HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecosystems@igc.apc.org (Eco Systems Inc.)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:jc#nrj@dixie.com:2036337205:cdp:1466300078:000:1790
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecosystems    Aug 25 18:34:00 1992


Well, gang, I have been reading all this stuff, and only once did
someone bring up the issue of *quality*. Quantity of oil is just one
piece of it. If the oil in the good old USA takes more energy to extract
(with oil or nuclear powered drill-bits), the USA is not as competitive
as its neighbors. It's that simple.

Here is the specific gravity of the matter:

  US national debt: 58% of GDP
  Japan             63%
  Italy            105%
  Mexico            13% ---

And remember, recently Mexico was supposedly one of these debt riddled
third world countries. So what happened?

Mexico is climbing up the left side of the Hubbert curve and the USofA
is sliding down the right side. 

So much for left wing and right wing. We are all living in a mining
economy, putting more holes in the ground. 

Question: at the end of the day, is it prettier up here because of
those holes in the ground, or is it getting hazier?

Seems like it's time to use our oil as seed corn and plant a new
energy economy before we eat up our seed -- whether there's two bushels
left or two cubic miles, sooner or later we will want to live in
a more pleasant environment. Air pollution is evidence of waste. 
Waste not, want not. Hmmm ... "I think Abraham Lincoln said that."
(or was it Bob Dylan?)

| Ron Swenson, EcoSystems, Inc.                  |
| creating EcoVillages - sustainable communities |
| dataspace:ecosystems@igc.org                   |
| voice:408/425-8523 fax:408/425-8533            |
| matter xfer: Box 7080, Santa Cruz CA 95061 USA |
|  \ /                          +----------------+
| - O -                ^        |
|  / \   .            /^\  ^    |
|        |\  ~.~    ^/^^^\/^^   |
|  ~.~  _|_\_      /^\^^^^\^^^  |
|       \___/     /^^^\^^^^\^^^^|
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------+
From: rs@sys.uea.ac.uk (CHE Guest News Login)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: ftp sites
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:52:22 GMT
Organization: UEA School of Information Systems, Norwich, UK.

Hello Friends,
	I am interested in some public domain or shareware software for energy
or chemistry related applications. Can any one mail or post on the net, about
the ftp sites related to this aspect.
	Thanks
			rs@uk.ac.uea.sys.radon
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:53:50 GMT

Gary Coffman writes
> The major difficulty with SPS is the sheer size of the  
required solar
> collector. To deliver one Terawatt to Earth's surface  
requires a collector
> the diameter of the Moon. 
> Gary

How do you figure.  
Moon's diameter is ~3000 km (1/4 earths)
Gives it a cross section of 7 * 10^6 square km.
= 7 * 10^12 sq m.  Sunlight above the atmosphere runs about
2 Kilowatts / square meter.  So now we are at 14 x 10^15  
watts.

A tera watt at 10^12 is 1/14000 of this.  Surely we aren't  
going to put up a system that's THAT inefficient.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: zukicn@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: REACTOR PHYSICIST Position - R&D
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:20:37 GMT

I am posting this for my manager & branch. Do NOT send your resumes, 
inquiries, etc. to me, as it all has to go through the Human
Resources and the person listed below. Our phone is: (204) 753-2311. 

Thank you,

Nermin Zukic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

               RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

                                for a

                          REACTOR PHYSICIST


                   Salary:  CDN $35,000 to 57,500
             depending on qualifications and experience


        A Reactor Physicist is required to perform nuclear reactor core
        design, safety assessments and related support, and to develop
        computer programs to assist analysis of data.  The work may
        include fuel characterization studies, radiation transport
        calculations, fuel geometry optimization, and reactor operation
        and safety-related assessments.  The above tasks include code
        development to expand existing capability, automate routine
        tasks or improve code efficiency.

        An advanced degree in Physics or Nuclear Engineering and a
        strong background in computer programming and utilization are
        required for this position.  A bachelor degree with high
        academic standing and relevant experience would also be
        considered.

        While previous experience with neutron diffusion theory,
        multigroup neutron transport theory or Monte Carlo calculational
        techniques would be a definite asset, less experienced
        candidates with an ability to adapt quickly to new challenges
        are encouraged to apply.  Demonstrated technical report writing
        and oral communications skills would be useful assets.

        The Whiteshell Laboratories is located at Pinawa, an attractive
  recreational/residential community on the banks of the Winnipeg River,
  northeast of Winnipeg.  We are a 1000 employee laboratory with
  research interests in both nuclear and non-nuclear activities.  The
  laboratory has a strong, comprehensive complement of in-house support
  services/facilities and research is well supported with advanced
  experimental equipment and computers.


