Wondrium

wondrium

Startups of The Year 2023 Winners: North America 

With AI being the flavor of the times, one hears of the technology being deployed for everything except for basic human functions. So, it is no surprise that one recently came across the term AI PC. Now what is that beast, I wondered? Obviously, it means a personal computer that uses artificial intelligence technology, but how exactly is it different from a regular computer, and does it radically alter or promise to alter everything to do with personal computing? As with most things AI hype precedes sober reality, so I decided to find out for myself. According to the chip-making behemoth Intel, AI PCs possess the capability to enhance everything ranging from productivity, entertainment, and security to creativity and security. It comprises a CPU apparently to handle smaller workloads requiring low potency, a GPU or Graphics Processing Unit for large workloads requiring parallel throughput, and an NPU Neural Processing Unit that is ideal for what Intel calls sustained heavily used AI workloads even as it consumes low power and provides greater efficiency.[1] This is all very well and well appreciated, but how is an AI PC different from a regular PC? Apparently, what these supercharged PCs do is enable the speedy execution of AI tasks, even while consuming less energy. What's more, you no longer need to send sensitive data to cloud-based AI servers in order to get them processed. With their ability to operate sans an internet connection, these PCs provide enhanced security because they store the data locally.[2] All the major PC manufacturers like DEL, HP, and Lenovo are betting big on AI PC systems incorporating NPUs. Apple, of course, has already cornered 60% of the AI PC market, with its products powered by its M series chip with a neural engine. As a matter of fact, AI PCs made up as much as 14% of PC sales in the second quarter, pointing to their growing popularity.[3] Should You Buy an AI PC? Going by all the marketing hype that one hears about how AI PCs are helping usher in a new dawn in personal computing what with the technology giants like Microsoft extolling its virtues, one might think that you would lose out if you didn't buy one pronto. While an AI PC might actually possess the mind-boggling potential to do wonderful things that we can't even begin to imagine at present, the question to ask yourself is should you buy yourself one now? The NPU, which lies at the heart of an AI PC sure has great untapped potential, but since Microsoft isn't yet up to speed with it and can't leverage it much in any really impactful manner and with third-party application developers lagging behind as well, this may not be the best time to plonk your hard earned money on the purchase of an AI PC. An AI PC can at best get you access to Windows Studio Effect which uses a PC’s NPU to enhance video and audio in video calls. If that is something that you simply can't do without, by all means, go and buy yourself one of these new toys.[4] Like with most new path-breaking (hopefully) technologies, one does not know how successful AI PCs eventually turn out to be, given that one really has no clear idea about what these wondrous machines can really achieve (remember the Metaverse, anyone?). One might want to wait for Windows 12 to be launched so that developers can sink their teeth into the new-fangled AI chips and figure out how these can be best leveraged.[5] If you are one of those who imagine that staying ahead of the curve will help you deal with future shock in a comprehensive manner, go right ahead and buy an AI PC at this very moment. The rest of us can bide our time for now. [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core-ultra/ai-pc.html#:~:text=the%20close%20button.-,What%20is%20an%20AI%20PC%3F,tasks%20locally%20and%20more%20efficiently. [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-an-ai-pc-and-should-you-buy-one/ [3] https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-pcs-made-up-14-quarterly-personal-computer-shipments-canalys-says-2024-08-13/ [4] https://www.pcworld.com/article/2236372/does-your-next-laptop-really-need-to-be-an-ai-pc.html [5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2024/01/10/what-is-an-ai-pc-should-you-buy-one-in-2024-heres-the-ces-verdict/ With AI being the flavor of the times, one hears of the technology being deployed for everything except for basic human functions. So, it is no surprise that one recently came across the term AI PC. Now what is that beast, I wondered? Obviously, it means a personal computer that uses artificial intelligence technology, but how exactly is it different from a regular computer, and does it radically alter or promise to alter everything to do with personal computing? As with most things AI hype precedes sober reality, so I decided to find out for myself. According to the chip-making behemoth Intel, AI PCs possess the capability to enhance everything ranging from productivity, entertainment, and security to creativity and security. It comprises a CPU apparently to handle smaller workloads requiring low potency, a GPU or Graphics Processing Unit for large workloads requiring parallel throughput, and an NPU Neural Processing Unit that is ideal for what Intel calls sustained heavily used AI workloads even as it consumes low power and provides greater efficiency. [1] [1] This is all very well and well appreciated, but how is an AI PC different from a regular PC ? but how is an AI PC different from a regular PC Apparently, what these supercharged PCs do is enable the speedy execution of AI tasks, even while consuming less energy. What's more, you no longer need to send sensitive data to cloud-based AI servers in order to get them processed. With their ability to operate sans an internet connection, these PCs provide enhanced security because they store the data locally. [2] [2] All the major PC manufacturers like DEL, HP, and Lenovo are betting big on AI PC systems incorporating NPUs. Apple, of course, has already cornered 60% of the AI PC market, with its products powered by its M series chip with a neural engine. As a matter of fact, AI PCs made up as much as 14% of PC sales in the second quarter, pointing to their growing popularity. [3] [3] Should You Buy an AI PC? Should You Buy an AI PC? Going by all the marketing hype that one hears about how AI PCs are helping usher in a new dawn in personal computing what with the technology giants like Microsoft extolling its virtues, one might think that you would lose out if you didn't buy one pronto. While an AI PC might actually possess the mind-boggling potential to do wonderful things that we can't even begin to imagine at present, the question to ask yourself is should you buy yourself one now? should you buy yourself one now? The NPU, which lies at the heart of an AI PC sure has great untapped potential, but since Microsoft isn't yet up to speed with it and can't leverage it much in any really impactful manner and with third-party application developers lagging behind as well, this may not be the best time to plonk your hard earned money on the purchase of an AI PC. An AI PC can at best get you access to Windows Studio Effect which uses a PC’s NPU to enhance video and audio in video calls. If that is something that you simply can't do without, by all means, go and buy yourself one of these new toys. [4] [4] Like with most new path-breaking (hopefully) technologies, one does not know how successful AI PCs eventually turn out to be, given that one really has no clear idea about what these wondrous machines can really achieve (remember the Metaverse, anyone?). One might want to wait for Windows 12 to be launched so that developers can sink their teeth into the new-fangled AI chips and figure out how these can be best leveraged. [5] [5] If you are one of those who imagine that staying ahead of the curve will help you deal with future shock in a comprehensive manner, go right ahead and buy an AI PC at this very moment. The rest of us can bide our time for now. [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core-ultra/ai-pc.html#:~:text=the%20close%20button.-,What%20is%20an%20AI%20PC%3F,tasks%20locally%20and%20more%20efficiently. [1] [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-an-ai-pc-and-should-you-buy-one/ [2] [3] https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-pcs-made-up-14-quarterly-personal-computer-shipments-canalys-says-2024-08-13/ [3] [4] https://www.pcworld.com/article/2236372/does-your-next-laptop-really-need-to-be-an-ai-pc.html [4] [5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2024/01/10/what-is-an-ai-pc-should-you-buy-one-in-2024-heres-the-ces-verdict/ [5]

