Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:46:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:42:49 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:03:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 21 Jun 2013
10:09:50 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That would be a lot of turning down. Like T_M_T's chance of winning
the Nobel Prize in any category.

Use waldos to make smaller machines, to make the parts to make the
smaller machines (and waldos) and eventually - nano-tech!


Unless something goes wrong, and you end up with ninny-tech. ;-)

I've done it in CAD, where adjusting the one end of a object
causes the sides to cross. Maybe if I could do that in Real Life - I
could start making Klein bottles.


"The next step beyond a Klein bottle, is a time machine."

I'd be perfectly happy with a simple tesseract briefcase. I'd put 500
of my favorite tools in it and carry it with me everywhere with ease.

If you could even pick it up.

That's precisely why I want the tesseract. It does away with size and
weight constraints altogether. The briefcase is the only weight you
feel. Why do you think I _want_ one, eh?


It'll need more than cheap plastic in its construction.

OK. 1000 denier Cordura it is. It _is_ a work valise, y'know.


No, I've never seen a real tesseract. Simple, or otherwise!