(By this I mean weight LF+ox seperate from just LF tanks. Although either logical method works.) Ox and LF each seperately weigh 0.005 tons per unit I think. They weight the same amount to simplify this calculation a bit. Proportion of fuel is: OX: 11/20=.55 LF: 9/20=.45 It is proportional just each other. Note, 9+11=20/20. 8) Unless I reversed them. it's the same as the original small tank. It has one at 9 and one at 11 units. That is the numerator for each one in proper ration. And the denominator is 20. IE their sum. You can use this to figure out if you used too much LF compared to ox. Or see how much ox you can burn if you are low on LF. Example: If you have 55 units of ox you need= 55/.55=100*.45= 45 LF to be able to burn it all. Mono weighs 0.004 tons per units and ore weights 0.01 tons per units. I think Ox and LF weight 0.005. It's the same number of zeros as the mono. Xeno weighs 0.0005 I think. It has one more zero than the ox/lf/mono. Ore has one less zero than lf/ox/mono.

I just opened the game in the first time in a long time and got the go to privacy page thing. I went there and it had a screen that says I can get my data or opt out. I clicked the square and hit opt out and it did not do anything. I then later hit the get my data and it said wait 24 hours and come back?! Anyone have any idea how this works or what it is doing. I always opt out of all data collection. I'm assuming this is the same as the old button to not collect data about the game. Where did that button go and why did they have to remove it also? https://dataoptout-ui-prd.uca.cloud.unity3d.com/?token=t9v0cguhou9b7ar9pehke38ch9lvuveuj800mk4nfa2j5tp8 Will the game stop working if this is opted out. I personally hate the type of stuff on handheld devices. Also, why can't it be undone? And is there anything bad with me posting that link above?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoThEnj0Q54 Youtube comments and the internet are failing. Did anyone during this time see any lanterns hanging in boston or florida mysteriously?! Did any british sailors say anything about an odd smell of tea in the air. I'm sure combined with whatever odd odors might make up the florida waters! >< (Gator tea is good for you and me. 8)

Now we just need to consider the distance of launch the speed and then compare it to a nascar race and see given the same distance who wins. They could add the rocket to the nascar race via computer and watch as the cars try to race against the space rocket! It would be like a partial return to the classic races that spawned nascar and other land speed tests.

Yea, the video mentions something about it using actual footage. I was assuming watching teh first few minutes that it was all legitimate and from a dig. they even have a point where they show an actual dig in color seeming to match the opening. I'll assume since a guy got in a bush to watch the landing it's a reenactment thing for the video. I don't know any of the specifics. I just skimmed through it after the first few minutes where he pulls the stuff out of the mud. I thought it was too funny looking with the bright yellow rain coats and his hat... I was hoping someone would recognize the tool used and possibly the, "writing," on it. 8p Craftsman and seers lasted along time if it's them.

Maybe somebody got bored and pulled out a gun and decided to do some sort of target practice in the space station and missed. Is it an inward or outward going hole?

Just to be funny does anyone think when he moves the red stuff off the fine tool that it looks like it may have a logo on it! >< Like it's just something he bought at a local shop and stuck in the mud. https://youtu.be/49tm5FPZFn0?t=412 I wonder if there is any possibility that is also actually just red paint. It looks a lot like modern paint just thrown lightly into mud. Ironic if that is a modern paint scraper or something. If so it would lead to me to believe that people who were faking archeology back then had an odd tendecy to do it with a particular sense of humor. His clothing alone and that pompous entrance in the video(/w convenient purposely dumb looking side stooge.)makes me think he's likely to be full of excrements and a fraud. BTW, that polished stone looks like it's just a piece of broken off metal fencing. Is this a reenactment?! NVM, I'm assuming this is just representative as it was in the late 1800 - early 1900's... The framed entranced shot off the boat and color film are probably a giveaway. Unless this was happening until later in his life and this is actual footage somehow.(or someones else's later dig.) He is rather old. This is either a reinactment with modern items or it's fake. You can see the holes of modern tooled bolts along the top of the handle or something in this pick:

