HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Summary: quick quiz
Keywords: anti-gravity, perpetual motion
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:01:29 GMT
Expires: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:00:00 GMT
Followup-To: et@et.com
Organization: 4-L Laboratories

In article <xeno.721800966@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>[...]
>How about...  (drum roll)  free space?
>'Perpetual motion' is a misnomer...  Perpetual motion exists everywhere...
>If it didn't, then this whole 'entropy' thing would need to be redefined.

It HAS been. If you haven't yet, you all should read the work of Ilya
Prigogine. He got a nobel prize for it. Of course, his primary point
is that under certain conditions, systems tend towards order instead
of disorder...

>A single atom exhibits perpetual motion...  two objects in stable orbits about
>a pivot exhibit perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion is everywhere...

Ok  everybody , here is a quick quiz for you all. What is the energy source
that keeps electrons whirling about a nucleus? Like Xeno points out, an 
atom IS a perpetual motion machine. And, in terms of being a misnomer,
the misunderstanding is that for a perpetual motion machine to keep running
there has to be an energy input. So ok, in the case of a single atom,
what is it????

>Water water everywhere...  But not a drop to drink.

Water wheels are great examples of perpetual motion, especially if the
river is underground. Only people of extraordinary perception would
figure out that the river of energy is there, even if they couldn't
see it.

>
>---Xeno
>
>

You can lead a horse to water, but time and tide melt the snowman.

---ET
From: corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:06:32 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

In article <xeno.721521911@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary
L Snethen) writes:
>In <347@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov11.024228.19183@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg
(Brett 
>McInnes) writes:
>>> I have tried [without much success] to follow the thread on mixing
>>> science and religion. I note that many people argue that the two are
>>> indeed immiscible. I wonder how these people feel about astrology? Many
>>> of us feel that scientists have a moral obligation to speak out against
>>> popular delusions of this kind. Are we mistaken? Should we take the view
>>> that astronomy and astrology don't mix?
>
>>Certain aspects of astrology, predicting ones fate based on the moment of
>>one's birth, are known to be false and should be condemned. Many aspects
>>of many religions are known to be false and should be condemned. A
>>blanket condemnation of either makes as much sense as as a blanket
>>condemnation of physics because it was responsible for nuclear weapons.
>
>[...]
>
>>Paul Budnik
>
>'Knowing' something is false does not necessarily mean one should condemn it.
>
>This comdemnation eventually leads to the stagnation of new ideas...  and even
>if these human precepts are false, they give us insight into our own inner
>workings, so they serve a valuable philosophical and psychological purpose.
>
>I realize that the author may not have intended to say that this wasn't the
>case, but 'condemn' is a strong word.
>
>---Xeno

Can somebody tell me what this has to do with new physics theories?

(This is not directed at you Xeno i just can't quote part of a message :)

Corey

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Sweeney
corey@amiganet.chi.il.us
I do not own a amiga!
From: v128nkej@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov15.210619.28900@bilver.uucp>, dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes...
>>                 RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
>>          
>>               In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin 
>>          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global 
>>          defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON 
>>          RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY. 
>>          
>>               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians 
>>          could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I. 
>>          research and development program. 
>>          
	Maybe because they had devoted virtually every free penny they had
to making weapons.  They DID get to space first AND have many more manned
space ventures than the US, AND... etc.   NO Surprize that they may have
something,  but...


>>               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started 
>>          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in 
>>          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since 
>>          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE 
>>          BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS. 
>>

	If they have deployed an operational Star Wars defense system,
I would think that certain US groups have already gotten their hands
on most of it by now.  It's funny how easy people can be bought when they
are starving...
	Which brings us to:
Scene from Downtown Baghdad,

	Okay, three whoppers three large fries and a diet coke....
That'll be two ICBM's and 10 warheads please...

-Spacibo,   Dasvadanya!


					Jim
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Time Travel (a different perspective):
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2241@sousa.tay.dec.com>, perkins@tallis.enet.dec.com writes...
> 
>Time Travel (from a different perspective)
> 
>In  reading all of the articles posted so far concerning time travel  there
>has  never been a definition of what is time travel. So I will start of  by
>posing the two possible alternatives as to what is time travel.
> 
>So  probably we should then add to the definition of time travel the clause
>that  the  time traveler's physical body does not age at the same  rate  of
>traveling in time.
> 
>Any thoughts, comments, rejecting of this "definition" of time travel?