  INTERESTED?    Contact A. Portman
                 AECL Research
                 Whiteshell Laboratories
                 Pinawa, Manitoba
                 R0E 1L0
                 (File No. WSR2016)
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:12:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |(lengthy quotation of what everybody who is still reading has read deleted)

 |: 
 |: (BC): Personal opinion, irrelevant to the original post.
 |: Too silly to argue with. De gustibus non est disputandum, etc.
 |: 
 |(DH): Um...English please?  We're all really impressed that you can speak &
 |write Latin. Congratulations.
 |

This is parlor-room Latin. It means, literally, "Tastes are not to be argued
about."

 |:  |4> (DH): Some cars are more aerodynamic than others.
 |:  |   If you drive something with loads of drag, open windows won't
 |:  |   matter too much.  If you are in something that the engineers gave
 |:  |   a damn about drag while designing, it will matter quite a bit.   
 |: 
 |: (BC): True, but without numbers doesn't support the original claims.
 |
 |(DH): It's either true, or it isn't.  You admit that it is true, yet
 |you say "Yeah, but you didn't do hours of research for me on the topic".
 |

Well, you could claim that holding up an open umbrella, Mary Poppins style,
would allow you to survive a fall from an airplane. You could support this
claim by asserting the fact that the umbrella would increase drag, thereby
decreasing your terminal velocity and reducing the impact of the fall.
This is indubitably true. However, unless you know *how much* it will
reduce the impact, I would recommend against trying it.

 |(DH):And here I also assumed that you drive in a manner which cools you
 |in your atlanta-heated car.  Perhaps, instead of requesting research
 |from me, you fill us in as to what you drive, how you cool off (if at all),
 |and so on.
 |
 |How about some hard facts rather than a repetitive gainsaying of each of my   
 |posts?  I really haven't seen you present any hard facts, or even 
 |questionable ones, just "No, I'm not a do-gooder, you're wrong" type of
 |whining.  "No I'm not, yes you are" type of stuff is getting, to be honest,
 |rather boring.  How about injecting some facts from YOUR side?
 |

The only claim I made was that you don't know what you're talking
about. This has been amply demonstrated, right here on the net.

However, I'm in a generous mood today, so I'll give you some facts.
When I lived in Atlanta, I drove a miscellany of vehicles. Among those
without windows in the usual sense were several motorcycles, two old
Jeeps (with translucent plastic windows that zipped shut), and a Karmann Ghia
convertible. I also drove several more traditional sedans including
a Rambler, a Volvo 144, a `56 Plymouth, and a Ford minivan. Most of my
driving was commuting to the North Peachtree area from downtown Decatur
(along Ponce de Leon Ave) and from Chamblee. Trip length less than 10 miles,
with speeds exceeding 35 mph only in bursts. I also did quite a bit of
long-distance driving up and down the Eastern Seaboard, almost always at
night.

The only time I've ever suffered from not having A/C was one broiling
summer in central Kansas. Kansans don't have the good sense to schedule
daily afternoon thunderstorms like they do in Atlanta.

Peace upon you,
Bo Curry
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms (was: Re:
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:40:25 GMT

jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:

>Anyhow, with the Great Lakes
>and all, there is a lot of weather activity. Thing is, most of the 
>energetic weather is nasty. I hope they have some sort of plan to deal with
>icing. The eastern end of Lake Ontario gets worse snow and ice storms than
>Buffalo, where I grew up (or didn't).

	As an idea, coat the blades with teflon or even a silicon wax and
let centrifugal force wipe that ice right off the blades.  I've never heard
of airplane props icing up, and while the wind generator blades will be
spinning much more slowly, a suitable friction reducer should help to
overcome the lack of centrifugal force a bit.  Or, perhaps a heating unit
in each blade that's triggered by some means?  Let's see, each blade should
exert X lbs of force on the hub at Y rpm, so insert a sensor or even use
a spring, and when X gets too large divert electricity to the heaters?

	Just some wild ideas that might be worth pondering.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: E=mc2?
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:45:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.715560320

dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter) writes:

>The net rest mass of the the fragments coming out of a Uranium fission
>(for example) is less than the mass of the original nucleus (by an
>easily measurable amount---getting on for 1% so far as I remember).
>The energy liberated can be calculated from E = m c^2.  A natural way of
>looking at this is that part of the rest mass of original matter has
>been converted to energy.  Why is that a misunderstanding?

