H2Oxide, it still seems really vague what you're trying to get at. I think you might get more feedback if you offered a specific (though possibly hypothetical) "goal" or activity that you've got in mind. So, my vote is still the same (Good idea, but...).
Don't want to rain on the parade... but... even 12 "Yeas"
with all the members on this forum seems a little low to affect
the whole forum. Unless I'm missing something...
Currently Active Users: 13043 (201 members and 12842 guests)
Threads: 74,184, Posts: 1,146,374, Members: 43,415
What actually would you want the community
to work
on together and what would be the goal of this working
together ?? I must admit I did not read every single post
but I did read the OP and a few others. Like I said...maybe I
missed something.
Jerry
I guess I really should have emphasized this.
I want
you guys to suggest stuff that you want or need. Hell, you don't even need to suggest a solution, just a problem that you need solved. If I set the goal, people will just think that I'm looking for other people to do my work for free.
Some things I would suggest:
Sol-gel or other methods of HR and AR coating deposition at STP, automated (Arduino based or something) glass optic grinding, solar-pumped lasers, small-package CW dye lasers, rare-earth doped inorganic liquid ("liquid glass") gain media, electrodeposition of semiconductors, etc.
These are all thing that I've needed or wished were available to the average experimenter in the past. Most of them are simply too technical, but it should at least give you an idea.
It's like chemistry. If you need the latest and greatest catalyst to perform your experiment, then you can probably get ahold of it if you're part of a research team or professional lab. But if you're an amateur, you need to find a different way to skin the cat, which usually means synthesizing it yourself or finding a way to do it without the catalyst. The same thing applies here. I'm sure lots of people here would love to build their own DPSS laser, but something holds them back. The knowledge is out there, and experimenting is good, even if you're doing it wrong. Whether it be the prohibitive price of the custom optics they need, or unobtainable gain media, there's almost always a way around the problem. If we were to explore these concepts beforehand as a group, it would open up a whole new world, ripe for amateur experimentalism.
And I'd actually preferred if you "rained on the parade." Constructive criticism is infinitely more helpful than pointless pats on the back.
But as for the member count, how many of those 201 names do you actually recognize? There's a lot of "active" members that only have 0-50 posts. 12 members is a pretty decent sized chunk of the continuously active community IMO. Plus, it's an open project, so more people can join even if all they have is a suggestion or idea.