Only this - we already know how to travel forward in time.  You just
get in a rocket ship and take a little vacation at near the speed of light.
Let the trip take a year, from your point of view.  Assuming that you were
going fast enough, when you return, you find that everyone you knew is 
long dead.  Decades have passed on Earth.  

The big problem with this method of time travel is that there is no 
return ticket.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tomes@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: GETTING AROUND
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:03:04 GMT

In article <corey.0f7f@amiganet.chi.il.us> corey@amiganet.chi.il.us (Corey Sweeney) writes:
>>In <BxIuDz.M6E@news.iastate.edu> tomes@iastate.edu () writes:

>>>expensive, but having 100g of antiprotons to play with might give someone
>>>with a LOT of resources some interesting answers.
>
>I wouldn't want it on my planet.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Corey Sweeney

Well, I don't very much like the idea of it either, but then again it
probably never will happen, will it?

I don't like the idea of hydrogen bombs or bio/chemical weapons under the 
control of marginally sane politicians, either, but that seems to be the case.
(What sane person would WANT to be a politician?)

Chuck the Merciless
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:03:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: coyoacan.sw.stratus.com

In article <xeno.721943407@du248-06.cc.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
me>Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
me>motion, would operate indefinitely by creating its own energy in excess of
me>that dissipated.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ok...  I guess Mr. Webster knows more about physics than any of us.

The definition of a term (what the words mean) has nothing to do with
physics, and everything to do with language.

> It seems strange how little my definition differs:
> 
> Perpetual Motion - the motion of a hypothetical device which, once set in
> motion, would operate indefinitely by dissipating no more energy than it
> created.

If you don't see the difference, I suggest some courses in logic. The
difference is that between "= 0" and "> 0".
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Perpetual motion (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 11:46 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <xeno.722036028@pv0558.vincent.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes...
> 
>This difference is the most likely the cause of any disagreement.  I view
>moving a 300 lbs. dumbell twenty miles and then twenty miles back something
>that could theoretically be done with no energy loss whatsoever.  So
>perhaps it is that I am trying to argue this case on the wrong level...
>I suggest that it may not be necessary to expend energy to accomplish certain
>types of work, and therefore machines performing these types of work would
>be 'perpetual' in operation.

In the parlance of classical mechanics, there is only one kind of "work."
And the action you have described, moving an object and returning it to
it's starting point, does no work.  So no net energy is required to 
perform the task.  If there is a gravitational field present, it may 
take some temporary energy (such as pushing a ball up a hill), but you
get it all back when you return the ball to its starting point.

>perpetual motion machines to anyone.  There is no proof that space-time is
>continuous and symmetric at every point and in every direction, and therefore
>there is no proof that conservation of momentum and conversation of energy
>hold on a universal scale.

You have hit upon my pet peeve.  You really can't assume that all the 
physics you picked up in high school is correct.  According
to our best understanding of cosmology, i.e., if you accept General Relativity
as a correct description of physics at the largest distance scales, then
enery is certainly NOT conserved on a Universal scale.  Here is a simple
example:  The photons in the cosmic ray background are well-known to be
the very red-shifted remnants of the hot early Universe at the moment of
matter-radiation decoupling.  The number of such photons has been fixed
from that time.  Yet each one has lost energy as the Universe has expanding
over the last 15 billion years or so.  Where did the energy go?  It
just vanished from the Universe.  GR tells you that the Universe is not
time-symmetric, and energy cannot be globally conserved.  Similarly, in 
a contracting Universe, every photon slowly increases in energy with time.

More details can be found in the sci.physics FAQ.

People who insist that energy is *always* conserved are being foolishly
consistent.  They think they understand more physics than they really do,
and then defend their half-understanding to the death.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Superconductors in space? (was Re: anti-gravity device)
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:29:06 GMT
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd

In <1992Nov15.013238.9221@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>[Xeno's comments on perpetual (constant-entropy) motion deleted]
> 
>But you would a need frictionless/lossless mechanical system. As far as I
>know, no materials at normal temperatures are frictionless. The only
                       ^^^^^^
Normal for whom?  Remarkably little of the universe seems to be at 
'normal' temperatures - its generally either much hotter (stars)
or much colder (open space).