It's a matter of emphasis, really.  The formula is very important
when you calculate the yield from a fission reaction.  What isn't
true is to say that the formula is the basic physical principle behind
the bomb, or that special relativity was *the* theory that made the
bomb possible.  The development of nuclear weapons had more to do with
the empirical knowledge gained from experimental nuclear physics 
than anything else.  I think QM had as much to do with it as did 
relativity.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Axiom of Physics
Date: 29 Aug 92 15:32:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.715102339

andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>Quantum mechanics is often phrased in terms of axioms, but even the most
>ardent proponent of the quantum theory would have to admit that the axiom is
>part of the theory. 

Not only that: in QM the stated axioms are often only part of one
interpretation of the theory!  Paul Dirac and Murray Gell-Mann would
disagree as to what the axioms are, or even how many there are. 

The unusual thing about QM is that unlike, say, different formulations
of classical mechanics, the various sets of axioms proposed seem so
fundamentally contradictory to each other.  The surprising thing is that
they all lead to the same predictions for at least the vast majority of
experiments.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: ELECTRON HELIX : ITS POWER AND POSSIBLITIES
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:07:17 GMT

In article <12950073@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric
Peregrino) writes: 
#You can't accelerate with a magnetic field; F = Q V x B.

Fermi acceleration.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Latest values of astrophys quantities
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:33:04 GMT

Hi,

can someone post the latest (or rather recent, or currently best) values
for the following astrophysical quantities:

(I also give the latest I know)

1. Lowest and highest mass for Main Sequence stars
    (0.07 / 50 Solar Masses; 
     "<" --> planets/brown dwarfs, 
     ">" --> instability due to radiation pressure)

2. Average, maximum, and minimum of the mass range of galaxies
    (10^{10}, 10^{12}, 10^{7} Solar Masses)
   Also:  What looks the distribution function like ? Maxwellian ?
   Also:  Are there any non-cosmological arguments that imply such a 
          mass range ?

3. Mean density and/or density parameter (according to GR/Friedmann) of the 
   Universe (I'm aware that Hubble's constant interferres here)

   With Hubble's constant   H = h * 100 km/(s Mpc), the critical density
   for a spacially flat Friedmann universe (vanishing Lambda) is given by

        rho_c = 3*H^2/(8 pi G) = 1.9E-29 g/cm^3 * h^2

   The density parm Omega_0 is then defined by   Omega_0 := rho / rho_c

   (For this, Binney/Tremaine: Galactic Dynamics, Princeton UP 1987 (p. 618) 
   give values within a range of approx 0.01 .. 0.5. 

   For *baryonic* matter only, the density parm seems to be near

        Omega_{0,b} = 0.01..0.05 * h^{-2}

   while dynamic arguments (NOT inflation args given in the book, but seems
   to be too hypothetical and may be wrong due to some reason) give 

        Omega_0 = 0.1 .. (0.46 * h^{-1})

   with some evidence for Omega_0 = 0.25.)

Posting more recent values would be gratefully appreciated.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.science
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:54:15 GMT

In article <Xc9wPB13w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
)matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
)
)> there are serious health risks in eating.
)
)
)        I personally am more afraid of bacterial contamination in 
)food or pesticide residues.  Something we should note here is that 
)microwave radiation is electromagnetic, and is NOT ionizing.  
)Irradiated (ionizing) food is safe to eat, as astronauts do it all 
)the time.  In fact, if I could buy irradiated food, I would do so, 
)as it can be stored for long periods of time and contains 
)absolutely NO bacteria!  I have no solution for pesticide residues 
)in food however.

)        Rest assured everyone, microwaves are only dangerous if 
)the radiations are being absorbed by your body.  In other words, 
)keep the door closed while cooking your food and you are ok.  
)There is no electromagnetic contamination of food either......sq

As far as I know there is no evidence that microwave radiation has any
effect on the body other than heating - if it is continuous.  There was
some concern about effects from pulsed sources though - something to do
with observable changes with the 'calcium ion' reflex.  [I'm rather out
of date on this, BTW, and what I did know was second hand anyway.]
Heating can of course be dangerous if it is too localized (burns) or
the body temperatue as a whole gets too high.

There's also some concern about electric & magnetic fields - the stuff
you get from power lines, for instance.  I'm not sure if this is based on
anything other than possibly spurious correlations, though.  I think there
was some animal testing done or planned, but I'm not sure about the results.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jcsmrr@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (John C. Sommerer)
Subject: Re: What's new with chaotic dynamics?
Reply-To: jcsmrr@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (John C. Sommerer)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:11:05 GMT

A recent compilation including many experimental tests and "applications" of 
chaos theory is Proceedings of the 1st Experimental Chaos Conference, Ed. S. 
Vohra et al., World Scientific (Singapore) 1992, ISBN 981-02-0899-5 (pbk). 
Phone for World Scientific:1 800 227 7562.