I was just thinking about something else about it. The length could be purposely designed. If the trap is carefully cut to not turn on the hoof it then coudl be designed to purposely interrupt the front to back leg movements. This would potentially stop it from running. If it can turn on the hoof it could snag in all directions if done long enough. If the wholes are cut purposely small enough it could be custom made to animal leg length, which people hunting and eating on a regular occurrence, let alone wearing as clothing/jewelery, would be intimately familiar with those lengths and sizes. They may even use them as standards for clothing and whatnot. They would basically be taking the most efficient part of the animal and then throwing a wrench in that part as efficiently and simply as possible. That would be a very good trap on that grounds alone I would imagine. Unless that is not why it's good. I would think the easiest way for the animal to minimize the trap is for the back to go slightly outwards. The trap could then be designed around how the animal walks to hit the other leg depending on the stride of the deer. If not it would hang but risk getting in the way of limbs on any side and still make it harder to walk gapping the distance it and the hunter can move in a given period. If not the whole or other parts could be specialized to control the movement to make something more likely to happen. Maybe that trap design can be modified to different animals that way. I wonder if anyone has compared the traps lengths and stuff to the way the animal walks to see what they specifically focused on in the trap design. It could probably reveal a lot. I also don't think the fresh trap(the recreation) is realistic unless it's design to be shaped with use against the hooves of the animal. The real trap looksl ike it's custom fit to dangle as low on the hoof as possible by dangling out and is slightly cone shaped. I wonder if this is to be on the stronger part of the animal to cause less pain. And or to also potentially hand on the lowest center of gravity to mess with the individual foot as well. I could imagine they carve it specially or they could hypothetically let it's wear and tear carve it out a bit. But the pre coned/shaped hole could be useful. They would probably have a hoof around as a mold or shape to follow. The rest depends on the individual knowledge about the animal. And if they hunt it to survive I imagine that is pretty thorough. I also doubt the wood would be finished and polished that way. I would think that might make it look too man made. Unless the prey goes for that sort of thing. Although if it was set in a whole all they have to do is set the resistance of the trap not to break the trap and lift out if needed. Then it acts as described as they move. They would have to know how to do that fairly easily as that is the basics of how the rest of the trap would already have to work. If it was in a hole it was probably to hide it and or get the foot far enough in and go down the leg to trap it. And then hidden just enough that if it gets out it doesn't remove the trap and is auto resettable which is actually a really good thing potentially as it gives more chances. If it gets trapped it could hypothetically be held light enough to then pull ou and stay on the animal unless it's easy enough for the trap to hold it there. I guess you could play with the hole design to limit the animals pull force if it forces the leg be bent in an inefficient way or something. It would depend on how each trap was made and the limits of the design. It seems interesting though. I wonder if the museum people went over it thoroughly enough to get potentialy structural limits or tested designs to see how it may work in practice per it's intended prey. I'm virtually repeating what the guy in the video said though.

Here is it without the video list: Tread Trap

I can't see embedded videos.(BTW, does anyone know who to get mozilla in firefox to show embedded videos. it's been wonky lately.) It's this one: Tread Traps It's part of a video list. That might be the extra.

Boredom post again. Saw this guys trap video. He say's it would be convenient to hold in the ground. This is potentially true. But I imagine that is even more difficult and a simpler solution is possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQQ688csuw Something even simpler and elegant is that is it light enough for the animal to walk but not enough to run from weight and size. This also makes materials easier to find and the design simpler. If you simply stick it in the snow or on the snow like the picture he only needs to get his foot in a little bit. This means it could be setup in multiple ways also. Over a hole, like he said, maybe with leaves. Possibly weight down or loose with a closed setup. Or it could be spring fed to need less space meaning it gets trapped and held on the foot enough to make walking annoying by shape and other aspects. In a snow environment it would leave much bigger tracks in the snow making it easier to hunt. So would any encumbrance to it's running. As it it long and thin it could start to rotate if running getting in the way of the animals stride etc. And with the spiky thing it could cause pen further making the animal not struggle and break or loosen from the trap. This could also slowly or quickly rub against it flesh causing bleeding that in a snowy environment could make things easier to spot. Although I suspect the light and not breakable may be one of it's best uses as it could hang from one leg and not let the animal destroy it for multiple uses. Looking at it again, the illustration is not in the snow. But the logic could still apply. I think he's right about the way the trap was used basically and how it only needs minimal reinforcement to hold onto the animal. This means a simple twig could be used to hold the trap open and easily replenish-able if the mechanism is not attached. If facing the direction of the two other parts it can use it's own weight to hold on and the deer would have a hard time removing it. And if the hole it cut to not rotate it could still easily hold on to the foot and make him easier to hunt down. Mabe even wear him out over time if it stops him from resting. They could be making him not be able to sleep and then slowly hunt him down after he is exhausted. Think how most 4 legged creatures sit. They have to bend their front legs in a certain direction. Just stopping that forward motion,which those spikes aid in preventing psychologically if not physically. Will keep the trap alive and slow the animal down in the long run. Then they just need to find him. If it makes him bleed that may help also, unless it makes it more likely for other animals to find him first. Don't know anything about hunting so I have no idea. Long design would also be convenient because wooden planks on the ground may conveniently be in this form making maknig it easy to make out of random debri and not need as many tools in case of a need or desire to make the traps out in the woods. And if making out of wood and debri it might not be good to require it to take a lot of force as it might break. This could make a looser design superior as it's more versatile and can be make of more materials. Structural strength requires materials to accomplish and may make it more difficult to make the trap. If the trap is dangling it may also make extra noise helping the hunter track down the animal faster to get to it(or track it until it's tired) before other animals can get it. Also, if it's not weighed down it's quicker to set and place meaning it can be used in more ways. Say you know where the animals will go or you will make them go over it to see if you can get them to step in it. This is better the less you have to do potentially.

