Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

[Jem]

Is it just me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12135402

"The hologram in Power Balance is designed to resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry .

Still... We won the Ashes so who cares

Jem

[Dinesh]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry .

Cry.

Not because of the flagrant misuse of holography, but because of the gullibility of people who embrace the comfort of irrational superstition. I've known people who actually get quite angry when I confront them with the obvious contradictions of superstition. People also say "Where's the harm?" In fact, there is exactly one such comment beneath the article. The harm is both practical and ethical. Our forefathers fought hard to ensure an educated and literate public that would rise above the superstition of the dark ages. They must be rolling in their graves now to see us spend untold millions (billions?) in arcane mumbo-jumbo disguised as "science" in order to give it legitamacy - the irony being that our forefathers hoped that true science would dispel superstition, not to justify it! There is also harm in that public policy spends millions to "protect" us against invalid nonsense, such as moving schools to avoid the "radiation" from power lines, while lighting classrooms with fluorescent lights that emit a helluva lot more "radiation"!

I used to try and confront irrational rubbish about quantum mechanics, the danger of "laser radiation" etc. In the end, that hydra has too many heads. So, when holographers see Pepper's Ghost displays or lenticulars being called "holograms" and get irate, all I say is that there's no way you're going to stop it. Simply accept it! If you try to explain the difference between a Pepper's Ghost and a hologram, you'll be branded a "geek". In social situations, geekdom is leprosy! Pretend that you can't count to twenty without removing your socks and shoes and you'll be wildly popular!

By the way, would you sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide - http://www.dhmo.org/truth/? Before you answer, you might examine the structure of Dihydrogen Monoxide; it's molecule consists of two hydrogens and an oxygen.

[Johnfp]

OMG, that is too too too funny. I like the part about what happens if you ingest too much....

On a more serious note, I couldn't help notice that you reference Princess Leia in a description of your compact 3D display. Not saying your description is not 100% acurate as it is, but Princess Leia was a camera type projection onto a table top, a little different then what your platform does.In my humble opinion this is a little contradictory on what strong statements you make above. But I have never been one to complain about the misuse of the word Hologram or Holography. Just struck me as odd and funny at the same time. I think it stems down to pretty much all new technologies or technologies not widely known at least, that in order to describe them, we need to use a representation that the public is aware of. It may only be similar at best but it is the best way to describe something that someone has not seen before.

Anyway, nice to have you here again Dinesh.

[Dinesh]

Actually, if you notice the original "Princess Leia" in the movie, the figure is blinking in and out of existence, is fuzzy and is surrounded by so,me sort of halo - a pretty noisy hologram!

In my humble opinion this is a little contradictory on what strong statements you make above.

I agree. However you may have noticed the incredible press and media attention that Professor Peyghambarian received for his "Princess Leia" ( http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/03/arizo ... holograms/ ). I actually consulted with them for a year in 2008 developing the material and their holographic skills. I can tell you that his "Princess Leia" is actually just a Multiplex, or lenticular, hologram - slits imaged onto the emulsion and viewed like a rainbow. There's no floating image that floats in mid-space. In fact, the image depth is about an inch or two Prof Peyghambarian even admits that a true free-floating display is a few years away. However, all he had to say was that he had a "Princess Leia" and even the cognoscenti of the holography world accepted that we finally! had a Princess Leia. In fact, I'd say our display is much further along the road to being a true, free floating image ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgcKKgQPjuw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nq4ri2t ... er&list=UL ). In fact, I tried to stay away from terms like "Princess Leia" until the media (including the holography media!) went wild ove the U. of Arizona's announcement and we were told by investor and business partners that the only way to compete was to call ours Princess Leia. Unfortunately though, we're not the University of Arizona and therefore people don't take us seriously. It's OK, we're hiring a publicist of sorts and we have new display ideas that, I think, are far better than Princess Leia. We're hoping to show them off at the SID convention in LA in May. maybe after that, the holographic cognoscenti will actually believe that I too can make original, creative holographic displays. (Do I sound like Rodney Dangerfield?!!)

I think it stems down to pretty much all new technologies or technologies not widely known at least, that in order to describe them, we need to use a representation that the public is aware of.

Exactly!

Anyway, nice to have you here again Dinesh.

Thanks

[Tony]

My brother-in-law bought one of these and I had to try it on.
Can't say that I felt anything.
Unknowing to me he tossed a wine cork at my head to see if my reaction time improved. It bounced off my hand and on to the floor. He said it must have worked really well since normally it would have hit me in the eye. I guess I should buy one