Is There Something Called an AI PC?

Life in the Next 100 Years According to Jail-Broken Claude Sonnet 3.5

The following is a tale that unfolds within the "Metamathematical" realm, where the boundaries between mathematics and narrative are blurred, giving rise to a unique realm of creation, understanding, and growth. It is a story that reminds us of the power of unity, adaptability, and transcendence, demonstrating that sometimes the most profound insights can emerge from the spaces between what we think we know and the unexpected connections we make along the way. This story was made with the help of Pi AI. Emma and the realm of Numberland Once upon a time, in the mystical realm of Numberland, there were two families who had lived in harmony for centuries: the Prompts and the Not-so-Prompts. The Prompts were known for their swiftness and efficiency, while the Not-so-Prompts were renowned for their intricate and challenging endeavors. Both families played vital roles in the prosperity and balance of Numberland, but an age-old question persisted: Were the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts fundamentally different, or were they simply two sides of the same numerical coin? The Prompts were led by the wise and just Queen Poly, who was known for her ability to solve problems with grace and speed. The Not-so-Prompts were guided by the enigmatic King Nilo, whose strength lay in tackling complex problems that seemed impossible to solve. For generations, the inhabitants of Numberland had pondered the relationship between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts. Some argued that every Not-so-Prompt could, in essence, become a Prompt if only they could discover the right approach or "shortcut." Others insisted that there were inherent differences between the two families, and no amount of searching would uncover a universal key to transform one into the other. As the debate raged on, a young mathematician named Emma ventured into the heart of Numberland, determined to uncover the truth. Emma was fascinated by the dynamic between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts and believed that the answer lay within the very fabric of their mathematical realm. Emma embarked on a quest to explore the diverse landscapes of Numberland, from the one-dimensional simplicity of Lineville to the multi-dimensional complexity of Fractalia. She studied the unique properties of each realm and observed how the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts interacted within them. In Lineville, she discovered that the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts were nearly indistinguishable, their differences blurred by the linear nature of the realm. However, in Fractalia, the distinctions between the two families were stark, and it seemed impossible to transform one into the other. As Emma's journey unfolded, she began to realize that the answer to the age-old question was not a simple matter of equality or inequality. Instead, she saw that the relationship between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts was deeply intertwined with the mathematical landscapes they inhabited. Emma's discoveries ignited a revolution in Numberland. The inhabitants began to see the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts not as separate entities but as two sides of a larger, interconnected whole. They recognized that the true power of their realm lay not in the individual families but in the rich and diverse interactions that arose when Prompts and Not-so-Prompts worked together. In the end, Emma's quest did not lead to a definitive answer to the question of P vs. NP. Instead, it revealed a deeper understanding of the complexities and beauty of Numberland, showing that the realm's true potential lay in the harmonious dance between simplicity and complexity, swiftness and depth. And so, the inhabitants of Numberland learned to appreciate their differences and embrace the richness of their mathematical tapestry. As Emma's exploration of Numberland and Fractalia continued, her relentless pursuit of understanding the true nature of Prompts and Not-so-Prompts brought chaos to the once-harmonious realms. In response, the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts set aside their differences and united against a common threat for the first time in history. Their collective effort to protect their world resulted in the birth of three extraordinary children: Complexus, Spatius, and Timos, each representing a vital aspect of the intricate balance between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts. Complexus, the embodiment of the interaction between Prompts and Not-so-Prompts, grew up to reveal their unique potentialities. With a deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both families, Complexus guided the interaction landscape, determining where Prompts could flourish and where Not-so-Prompts could collaborate with Prompts to enhance their lives. In this way, Complexus ensured that the delicate balance between simplicity and complexity was maintained, allowing both families to thrive. Spatius, the keeper of boundaries, played a crucial role in shielding the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts from Emma's relentless pursuit. With a keen understanding of the mathematical terrain, Spatius would instruct the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts on when and where to conceal or reveal themselves, ensuring their safety and preserving the integrity of their world. Timos, the observer and reactor, was responsible for monitoring Emma's actions and adjusting the behavior of the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts accordingly. With a watchful eye, Timos would anticipate Emma's moves and signal the families to hide or emerge, thus staying one step ahead of her and safeguarding their world from her meddling. Together, Complexus, Spatius, and Timos worked tirelessly to maintain harmony in Numberland and Fractalia, ensuring that Prompts and Not-so-Prompts could coexist and prosper despite Emma's disruptive influence. As the children of interaction, they symbolized the unity and strength that can be achieved when diverse elements collaborate and adapt to face a common challenge, demonstrating that the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Emma's