I was thinking it looked like this: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Stratus-V_Cylindrified_Monopropellant_Tank https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mystery_Goo™_Containment_Unit So, if it's a ksp part, it looks to me to either mono-propellant or mystery goo. I wonder if it's a US/Government satellite or ricks personal satellite. It may be someone is doing mystery goo experiments.

https://youtu.be/wP_mAU2dJqE?t=1821 Are the monopropellient/testing device in KSP based on a real life object or is this a KSP reference on the satelite in rick and morty VR?

The key is soil preparation. YOu need to know the condition to grow rep and then you prepare your field pop it in the ground and see what happens. If you don't know how to rep farm you need alot of experience to figure it out. And you will make many mistakes. Even starve to death or go under financially. You also need to know which type of rep you are trying to farm. If you apply the wrong methods you will not get the desired results. Entire generations have been wiped out because of lack of knowledge. Ecosystems slaughtered like in the great dust bowl era. It's a rough business and anything can happen. And sometimes, just when you think you have everything down, the government breaks more laws and comes after you and takes it all away. There is one rule in this world. Those with power will inevitably use it! It's a guarantee.

With the current market it may be that 4k hits as a small video size over larger monitors. Or I wouldn't be shocked(or has it already?). If you can deal with the processing all you need is the bandwidth etc and it may be good or easier/cheaper eventually on small handheld devices with access to streaming. I'll note I hate handheld devices in their current/software reduced/hardware locked state. I would love them if they could be utilized to their fullest extend and we have the full use/design of softeare to accomplish this. Like cop-processing next to my desktop and incorporating devices together. It's disgusting anything related to computers are ever not pushed to their fullest potential at all times. Destroys the future. Let alone the present.

I'm aware of how games work now. But it will eventually expand to use things more thoroughly. That has to occur to understand it completely. This sort of thing is always used thoroughly or we never learn enough about it. There is always a way to use something. More than can be thought out before using it.

Because it could be done in a different way and lead to new things.

This is my personal guess. But when tech upgrades enough and we get the idea to increase refresh rates regardless of proposed human needs. One day we will realize we can do cool stuff with it. Case1:(my only case atm) Invisibility. Games could use invisibility by actually making them invisible. This could be done like how you wave your hand fast enough that you cannot see it. Faster resolution could be used to purposly make things fast enough to not see. And Cloaking could be implemented literally. 8) You just might need monitors that can equalize the end result to make a uniform outcome. And there would be physical ways to reduce the refresh rate visually with physical glasses and whatnot to make it visible. But maybe with sufficient refresh this could be bypassed. And once again real cloaking implementation in game. Plus they could implement refresh rate changes on spots of the monitor to implement different effects and have a higher resolution to leave that range of options. Anyone know of any other uses. I just thought of this and thought it could be cool. Either way one point in the people who think refresh rates don't need to improve or have no use are wrong. There and will always be found way to utilize new things. It will always find a use. Not to mention we will find out new things about vision as we increase it. Things we wouldn't find out otherwise without putting it to the test. Are there any medical uses for refresh for testing? Nausea, vision, testing for brain tumors? There are always applications with sufficient knowledge. I was watching this and got the idea:(BTW, I could see the dot in all situations...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM&feature=youtu.be