I have a paper in this, but don't get any money from the book sales or 
anything. Anyway, the focus is very physical. Good luck.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: quantization of angular momentum
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:56:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.715471007
Distribution: na

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>Am I off base here?  If you have a free scalar particle with wave function
>exp(-iEt+px), how is L quantized?

The state is a superposition of angular momentum eigenstates, all
of which have discrete L values.  If you reason from the existence of
states other than eigenstates that angular momentum is not discrete,
you might as well say that it isn't discrete in an atom either, since
you can have states that aren't eigenstates there, too.  Angular
momentum eigenvalues are always discrete.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: peter@mach.physik.uni-konstanz.de (Peter Marzlin)
Subject: Re: Redshifted light wonders
Organization: Uni Konstanz
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.224446.25468@hellgate.utah.edu>  
tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>   If the universe is expanding merrily away, and photons fly across  
this,
> there are some peculiar things that result.... how can these things be 
> resolved?
> 
>   1) Is there some minimal energy state that a photon can be redshifted  
to?
> Is there some minimal energy which a photon can have before it  
effectively
> ceases to exist?  (read next question to make more sense of this)
> 
> 
>  3) Are these photons losing energy for the whole universe?  Is energy  
not
> being conserved, or is it?

An appropriate way to handle those questions theoreticaly is to use
a general covariant formulation (i.e. gen. relativistic) of quantum
mechanics (and quantum field theory) . As one can go from nonrelativistic
QM to special relativistic QM (e.g. Dirac equation instead of 
Schroedinger eq.), that is from QM being invariant under Galilei  
transformations to QM being invariant under Lorentz tranformations, one
can generalize QM to be invariant under arbitrary coordinate trafos.
This works also with the classical Maxwell equations, and if one works
out such a theory one finds that energy is conserved only
in very special spacetimes (to be definite: those which have a timelike
Killing vector). Robertson-Walker spacetimes do not belong to this
class, therefore energy is not conserved.
The momenta of the photons are continuous, as in flat spacetime, and there
is, in principle, no minimal level.

>  2) Is there a continuous energy change for a particular photon, or does
> it get redshifted across jumps?  Does not quantum mechanics imply that
> there are only certain meaningful energy values, and as such would not a 
> photon move from one to the other?  If not, this would imply that there
> would be undetectable photons- high energy photons which did not  
correspond
> to any absorption frequency of any detection device.  Unless of course,  
the
> detection devices were somewhat forgiving.... is this the case?

To answer this question one has to go one step further and has to use
quantum field theory in curved spacetime. This theory is 
still under development (since 25 years) and it has some standing  
problems.
One is that one cannot say where in space a photon interacts 
gravitationally. For spacetimes without the symmetry described above 
it is even harder, sometimes you even don' t know how to define your
photons in the right way.

peter.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:13549 sci.skeptic:15008 alt.folklore.science:3141
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
From: dayrton@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:01:47 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Aug19.200140.2705@pony.Ingres.COM>, reb@Ingres.COM 
(Phydeaux) writes:

>>>Anyway, could someone lead us to serious reviews
>>>of the health risks (or even benefits) inherent in microwaved food?
>>
>>There are serious health risks in eating microwaved jelly donuts.
> 
> There are serious health risks in eating un-microwaved jelly donuts.

There are serious health risks in eating microwave ovens....


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: music@reg.triumf.ca (FRED W. BACH)
Subject: Re: Electrons in the body
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.040331.8765@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, yongbai@physics.su.OZ.AU (Yongbai Yin) writes...
>In article <1992Aug26.122949.10900@relay.nswc.navy.mil> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet) writes:
>>Could anyone give me a rough estimate of the percent of mass of a human
>>body which is made of electrons?  Not important, just curious.
>>
>>No ideas, no thoughts, no observations, no disclaimer
> 
>	The number is equal to one's weight divided by the mass of two protons,
>just approximate.
> 

I seem to remember the ratio of proton -to- electron mass was in the vicinity
of 1836 to 1.  A neutron was about 2 electrons more massive, (?) so the mass of
the electrons in your body would be about 1 / 3675  of your body mass since
there should be as many electrons as protons. Gravity acts about the same on
these bodies (barring the discovery and proof of a new effect to the contrary),
so the force of gravity on your electrons would be about 1/3675 of your weight
(for those of us who consider that "weight" is a measure of force and not
"mass").  This is still approximate, since the number of neutrons is only
approximately the same as the number of protons.  Does anyone know how this
works out considering the elemental composition of the body?



 Fred W. Bach ,    Operations Group        |  Internet: music@erich.triumf.ca
 TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility)    |  Voice:  604-222-1047 loc 278/419
 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS            |  FAX:    604-222-1074
 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   V6T 2A3

 These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
 They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech