Maker Pro
Maker Pro

ITAR compliance: Can of worms?

R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
So add 1 liter distelled.

I know of a similar situation. Frederick has a water treatment plant
the dumps the effluent into the Monocacy river. The county wants to
build a trash incinerator nearby and use the effluent for cooling water.
The fly in the ointment is that the water concentrates to 1/5th the
original volume and would no longer meet pollution regs. The county's
solution is to pipe water up from the Potomac river (where there is
still capacity for withdrawing water) and dilute the waste water to meet
the regs. Turns out this is a rather old fashioned way to meet the regs
and is no longer practiced if not outright banned.

But... the water was ok to discharge before the concentrated it... all
they are doing is concentrating it, then diluting it again before
discharge. I can't say why they can't just use the Potomac river water
for cooling, but perhaps that would also be too concentrated after use,
lol. The Potomac is probably a lot better than the Hudson, but its not
drinking water either.

Somehow the regs makes sense, but they don't make sense. No matter what
the source of the pollutants, it is still the same pollution no matter
how much water is involved because that water is very small compared to
the body of water it is going into.

On the other hand, I am told that most of the major rivers in the
greater area have PCB levels high enough that it is not recommended for
you to eat the fish on a regular basis. We will not be able to eat
anything wild if we continue to pollute the way we do now.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Set up a another company. You do the IR work under that company. They
pay you some consulting fees. Your new company rents your lab and
equipment from your current company to keep all the paper work legit.
You have not exported anything yet. Then sell the company to the
client. You are not exporting, you sold the company.
Let them deal with it. I dont know if this would qualify under ITAR
but it might be another way.

Doesn't get you off the hook. If you give the materials to anyone else
with any idea that they might be exported, you are still in violation.

1) No free lunch

2) Can't even break even.

Sounds familiar, Thermo maybe?
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but many of these unreasonable export laws only exist because technically-qualified people failed to "get political."

-- john

What does that mean?
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hey ricksha, you can leave if you like.
You are a bit of a newbee here, this is a politronics group you know.

Newbie, don't think so. This is a group of wannabe intellectuals.

It was a nice thread on a reasonable topic. Why not try to keep it
civil and not ruin it with biased political clap trap? Why exactly are
you defending the practice? I always thought you were a bit more
reasonable than that.
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil Hobbs said:
I've got lots to do--right now I'm making an interferometric detector
for hypersonic, sub-micron particles,

Say... that was some semiconductor related process thing, wasn't it?
Wouldn't that be in vacuum, where the speed of sound is a dubious measure?
:)

Tim
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Say... that was some semiconductor related process thing, wasn't it?
Wouldn't that be in vacuum, where the speed of sound is a dubious measure?
:)

Tim

Actually not. It's in a moderately low pressure gas, but an 0.2 um
particle going Mach 9 (3 km/s) can travel ~10 cm before slowing down
much. (That's a few hundred thousand gees' worth of drag.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Putting yourself on the Radar or not can have far-reaching risk/consequences.

http://www.cistec.or.jp/english/service/report/0802ITARarticleforCISTEC.pdf

Sure can. This nose is going to be kept squeaky clean, because there's
no percentage in doing anything else.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
Hello,

it is not unlogical, Hudson River water is polluted, any water
discharged into the Hudson River should be cleaner than the water
already in it.

Don't be ridiculous. The river would be no worse for the action and
it would have saved a few hundred thousand gallons of potable water
and the state many thousands of dollars.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don't be ridiculous. The river would be no worse for the action and
it would have saved a few hundred thousand gallons of potable water
and the state many thousands of dollars.

So any polluter who dumps waste into a river is ok as long as the waste
isn't actually *worse* than the river? You are making a distinction
based on the idea that he is just returning the same water back to the
river. But to anyone with a critical eye, he is drawing water, using it
for an industrial purpose and when he wants to dump it into the river is
required to meet pollution requirements.

What is wrong with that exactly?
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually not. It's in a moderately low pressure gas, but an 0.2 um
particle going Mach 9 (3 km/s) can travel ~10 cm before slowing down
much. (That's a few hundred thousand gees' worth of drag.)

I'm confused, how is this related to vermiculture?
 
So any polluter who dumps waste into a river is ok as long as the waste
isn't actually *worse* than the river?

Good grief, try thinking for once. I know it's a tall order for a
lefty, but try.
You are making a distinction
based on the idea that he is just returning the same water back to the
river. But to anyone with a critical eye, he is drawing water, using it
for an industrial purpose and when he wants to dump it into the river is
required to meet pollution requirements.
What is wrong with that exactly?

It's just like a lefty; idiotic.
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Are you sure that's safe? I'm not.

Cheers,
James Arthur
(posted with a Droid tablet, as an experiment.)

What's safe? You sound like Marathon Man. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
What's safe? You sound like Marathon Man. ;)

If I'm Marathon Man, I'm only allowed to ask you if
"it" is safe, over and over :).

restoring the context:
John Devereux suggested
Publish it here :)

I'm not so sure they wouldn't come after you for that also.

(GG on the tablet is fun, but it apparently doesn't let
you quote context.)

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Back in the late 80s or early 90s the USG tried to put the freeze on
journals, and tried preventing some foreign nationals from attending
conferences in the US. That was a great boon to the European conference
hosts. ;)

There was a big court case, I forget which one, where this was tested,
and the ruling was that unless the govt articulated a compelling and
specific national security interest, or decided to classify your work,
you could publish what you liked.

Since then there's been much less interference. In any case, the
interference happened at the journal level more than the author level.

In any case, my particular work is aimed at making poor-quality infrared
pixels somewhat better, rather than building the best of the best.

As long as you're not politically active they likely won't care.
Irritate the King, however, ...

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Top