>perfect things that come too mind are superconductors, and I believe that
>liquid helium II is a perfect heat conductor. I doubt that any machine
>requiring supercold could be described as perpetual. Unless it was operated
           ^^^^^^^^^
Some superconductors work at liquid-nitrogen temperatures (alright,
that's still cold ... but not *that* cold).

>in a mine on Pluto, or somewhere where the it was perpetually shielded
>from all sources of heat. I guess that would rule out Pluto, I recall
>that while very cold, it is not cold enough to liquify helium.

Pluto is easily cold enough to liquefy nitrogen, and therefore for
superconductors to exist there.

Presumably most of "open space" has a temperature of 3K (due to
the microwave background), so liquid helium could occur naturally
there (if there were enough pressure?).  Does anyone know the
triple point of helium?  I seem to remember the boiling point
as 4K, but I don't know at what pressure that applies.
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: anti-gravity device
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:13:50 GMT

In article <xeno.721940888@du248-06.cc.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>
>>I was responding to the topic of "perpetual motion machine", not perpetual
>>motion per se.  
>> 
>>>A single atom exhibits perpetual motion...  two objects in stable orbits about
>>>a pivot exhibit perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion is everywhere...
>
>>I am not sure if QM states that electrons orbit as planets do. If you look
>>at some of the probability spaces for orbitals, this looks really unlikely.
>>And planets do orbit around the CG. Atoms are not gravitationally bound, so
>>I see no reason why they should be so restrained (although this is the first
>>time I have considered it). And as before, this is not what is meant by
>>pertetual motion machine. And I really do not think of the atom as a machine,
>>do you?
>> 
>
>I suppose that it depends on your definition of a machine...  It has not
>been shown what minimum energy, if any, is required to operate 'intellectual'
>machines (ie., machines that perform no physical work, but are capable of
>problem solving, computation, and/or data processing.)  In my view, such a
>computer could be considered a 'perpetual motion machine' if it could operate
>indefinitely without absorbing net energy from its surroundings.
 
It seems to me that the only way to operate indefinitely without absorbing
net (internet energy? naaa, the internet is an energy sink) energy would
be if it required zero energy to operate. It it required any energy at all, 
it would require an infinite power supply to operate indefinitely.

And is not the human brain the part of the body requiring the most
energy (except in periods of intense exercise)?
 
>>>Water water everywhere...  But not a drop to drink.

I sea...

>>>---Xeno
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>---Xeno

Rich again


Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Speakers
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:30:34 GMT



Look for a book by Harry(?) Olson.

When he was at RCA around WWII, he did a good job at describing the practical
amenities of loudspeaker design.


Other than that, keep in mind that all you are trying to do is to drive a
parcel of air at an audio rate, with a plate (or horn) large enough to produce
the sound power you want without nonlinear effects due to the compressibility
of air.  (196 dB = 1 atmosphere).

Most popular way has been a lightweight solenoid driven by reaction in a
magnetic gap--- the common loudspeaker.

Enclosures are merely to enhance the radiation over the lower range of
frequencies, the higher being effected by direct radiation fron the driven
plate ('cone').


Good luck!
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
From: pfeiffer@humboldt.kent.edu (Dan Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Speakers
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:38:33 GMT

>I am trying to design loudspeakers from fundemental aucoustic laws. This has
>been a harder task than I seemed initially. Most books on speakers skirt 
>around the neccesarry explainations and simply give you final designs with
>formulae for dimensions, but deducing the theory from this evidence is a
>near herculean task!

>I wonder if any people in the know about this could either post or email me
>information or easy to obtain (eg in England) sources of info?

>I interested in the following effects:

> Exponential horns

> Ported cavities

> Level of airload at various frequencies

> Effect of airload on driver efficiency

There is a book on speaker design by David Weems (sp?) which I found 
very usefull.  Has theory and examples.  Title is something like
"Designing Speakers" or something like that, I don't remember exactly.
                                            DHP
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
From: daili@Sun-Robot.eng.ufl.edu (DaiLi)
Subject: Re: hearing vs speaking.
Reply-To: daili@Sun-Robot.nuceng.ufl.edu (DaiLi)
Organization: U of Florida Engineering Comuputing Services
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:19:32 GMT

He probably meant that the sound from mouth is in kind of complicated pattern
since it is just from a block source, the sound near ear is the sound far from
its source, which will be treated as a parallel uniformed sound. i.e. in uniformpattern. Usually the wave equations will be different when you deal with the
sound near source and the sound in universe.


Once being an Acoustician

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Re: hearing vs speaking.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:30:55 GMT
Organization: Colorado Concert Sound

In article <1992Nov17.012614.20277@athena.mit.edu> philo@athena.mit.edu (philo) writes:
>lecturer once. One of the things that he said was that a spectrum analysis of the
>speach right near the ear of the listener did not agree with the spectrum of the
>sound as it left the mouth of the person who is talking. However, the fourrier
>components agreed to a large degree.
>
>Does any one have a better understanding of this concept that I do? I think
>this could be a very interesting question.
>-philo.
>dakhlak.... hawn nazl s suruur?
>				(Ziad)


Unless you were in an anechoic chamber, the reverberent field will always
change the frequency content of any acoustic signal.  High frequencies will
be attenuated by the air in the path from source to ear.  Also, the microphone
used to get the acoustic signal into the Fourier analyzer has a non-flat
frequency response.

I am ignoring the fact that FFT's done on non-infinite (in time) signals are
suspect in their validity.

Galen Watts
From: lack@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (Neal Lackritz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
Subject: Re: Speakers
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:32:04 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

Can you explain your goal a bit more?  What do you mean by "design
a loudspeaker from fundamental acoustics laws"?

For example, suppose your primary goal is to reproduce the same
music in your listening room that you heard in a concert hall.  
Your first step would then be to build a model human head with a 
microphone in each ear socket.  You would then take this to your
concert hall and make the recording.  Unfortunately, when you play
that same music through your loudspeaker at home, the room acoustics
cause the sound you hear to be different than what was recorded in
the concert hall.  Thus, no loudspeaker design can achieve exact
reproduction of sound without first controlling the room acoustics
(i.e. use a pair of good headphones).

If your primary goal is to build a loadspeaker that creates an
acoustic sound pressure wave that is equivalent to the applied
voltage, you must first realize that speakers are mechanical devices.
Any real mechanical device has non-ideal (and non-linear) properties
that prevent the speaker from operating perfectly.  Of course,
the defects may be so small as to be imperceptible to the human ear.

As I say, I am not sure what you mean by "design a loudspeaker from
fundamental acoustics laws".   Can you be more specific about your
request for info?

In any case, I also recommend Beranek's book on Acoustics.  The
modeling techniques can be applied to any system.  At MIT, we use
these techniques in Bose's Acoustics class to model loadspeakers as
well as ported speaker designs (as well as many other systems).

Neal Lackritz
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
Subject: Re: hearing vs speaking.
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:08:53 GMT
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

In article <Nov17.153055.54833@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.012614.20277@athena.mit.edu> philo@athena.mit.edu (philo) writes:
>>lecturer once. One of the things that he said was that a spectrum analysis of the
>>speach right near the ear of the listener did not agree with the spectrum of the
>>sound as it left the mouth of the person who is talking. However, the fourrier
>>components agreed to a large degree.
>>
>>Does any one have a better understanding of this concept that I do? I think
>>this could be a very interesting question.
>>-philo.
>>dakhlak.... hawn nazl s suruur?
>>				(Ziad)
>
>
>Unless you were in an anechoic chamber, the reverberent field will always
>change the frequency content of any acoustic signal.  High frequencies will
>be attenuated by the air in the path from source to ear.  Also, the microphone
>used to get the acoustic signal into the Fourier analyzer has a non-flat
>frequency response.

Any respectable lab setup will use a calibrated mic, and correct for
that in the measurements.

Of course, even ignoring all the other effects, there's the very real
effect that the body (and head, for that matter) have on the
percieved signal, as well as relative position and orientation of
speaker and listener, all of which effect the spectrum of the signal
in the ear.
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
jeq@i88.isc.com  '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094        Naperville, IL
        There are many things a person should experience in a lifetime.
       Among them are an infant's first cry, and an infant's first laugh.