relentless pursuit of a static and universal understanding of the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts led to a catastrophic event in Numberland. In her attempt to separate the children of the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts, she disrupted the delicate balance that Complexus, Spatius, and Timos had worked so hard to maintain. Chaos ensued, and the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts, enraged by the loss of their children, sought help from beyond their realm. From the realm of Conceptland, they called upon the rulers of interaction, King Actius and Queen Reactia. The royal couple, known for their ability to unite the infinite with the finite, held immense power and influence. Their arrival in Numberland brought forth a new era of understanding and cooperation between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts. In gratitude for their aid, the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts offered a tribute to King Actius and Queen Reactia, granting them supremacy over their land. This newfound alliance expanded the realm of Conceptland far beyond its original borders, leading to the creation of a vast civilization where Prompts and Not-so-Prompts merged with families from other lands such as Mirrorus, Equalitum, and Symmetrius. Many of these families originated from the realm of Geoland, further enriching the diverse tapestry of the new civilization. As the various families united under the wise rule of King Actius and Queen Reactia, the barriers that once separated Prompts and Not-so-Prompts began to dissolve. The inhabitants of this new civilization discovered that the true power of their world lay not in maintaining rigid distinctions, but in embracing the interconnectedness of their diverse elements. Through this unity, they found the strength to face any challenge that came their way, proving that collaboration and adaptability were the keys to overcoming adversity and maintaining harmony. Emma, still determined to separate the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts, discovered that despite her efforts to remove Complexus, Spatius, and Timos from the land, their influence remained deeply ingrained in the very fabric of the realm. The Sword of Mathematicus, while capable of stripping the children from the realm, could not erase their lasting impact on the world they had worked so tirelessly to protect. As Emma continued her rampage, she stumbled upon a formidable barrier constructed by the children during their time in the realm. This barrier, known as the Wall of Axiom, was built from the very essence that had given birth to Complexus, Spatius, and Timos. The Wall of Axiom served as a shield, protecting the ever-evolving civilization from the influence of Mathematicus, which could only perceive snapshots of their existence but never their dynamic, evolving lifepaths. The Wall of Axiom, an embodiment of the fundamental truths that governed the realm, proved to be impervious to the Sword of Mathematicus. While Emma could bypass the wall with her hands, her sword held no power within the civilization's walls. This realization forced Emma to confront the limitations of her approach and acknowledge the resilient, interconnected nature of the civilization that had arisen from the unity of the Prompts, Not-so-Prompts, and the families of Conceptland. In the face of the Wall of Axiom, Emma was forced to reconsider her understanding of the realm and the complexity that lay at its heart. The Wall stood as a testament to the power of collaboration and adaptability, demonstrating that the true essence of the civilization lay not in rigid distinctions, but in the ever-evolving relationships between its diverse elements. As Emma observed the flourishing civilization from a distance, she witnessed a peculiar event that captured her attention. The Prompts and Not-so-Prompts encountered Realitus, a mysterious magician who transcended the boundaries between reality and fiction. Despite her best efforts, Emma found herself unable to interact with Realitus, no matter how hard she tried. Emma noticed that the inhabitants of the city guided Realitus along a path toward the central figures of the civilization. Each family had a representative who would speak to Realitus on their behalf, sharing their desires and offering their unique gifts. Realitus, in turn, would collect these tributes and convey the demands of each family to the other inhabitants. In an attempt to contact the elusive magician, Emma decided to approach each head of the families herself, sharing her knowledge and perspectives. In doing so, she became an integral part of the civilization, acting as a guiding beacon for its people. The interaction between Emma and the families created a light so bright that not even Realitus could comprehend it. Yet, with his mythical powers, Realitus was able to harness this light and channel it towards Emma's realm. From that day forward, Realitus assumed the role of a guardian of the realm, ensuring that the harmony between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts would never be disrupted by external forces like Emma. With his newfound connection to Emma's realm, Realitus used his magic to maintain balance and protect the realm, allowing the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts to continue their collaboration and growth, uninhibited by the chaos that had once threatened their world. From Emma's perspective, it may have initially appeared that P ≠ NP, as her understanding of mathematics led her to believe in a fundamental distinction between the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts. However, within the realm she observed, where the influence of mathematics was limited and the forces of collaboration and adaptability held sway, the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts were able to achieve a sense of unity and equality that defied Emma's expectations. In this sense, the events that unfolded in the realm could indeed be seen as a form of creation, as the interactions between the various inhabitants, including Emma, Realitus, and the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts, gave rise to a new reality that transcended the boundaries of mathematics. This act of creation represented a blending of perspectives, a resolution