ITAR compliance: Can of worms?

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:10:59 -0500) it happened rickman wrote in :

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

Bye!!

So, tweak a few noses: do minimal work necessary for publishing, then publish in open literature (the tweak). Get a few others in the field to also publish (ultimate tweak).

snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz schrieb:

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.

Bye

On a sunny day (Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:25:07 +0100) it happened Uwe Hercksen wrote in :

So add 1 liter distelled. :-)

Publish it here :)

Have you considered a career in homeopathy?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

On a sunny day (Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:39:50 -0500) it happened Spehro Pefhany wrote in :

Distilled water. Then you can ask for a grant for testing an experimental new Hudson River Water Purifier, it has, if 10k liters go into the vessel, and 1 liter clean water is added, a guaranteed purity improvement of 1/10 promille, Add a rain water catch and it is guaranteed MINIMUM 1/10 promille [1]. Greens will love it, everybody benefits.

I am on the side of industry, really.

Play the game. :-)

I could do that--perfectly legal, nobody cares. No nose-tweaking would be involved. However, being a consultant, I'm pretty much coin-operated these days, and getting the customer to sign up for that would be a stretch.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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.

Waaay too much work, even if I thought that loophole actually existed. Plus under ITAR you're responsible for what the guy you sell it to does with it, just like a duty-of-care law.

I've got lots to do--right now I'm making an interferometric detector for hypersonic, sub-micron particles, a noninvasive blood glucose monitor that actually works, and an automatic detector for blood spots in eggs. Consulting is sometimes solitary but never boring.

ACTJs are fairly dear to my heart, considering that I spent 6 years or so working on them at IBM.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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.

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.

2) Can't even break even.

Sounds familiar, Thermo maybe?

What does that mean?

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.

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

Putting yourself on the Radar or not can have far-reaching risk/consequences.

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

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

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.