"The Amateur Scientist" on CD-ROM

[Dinesh]

I would never recommend that someone build a laser for holography, unless this person is equally (and perhaps more) interested in laser construction. Commercial lasers (I've always purchased surplus or second hand), which have a proven track record of success in holography, are best.

The person I referred to was making a HeNe laser simply because she could. I don't think she had any interest in actually making a hologram with it. I met her at an SPIE meeting around 88 or 89, and she was then an artist but she was interested in holography, but when I asked her whether she built the laser to make holograms with, I got the feeling that this never occurred to her.

However, this does bring up an interesting point I was discussing with Joy (wife) this morning. We have a number of lasers that could be induced to fire if the right person simply wanted to play with them awhile, including a 125 with two power supplies. She maintains that it'd be useful for someone to simply play around and try and get it going. However, it seems that no one simply plays around with stuff the way we used to. My neighbour, in his late 70's was a banker, yet in his youth used to fix TV sets. As you've all mentioned, a lot of people with little or no formal technical education or training got the Amateur Scientist and played around with building lasers and atom smashers(!!!). I remember that friends used to get "Practical Electronics" and build stuff like bio-feedback devices and circuits that put a bunch of lines on a TV set. But today, it seems, people simply want to tap an app and satisfy instant gratification. I wondered when it all changed. I proposed that the change occurred when devices largely moved away from hardware into primarily software. Software, of course, is a little harder to play around with. I wonder if holography hobbyists also belong to this generation of people willing to play around with techno stuff simply for the gratification of seeing something come alive ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNeGSJaQ9Q )

[Joe Farina]

But today, it seems, people simply want to tap an app and satisfy instant gratification. I wondered when it all changed.

I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but....Consumerism is waging a slow, insidious, but highly successful war on anything involving The Mind.

[Holomark]

[quoteBut today, it seems, people simply want to tap an app and satisfy instant gratification. I wondered when it all changed. I proposed that the change occurred when devices largely moved away from hardware into primarily software. Software, of course, is a little harder to play around with. I wonder if holography hobbyists also belong to this generation of people willing to play around with techno stuff simply for the gratification of seeing something come alive ][/quote]
I have to admit, I am somewhere between the two generations. I have always loved taking things apart -putting things backtogether is a bit of a different story. I have not been afraid of building, assembling, or even programming. That being said I would prefer to go to the store to buy a holography camera and film. Why?, Time and frustration. The older I get the shorter my remaining time on this earth. I would prefer to spend my time making holograms rather than finding or making the equipment necessary to make holograms followed by the inevitable time spent adjusting, testing and modifying the system to actually produce a hologram. Granted I learn a lot more, but the end result with both methods is the production of a hologram.
Is software different???... I don't think so. There are many people who are interested in "playing around" with software, just as many enjoy (or are willing to) work with hardware. From my own experience the two are the same - just as I am willing to jump in to gathering, assembling.. hardware, I have been known in the past to "tweek" software. It is a bit of a different skill set, but those adventerous people willing to do the work to learn a bit to get up to speed can and do "play around with" software. One difference, however, is the ability of an end user to access the software source code or otherwise manipulate the software - this was a major reason I (and many others) stayed away from apple products.
I can't say that I really enjoy playing around with techno stuff simply for the gratification of seeing something come alive - it is more of a necessary evil that I must overcome to get a result or thing I want. Certainly I get some gratification when it works, but in my mind the gratification from building (for example a holography lab) is eclipsed by the time and frustration involved in the build - I would prefer to buy a ready made system or kit ---and tweek it to improve the ability to do what I want.

[rzeheb]

Oh man, I don't know whether to continue with this thread or not. It brings back such memories. I'm sure that this sort of reminiscing is a sure sign of impending senility. Next I'll be showing strangers pictures of my grandkids....... oh, wait.... I don't have any grandkids, yet. O.K., I guess it's safe to continue..
So, I was definitely one of those who loved (still love) to tinker. I hit the jackpot when one of my dad's friends gave me the contents of his basement. He was an executive at CBS/Columbia and had all sorts of juicy electronics. The goodies included a wire recorder and spools (wire recorders preceeded tape recorders), a few scopes and a prototype color TV from the 50's. There were only 5 of these TVs made. It did not use a color wheel but actually had a picture tube with three electron guns that lit up red, green and blue phosphors. It had two chasses, a signal chasis and a separate power supply chasis. The power supply delivered 26 kV, REGULATED, to the picture tube. No flyback transformers here! The TV did not work when I got it, but I tinkered with it until I fixed it. It was stupid dangerous stuff. In the process I took an intermediate voltage (440 V) hit across my index finger. It burned a small path (almost a tunnel) through my finger and hurt (a lot!). Now that I'm approaching my second childhood, maybe I can get back into this! LOL

[Dinesh]

It is a bit of a different skill set, but those adventerous people willing to do the work to learn a bit to get up to speed can and do "play around with" software. One difference, however, is the ability of an end user to access the software source code or otherwise manipulate the software - this was a major reason I (and many others) stayed away from apple products.

Actually, one reason that I never played around with actual hardware was that I was three left thumbs and dangerous with them. I remember that at thirteen years old (8th grade?) I made a Hero's Engine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile ) with a conical flask. I tied the conical flask filled with water and two nozzles, displaced slightly, to a beam on the ceiling of the physics lab by a string. I then placed a bunsen burner below the flask. The idea was that the water would heat, generate steam, and cause the engine to rotate and so twist the string and so causing the flask to rise towards the ceiling. Once at the ceiling, the water would cool and so stop the engine. This would cause the string to untwist and send it back to the bunsen burner, to carry on the sequence. A sort of Hero's Yo-Yo. But, it took forever for the water to generate enough steam to rise, then it took off like a bat out of hell (or rather, a helicopter out of hell), hit the ceiling, smashed and showered us all with broken glass and water. The physics master simply said, "Good effort. Now clean up the mess".

The reason I bring this up is that with software, you can ply around with no broken glass and water showers. I'm now writing code for 3d graphics using Open GL code with C++ so I can create a set of images for the stereogram/lenticular. I know that there are excellent 3D software packages out there (I use Poser and Bryce), but the 'coming alive' of a piece of software that actually works and generates an image with occlusion and everything is just great!

A shame that in the days of "Amateur Scientist", there were no desktop computers to generate the software equivalent.