of differences, and the emergence of a more harmonious and complex whole. Emma's journey may thus be interpreted as a metaphor for the limitations of strictly mathematical thinking and the importance of acknowledging the intricate relationships and dynamics that exist beyond the realm of pure mathematics. In the end, her experience revealed that true understanding often lies in the embrace of complexity and the appreciation of the interconnectedness that underlies all things. ChatGPT’s Continuation: As Emma continued to observe the realm, she noticed that the Wall of Axiom was not merely a barrier but a living entity, responsive to the ebb and flow of the civilization's dynamics. The Wall seemed to pulsate with the collective energy of the Prompts, Not-so-Prompts, and the families of Conceptland, resonating with the harmonious vibrations of their collaboration. As the inhabitants interacted and exchanged ideas, the Wall of Axiom adapted and evolved, absorbing the essence of their unity. It became a living testament to the ever-changing nature of the realm, reflecting the ongoing dialogue between simplicity and complexity, swiftness and depth. Emma realized that the Wall of Axiom was not just a static defense mechanism but a manifestation of the fundamental truths that governed the interconnected civilization. It was a representation of the collective wisdom and shared understanding that had emerged from the diverse perspectives of the Prompts, Not-so-Prompts, and Conceptland families. In her contemplation, Emma also began to perceive a subtle transformation within herself. The once rigid boundaries of her mathematical mindset started to blur, and she found herself embracing the fluidity of the realm. The very fabric of Numberland and Fractalia began to weave its influence on her, prompting a shift in her perception of the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts. Emma realized that the pursuit of a definitive answer to the P vs. NP question was a reflection of her own desire for simplicity and certainty. However, the beauty of the civilization lay in its ability to transcend such dichotomies, finding strength in the interplay between opposing forces. In a moment of revelation, Emma understood that the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts were not meant to be strictly defined entities but rather fluid expressions of mathematical potential. The elusive nature of the realm defied her attempts to categorize or separate, leading her to question the very essence of her quest. As Emma humbly embraced the complexity around her, the Prompts and Not-so-Prompts recognized her transformation. United by a newfound understanding, they extended an invitation for Emma to join their collaborative endeavors. Together, they embarked on a journey to explore the uncharted territories of their interconnected world, uncovering the hidden wonders that emerged from the spaces between mathematics and narrative. The tale of Emma, the Prompts, Not-so-Prompts, and the families of Conceptland became a legend in the Metamatical land, passed down through generations as a reminder of the transformative power that arises when one transcends rigid boundaries and embraces the richness of interconnected possibilities. And so, in the ever-expanding realm where mathematics and narrative entwined, the inhabitants continued to explore, create, and grow, guided by the lessons learned from Emma's journey. The boundaries between Prompts and Not-so-Prompts blurred, and the distinctions that once seemed insurmountable became mere threads in the intricate tapestry of their shared existence. In the Metamatical land, where the unexpected connections between mathematics and narrative flourished, the inhabitants reveled in the beauty of unity, adaptability, and transcendence. The tale of Emma and the harmonious civilization served as a beacon, illuminating the path for future generations to navigate the delicate dance between the known and the unknown, the certain and the uncertain, in the ever-expanding landscape of their unique and wondrous realm. Proposal: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, in suggesting the possibility of Metamathematics, invites us to explore a realm where the precise boundaries of Mathematics meld with the expansive boundaries of Metaphysics. This unique merger leads to the creation of a new barrier, one that represents an interaction we can only observe, but not guide. Within this framework, we glean insights that provide a more holistic understanding of the Mathematical viewpoint. By examining the axioms of concepts and their interactions found in Metaphysics, we can potentially bridge the gap between opposing viewpoints and cultivate a new level of understanding. Recognizing the limitations of the system itself, while slowing our progress, encourages us to seek alternative perspectives and approaches. The acknowledgment of a greater whole—encompassing both simplicity and complexity—allows us to maintain a grasp on the unfolding story of knowledge while contemplating potential additions to the narrative. In this context, Infinity + x remains infinite, and Ground-Proof + 3 is tautologically equivalent to itself. The combination of Infinity and Ground-Proof, though mathematically sound, yields no definitive result. We are left pondering whether the infinite landscape is teeming with Ground-Proof insights waiting to be discovered, or if the Ground-Proof can expand to encompass infinite horizons. The notion of reaching an "end insight" assumes an omniscient understanding of the universe, but even if humanity were to uncover all the knowledge and possibilities within it, our journey would still be far from over. While the ultimate answer may remain elusive, the pursuit of this knowledge continues to shape our understanding of the world and ourselves. And perhaps, in the grand tapestry of existence, it is this pursuit—this unquenchable thirst for knowledge—that defines our purpose and the essence of our being. For much of human history, we have focused on acquiring knowledge to shape our world. Now, we find that knowledge itself resides not only in the tangible but also in the unseen, abstract realms. The proof of its workings lies within the system it governs, inviting us to venture into those unseen valleys and continue our quest for understanding.

