materialsscienceandengineering: Nano-coating makes coaxial...

materialsscienceandengineering:

Nano-coating makes coaxial cables lighter

Scientists replace metal with carbon nanotubes for aerospace use

Common coaxial cables could be made 50 percent lighter with a new nanotube-based outer conductor developed by Rice University scientists.

The Rice lab of Professor Matteo Pasquali has developed a coating that could replace the tin-coated copper braid that transmits the signal and shields the cable from electromagnetic interference. The metal braid is the heaviest component in modern coaxial data cables.

The research appears this month in the American Chemical Society journalACS Applied Materials and Interfaces.

Replacing the outer conductor with Rice’s flexible, high-performance coating would benefit airplanes and spacecraft, in which the weight and strength of data-carrying cables are significant factors in performance.

Rice research scientist Francesca Mirri, lead author of the paper, made three versions of the new cable by varying the carbon-nanotube thickness of the coating. She found that the thickest, about 90 microns – approximately the width of the average human hair – met military-grade standards for shielding and was also the most robust; it handled 10,000 bending cycles with no detrimental effect on the cable performance.

Read more.

Why are we still using co-ax cables?

via Tumblr http://bit.ly/21nc9RI

Internet TV stands a chance with new FCC proposal

Good news for us cord cutters out there: the Verge reported today that the FCC has just offered a proposal which would give companies the ability to license traditionally broadcast television based shows for streaming on the internet.

This proposal would be excellent for consumers, because it would mean generally lower monthly bills, and also only paying for shows that you actually want to watch. And it likely would lead to more competitive pricing from cable companies as well, which is never a bad thing.

This could also mean that we will actually see the long rumored Apple Television, rather than just the current set top box iteration. Google appears to have been prepping for a future with this passed proposal, based on an app seen for Android TV.

Are you excited for this as I am? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Comcast's Xfinity Commercial is ridiculous

Does anybody else find it totally ridiculous that this commercial from Comcast touts the company's ability to record 4 shows at once and watch another? They talk about this like it's revolutionary, and not just some artificially imposed number, no different than the 2 shows at once that other companies use as limits.

The only reason that this seems like a good option is because the other option are worse. We shouldn't be happy with this. Comcast shouldn't have the nerve to advertise this.

I hate cable companies.

The problem with bundling

Megan Geuss on arstechnica reports on a study that found "On average, Americans get 189 cable TV channels and only watch 17." 

To many, this may seem surprising, especially considering another finding of the study, which is that while the available channels to consumers has increased steadily since 2008, the average number of channels actually watched has remained relatively constant around 17 (source: linked article above).

So what does this mean? To me, this means that it's time that cable change format for delivery. I'm not calling for their change to pay-per-show model like many popular downloading stores like Amazon or iTunes. Rather, I am calling for a change in model to a pay-per-channel model.

Here's the justification: I am a huge football (soccer for Americans) fan. I would gladly be paying for Fox Soccer Channel right now, if it weren't for the fact that said channel comes bundled with a bunch of other channels I just don't care about. Yes, I want Fox Soccer, but I don't also want to be getting NFL Network, CBS Sports, and ESPN U, because I just don't care about the content that they air. I would be willing to pay more for a per-channel basis to only get what I want than to pay less for a bundle of crap.

This is where cord cutters are stepping in. This is where the cable industry is starting to falter and look to other means of keeping their ridiculous profit margins.

The content producers themselves would prefer this model, I would think, because they'd be serving their content only to a dedicated user-base who actually watches it, and would be paying directly for it. There would be far less of fighting to get into a bundle in hopes of being watched, and then being excluded from the magic 17 channels.

Just my two-cents on the subject, though. Let me know what you think in the comments. Do you like having more channels than you watch? Is that value to you?