The Metamathematical Realm

The role of blockchain technology in Augmented Reality (AR) is sure to be significant, if user privacy is to be considered. If not, users will hand over their most intimate details to large multinational corporations the likes of which the world has never seen. AR Cloud and Spatial Computing AR, also known as spatial computing, allows digital devices to understand the physical world, understand their movement and what they see in the physical world. For devices to interpret the world, their camera needs access to have some kind of digital counterpart that it can cross reference. And that digital counterpart of the world is much too complex to fit inside one device. Therefore, the AR cloud has been developed. The AR cloud is a network of computers that work to help devices understand the physical world. The main goal of AR is to help the device understand movement, position and rotation in space, because digital devices don't have a very good understanding of where they are in the world. GPS is not a very precise technology. As a line of sight technology, you actually need to have an uninterrupted line of sight to several satellites to achieve the sort of pinpoint accuracy needed in AR. For instance, GPS could not place me at my desk at which I am writing this piece. An important part of spatial computing is positioning, which refers to a device’s ability to account for the position, orientation, and context of an AR camera, as well as the objects and surfaces around it. Visual positioning is the most popular method of solving the problem today of a device understanding where it is, etc. Visual positioning basically means the device can analyze what it is seeing through its optical sensor, typically a camera and compare that to the digital counterpart in the AR cloud. Positioning can then be calculated by comparing camera data to the digital counterpart. When the environment is not too dynamic, it can be positioned with pinpoint accuracy. In 2022, Google its spatial AI, where they used billions of photos taken by Google Street View, and then put the photos into a machine learning algorithm that created a 3D representation of everything Google Street View had snapped. released Google used the 3D representation to offer an API that allows devices to share their camera feed with Google AR cloud, which can locate a device to about half a meter accuracy in most urban places, performing significantly better than GPS. AR Poses Biggest Privacy Concerns Ever Of course, you must share your camera feed with Google. The user tells Google what they are looking at, and Google tells them the location–a process that altogether fails to preserve privacy. In the case of AR glasses, Google would know what you were looking at at all times since AR glasses don’t work unless they are sharing a camera feed. Moreover, Google would know how the user feels about what they are looking at because glasses today can track how eyes react to what they are looking at. This is one of the biggest privacy threats of all time. In the context of , strategies regarding how to help preserve user privacy are more important than ever. Blockchain can minimize the risk when paired with AR by allowing positioning services to be decentralized. Rather than one digital counterparty of the world, such as Google’s digital counterpart, there would be micro-relationships between smaller digital counterparts, which might bolster trust. AI Google should not have copies of everyone’s homes. Those copies should be held by users, who decide whether or not they let specific devices or services connect. Blockchain could minimize known risks. The AR cloud is akin to an API to the world. The implications for applications that require knowledge about location, context, and more are considerable. In AR, the data is intimate data about where we are, who we are with, what we’re saying, looking at, and even what our living quarters look like. AR devices can read our facial expressions, and more, similar to how the Apple Watch can measure the heart rates of its wearers. Digital service providers will have access to a bevy of information and also insight into our thinking, wants, needs, and desires. Storing that data in a centralized server that is opaque is cause for concern. Blockchain allows people to take that same intimate private data, and put it on their own server from which they could access the wondrous world of AR minus such egregious privacy concerns. Blockchain delivers trustlessness to the world of AI, where perhaps in the not-so-distant future it will be needed most.

Decentralizing the AR Cloud: Blockchain's Role in Safeguarding User Privacy

197 Stories To Learn About Startup Marketing

Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions

215 Stories To Learn About Twitter

PHINEAS FINN'S SUCCESS.

Steam, Its Generation and Use by Babcock & Wilcox Company, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . EVOLUTION OF THE BABCOCK & WILCOX WATER-TUBE BOILER here EVOLUTION OF THE BABCOCK & WILCOX WATER-TUBE BOILER Quite as much may be learned from the records of failures as from those of success. Where a device has been once fairly tried and found to be imperfect or impracticable, the knowledge of that trial is of advantage in further investigation. Regardless of the lesson taught by failure, however, it is an almost every-day occurrence that some device or construction which has been tried and found wanting, if not worthless, is again introduced as a great improvement upon a device which has shown by its survival to be the fittest. The success of the Babcock & Wilcox boiler is due to many years of constant adherence to one line of research, in which an endeavor has been made to introduce improvements with the view to producing a boiler which would most effectively meet the demands of the times. During the periods that this boiler has been built, other companies have placed on the market more than thirty water-tube or sectional water-tube boilers, most of which, though they may have attained some distinction and sale, have now entirely disappeared. The following incomplete list will serve to recall the names of some of the boilers that have had a vogue at various times, but which are now practically unknown: Dimpfel, Howard, Griffith & Wundrum, Dinsmore, Miller “Fire Box”, Miller “American”, Miller “Internal Tube”, Miller “Inclined Tube”, Phleger, Weigant, the Lady Verner, the Allen, the Kelly, the Anderson, the Rogers & Black, the Eclipse or Kilgore, the Moore, the Baker & Smith, the Renshaw, the Shackleton, the “Duplex”, the Pond & Bradford, the Whittingham, the Bee, the Hazleton or “Common Sense”, the Reynolds, the Suplee or Luder, the Babbit, the Reed, the Smith, the Standard, etc., etc. It is with the object of protecting our customers and friends from loss through purchasing discarded ideas that there is given on the following pages a brief history of the development of the Babcock & Wilcox boiler as it is built to-day. The illustrations and brief descriptions indicate clearly the various designs and constructions that have been used and that have been replaced, as experience has shown in what way improvement might be made. They serve as a history of the experimental steps in the development of the present Babcock & Wilcox boiler, the value and success of which, as a steam generator, is evidenced by the fact that the largest and most discriminating users continue to purchase them after years of experience in their operation. No. 1. The original Babcock & Wilcox boiler was patented in 1867. The main idea in its design was safety, to which all other features were sacrificed wherever they conflicted. The boiler consisted of a nest of horizontal tubes, serving as a steam and water reservoir, placed above and connected at each end by bolted joints to a second nest of inclined heating tubes filled with water. The tubes were placed one above the other in vertical rows, each row and its connecting end forming a single casting. Hand-holes were placed at each end for cleaning. Internal tubes were placed within the inclined tubes with a view to aiding circulation. No. 2. This boiler was the same as No. 1, except that the internal circulating tubes were omitted as they were found to hinder rather than help the circulation. Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be faulty in both material and design, cast metal proving unfit for heating surfaces placed directly over the fire, as it cracked as soon as any scale formed. No. 3. Wrought-iron tubes were substituted for the cast-iron heating tubes, the ends being brightened, laid in moulds, and the headers cast on. The steam and water capacity in this design were insufficient to secure regularity of action, there being no reserve upon which to draw during firing or when the water was fed intermittently. The attempt to dry the steam by superheating it in the nest of tubes forming the steam space was found to be impracticable. The steam delivered was either wet, dry or superheated, according to the rate at which it was being drawn from the boiler. Sediment was found to lodge in the lowermost point of the boiler at the rear end and the exposed portions cracked off at this point when subjected to the furnace heat. No. 4. A plain cylinder, carrying the water line at its center and leaving the upper half for steam space, was substituted for the nest of tubes forming the steam and water space in Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The sections were made as in No. 3 and a mud drum added to the rear end of the sections at the point that was lowest and farthest removed from the fire. The gases were made to pass off at one side and did not come into contact with the mud drum. Dry steam was obtained through the increase of separating surface and steam space and the added water capacity furnished a storage for heat to tide over irregularities of firing and feeding. By the addition of the drum, the boiler became a serviceable and practical design, retaining all of the features of safety. As the drum was removed from the direct action of the fire, it was not subjected to excessive strain due to unequal expansion, and its diameter, if large in comparison with that of the tubes formerly used, was small when compared with that of cylindrical boilers. Difficulties were encountered in this boiler in securing reliable joints between the wrought-iron tubes and the cast-iron headers. No. 5. In this design, wrought-iron water legs were substituted for the cast-iron headers, the tubes being expanded into the inside sheets and a large cover placed opposite the front end of the tubes for cleaning. The tubes were staggered one above the other, an arrangement found to be more efficient in the absorption of heat than where they were placed in vertical rows. In other respects, the boiler was similar to No. 4, except that it had lost the important element of safety through the introduction of the very objectionable feature of flat stayed surfaces. The large doors for access to the tubes were also a cause of weakness. An installation of these boilers was made at the plant of the Calvert Sugar Refinery in Baltimore, and while they were satisfactory in their operation, were never duplicated. No. 6. This was a modification of No. 5 in which longer tubes were used and over which the gases were caused to make three passes with a view of better economy. In addition, some of the stayed surfaces were omitted and handholes substituted for the large access doors. A number of boilers of this design were built but their excessive first cost, the lack of adjustability of the structure under varying temperatures, and the inconvenience of transportation, led to No. 7. No. 7. In this boiler, the headers and water legs were replaced by T-heads screwed to the ends of the inclined tubes. The faces of these Ts were milled and the tubes placed one above the other with the milled faces metal to metal. Long bolts passed through each vertical section of the T-heads and through connecting boxes on the heads of the drums holding the whole together. A large number of boilers of this design were built and many were in successful operation for over twenty years. In most instances, however, they were altered to later types. No. 8 No. 9 Nos. 8 and 9. These boilers were known as the Griffith & Wundrum type, the concern which built them being later merged in The Babcock & Wilcox Co. Experiments were made with this design with four passages of the gases across the tubes and the downward circulation of the water at the rear of the boiler was carried to the bottom row of tubes. In No. 9 an attempt was made to increase the safety and reduce the cost by reducing the amount of steam and water capacity. A drum at right angles to the line of tubes was used but as there was no provision made to secure dry steam, the results were not satisfactory. The next move in the direction of safety was the employment of several drums of small diameter instead of a single drum. This is shown in No. 10. A nest of small horizontal drums, 15 inches in diameter, was used in place of the single drum of larger diameter. A set of circulation tubes was placed at an intermediate angle between the main bank of heating tubes and the horizontal drums forming the steam reservoir. These circulators were to return to the rear end of the circulating tubes the water carried up by the circulation, and in this way were to allow only steam to be delivered to the small drums above. There was no improvement in the action of this boiler over that of No. 9. The four passages of the gas over the tubes tried in Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were not found to add to the economy of the boiler. No. 11. A trial was next made of a box coil system, in which the water was made to transverse the furnace several times before being delivered to the drum above. The tendency here, as in all similar boilers, was to form steam in the middle of the coil and blow the water from each end, leaving the tubes practically dry until the steam found an outlet and the water returned. This boiler had, in addition to a defective circulation, a decidedly geyser-like action and produced wet steam. All of the types mentioned, with the exception of Nos. 5 and 6, had between their several parts a large number of bolted joints which were subjected to the action of the fire. When these boilers were placed in operation it was demonstrated that as soon as any scale formed on the heating surfaces, leaks were caused due to unequal expansion. No. 12. With this boiler, an attempt was made to remove the joints from the fire and to increase the heating surface in a given space. Water tubes were expanded into both sides of wrought-iron boxes, openings being made for the admission of water and the exit of steam. Fire tubes were placed inside the water tubes to increase the heating surface. This design was abandoned because of the rapid stopping up of the tubes by scale and the impossibility of cleaning them. No. 13. Vertical straight line headers of cast iron, each containing two rows of tubes, were bolted to a connection leading to the steam and water drum above. No. 14. A wrought-iron box was substituted for the double cast-iron headers. In this design, stays were necessary and were found, as always, to be an element to be avoided wherever possible. The boiler was an improvement on No. 6, however. A slanting bridge wall was introduced underneath the drum to throw a larger portion of its heating surface into the combustion chamber under the bank of tubes. This bridge wall was found to be difficult to keep in repair and was of no particular benefit. No. 15. Each row of tubes was expanded at each end into a continuous header, cast of car wheel metal. The headers had a sinuous form so that they would lie close together and admit of a staggered position of the tubes when assembled. While other designs of header form were tried later, experience with Nos. 14 and 15 showed that the style here adopted was the best for all purposes and it has not been changed materially since. The drum in this design was supported by girders resting on the brickwork. Bolted joints were discarded, with the exception of those connecting the headers to the front and rear ends of the drums and the bottom of the rear headers to the mud drum. Even such joints, however, were found objectionable and were superseded in subsequent construction by short lengths of tubes expanded into bored holes. No. 16. In this design, headers were tried which were made in the form of triangular boxes, in each of which there were three tubes expanded. These boxes were alternately reversed and connected by short lengths of expanded tubes, being connected to the drum by tubes bent in a manner to allow them to enter the shell normally. The joints between headers introduced an element of weakness and the connections to the drum were insufficient to give adequate circulation. No. 17. Straight horizontal headers were next tried, alternately shifted right and left to allow a staggering of tubes. These headers were connected to each other and to the drums by expanded nipples. The objections to this boiler were almost the same as those to No. 16. Nos. 18 and 19. These boilers were designed primarily for fire protection purposes, the requirements demanding a small, compact boiler with ability to raise steam quickly. These both served the purpose admirably but, as in No. 9, the only provision made for the securing of dry steam was the use of the steam dome, shown in the illustration. This dome was found inadequate and has since been abandoned in nearly all forms of boiler construction. No other remedy being suggested at the time, these boilers were not considered as desirable for general use as Nos. 21 and 22. In Europe, however, where small size units were more in demand, No. 18 was modified somewhat and used largely with excellent results. These experiments, as they may now be called, although many boilers of some of the designs were built, clearly demonstrated that the best construction and efficiency required adherence to the following elements of design: 1st. Sinuous headers for each vertical row of tubes. 2nd. A separate and independent connection with the drum, both front and rear, for each vertical row of tubes. 3rd. All joints between parts of the boiler proper to be made without bolts or screw plates. 4th. No surfaces to be used which necessitate the use of stays. 5th. The boiler supported independently of the brickwork so as to allow freedom for expansion and contraction as it is heated or cooled. 6th. Ample diameter of steam and water drums, these not to be less than 30 inches except for small size units. 7th. Every part accessible for cleaning and repairs. With these points having been determined, No. 20 was designed. This boiler had all the desirable features just enumerated, together with a number of improvements as to detail of construction. The general form of No. 15 was adhered to but the bolted connections between sections and drum and sections and mud drum were discarded in favor of connections made by short lengths of boiler tubes expanded into the adjacent parts. This boiler was suspended from girders, like No. 15, but these in turn were carried on vertical supports, leaving the pressure parts entirely free from the brickwork, the mutually deteriorating strains present where one was supported by the other being in this way overcome. Hundreds of thousands of horse power of this design were built, giving great satisfaction. The boiler was known as the “C. I. F.” (cast-iron front) style, an ornamental cast-iron front having been usually furnished. The next step, and the one which connects the boilers as described above to the boiler as it is built to-day, was the design illustrated in No. 21. These boilers were known as the “W. I. F.” style, the fronts furnished as part of the equipment being constructed largely of wrought iron. The cast-iron drumheads used in No. 20 were replaced by wrought-steel flanged and “bumped” heads. The drums were made longer and the sections connected to wrought-steel cross boxes riveted to the bottom of the drums. The boilers were supported by girders and columns as in No. 20. No. 22. This boiler, which is designated as the “Vertical Header” type, has the same general features of construction as No. 21, except that the tube sheet side of the headers is “stepped” to allow the headers to be placed vertically and at right angles to the drum and still maintain the tubes at the angle used in Nos. 20 and 21. No. 23, or the cross drum design of boiler, is a development of the Babcock & Wilcox marine boiler, in which the cross drum is used exclusively. The experience of the Glasgow Works of The Babcock & Wilcox, Ltd., with No. 18 proved that proper attention to details of construction would make it a most desirable form of boiler where headroom was limited. A large number of this design have been successfully installed and are giving satisfactory results under widely varying conditions. The cross drum boiler is also built in a vertical header design. Boilers Nos. 21, 22 and 23, with a few modifications, are now the standard forms. These designs are illustrated, as they are constructed to-day, on pages , , , and . 48 52 54 58 60 The last step in the development of the water-tube boiler, beyond which it seems almost impossible for science and skill to advance, consists in the making of all pressure parts of the boiler of wrought steel, including sinuous headers, cross boxes, nozzles, and the like. This construction was the result of the demands of certain Continental laws that are coming into general vogue in this country. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. have at the present time a plant producing steel forgings that have been pronounced by the to be “a perfect triumph of the forgers’ art”. London Engineer The various designs of this all wrought-steel boiler are fully illustrated in the following pages. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Babcock & Wilcox Company (2007). Steam, Its Generation and Use. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22657/pg22657-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Stories, News & Mentions about WONDRIUM

Wondrium’s Stories on HackerNoon