HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abdilla@fedcmac.edc.rmit.edu.au (Michael G. A. Abdilla)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Test: Don't Read
Followup-To: sci.energy
Date: 9 Nov 1992 02:06:29 GMT
Organization: Centre for Design at RMIT, Melbourne Australia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: daedalus.edc.rmit.oz.au

Sorry 'bout this test...but I did warn you!!! ;-)

*****************************************************************
Michael  Abdilla - Research Assistant
Centre for Design at RMIT
GPO Box 2476V
Melbourne, Victoria 3001
Australia

Ph:  +61 3 660-2237      E-mail: abdilla@fedcmac.edc.rmit.edu.au
Fax: +61 3 660-2891
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: U.S. Renewable Research Exceeds Nuclear
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:41:45 GMT


An article in a recent issue of _Nuclear Canada_ (not well known for   
supplying adequate references), lists the following figures for federal
R&D expenditures in the cumulative period 1976-1992 in the U.S.:

Nuclear energy:  $3.2 billion  ($800 million for LWR's, $2.4 billion for 
(22% of supply)                 reactor safety and advanced designs)

Coal energy:     $3.2 billion  (for advanced technology, combustion systems,
(54% of supply)                 and magnetohydrodynamics)

Renewable energy:  $4 billion  ($1.7 billion for photovoltaic systems,
(0.5 percent)                   $1.5 billion for solar thermal, $800 million
                                for wind systems)

Note that the last category does not include hydraulic power, as it shouldn't
in such comparisons.

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: science policy sources
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:36:28 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:

> 
> To:    sci.energy
> From:  mwgoodman@igc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
> Re:    publications
> Date:  11/11/92
> 
> I am new in the energy policy world, and am trying to get up to
> speed as quickly as possible.  Does anyone have suggestions for a
> few good sources?  Though I am technically literate, I am more
> interested in policy than in technology.  I would particularly
> appreciate suggestions for the top two or three (expand the list
> if necessary) periodicals on energy policy.
> 
Coalition for Science and Commerce, BOX 1981, La Jolla, CA 92038.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:11:33 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 Leaving aside the unlikelihood of -getting- a 100KPSI tank (size not
specified), regulator and plumbing, there's the fact that well below
100KPSI the gases will liquefy. You might recheck your numbers based
on a volume of -liquid- air (or nitrogen) and see how much volume that
translates to at 100PSI (standard air tool/motor working pressure).
Your tank must be some safety factor above the 25C vapor pressure of
LN2 (unless you intend to use a Dewar). You'll have to blow enough 
ambient air through a heat exchanger to boil the LN2 and maintain the
heat exchanger above freezing while you're at it.

 I'd consider the dewar myself; they seem to get by with lighter weight
than I think a room-temp LN2 would. Better work on the plumbing end of
things. Could make for a nice, long, interesting project.
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: External-Combustion Cars -- Possible?
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:10:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptolemy.ETHANB.92Nov12101030
Organization: U. of Washington
To: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)

There is a lot of research into Stirling engines, which are an
efficient way to convert heat into motive power.  They give your
reasons as advantages, as well as the possibility of burning a wide
variety of fuels.

I don't think they can be zero emission, but they may be able to fill
the low-emission role in the California mix.
From: abond@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Andrew H. Bond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: a question on powerful lasers
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:30:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: rvgs.1992Nov10.083046.9417
Distribution: usa
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Roanoke)

TAB books has a book called _Lasers, Phasers, and Ion Rays_
or something like that. In the book they describe how to
construct a CO2 gas laser. For any kind of power use the only
type of laser that is of any *practical* use is the CO2 laser.
The experimental Air Force laser that is mounted in a cargo
plane is a CO2 laser, Output power is about 400kw. The only
problem w/these lasers is that they are big, clunky are require
extensive cooling, CO2 tanks, valves, huge power supply etc. If
you have access to lots of surplus gear of this nature, it
could be a very fun project. If not, it could be *very*
expensive.--ahb
-- 
andrew h bond, 	rvgs
From: rsb@mcc.com (Richard S. Brice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Do Balloons fly?
Summary: does shape count?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:50:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcc.1992Nov5.205002.969
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX

In article <1992Nov5.192807.1440@sfu.ca>, palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.130316.28438@kth.se> e92_anh@vaxkab.lne.kth.se writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >So, is my airpressure-theory correct? I'd very much like to know!
> 
> Yes it is, you'll be glad to hear! :-))
> 
> Leigh


If you had a very long and very skinny baloon, would it rise faster
floating vertically than horizontally, e.g. imagine a baloon the
shape of a meter stick. (Never mind how hard it might be to create such
an object).

R. Brice
From: Chris Hanson <chanson@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 07 Nov 92 22:22 PST
Subject: Scandium and Osmium end-users
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1468500008:000:327
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!chanson    Nov  7 22:22:00 1992



I am doing some research into current uses of Scandium 
and Osmium 187.  Does anyone have information on
how these substances are used in industry and
manufacturing?  I am especially interested in
identifying end-users.

Thanks for your help.

Chris Hanson
E-mail:  chanson@igc.org
Telephone:  415-988-1155
Fax:  415-988-9209
From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
Date: 7 Nov 1992 08:36:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Summary: More Standard Model surprises

[discussion of nucleating the "true vacuum" in a laboratory experiment]

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
> In the Standard Model, for instance, the world is generally built upon
> the true vacuum.

Ha!  The Standard Model surprises you again!  If the top is heavy and the
Higgs is light (but with "reasonable" values), the Standard Model predicts
our vacuum is metastable; see
  P. Arnold & S. Vokos, Phys.Rev.D44:3620 (1991)
  G. Anderson, Phys.Lett.B243:265 (1990)

If the Higgs mass were 60 GeV, Arnold & Vokos calculate our vacuum would
be metastable for m_t > 125 GeV; it would already have decayed (by thermal
excitation in the hot early universe) for m_t > 140 GeV; and it would
already have decayed (by T=0 quantum tunneling) for m_t > 145 GeV.  This
can be considered a constraint on the top mass: m_t < 140 GeV.  For a
heavier Higgs, this constraint is somewhat relaxed.

(Both Eric Carlson & Larry Hall probably know of these papers, since
Stamatis Vokos and Greg Anderson are both LBL grads.)

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. | for the sensible folks.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu (John Flanagan)
Subject: Re: jokes & sexisim in physics
Keywords: sexism women women-physicists
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.205525.2541@aoa.aoa.utc.com> carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
>x
>Men just don't get it.
>One of the things we don't get is that it's absurd for a bunch
>of men to pontificate as to whether certain jokes are offensive
>to women and whether this is part of the reason women avoid
>science (or for that matter football).
>Women know.  The sooner men stop speaking for them and listening
>to them, the better.

Yes, but on the other hand, it is not women's responsibility to
educate men about sexism.  Men should be able to figure it out for
themselves -- which sometimes involves a certain amount of discussion.

>I also hate the common use (see one line up) of "them" or "us" in
>discussions of the difference between the genders.  We could
>possibly be united :=(

Yes, but...forget it, you know the rest of the argument.

--John
-- 
John Flanagan                          ||"Pretty boys
johnf@uhheph.phys.hawaii.edu           || with the sunshine faces
U. of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astro.|| <mumble mumble>..."
2505 Correa Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822    ||   -- My Bloody Valentine
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:02:28 GMT

asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:

>As has been mentioned, it *is* a theorem that all manifolds do occur
>as subspaces of some Euclidean space: in fact, any n-manifold embeds in R^(2n).
>
>This is a pleasant theorem, but it would be inappropriate to take this as a 
>definition.

What about the one-dimensional helix embedded in R^3. Is the helix not a
1-manifold? Note that if you compact it along its axis you get a circle
(also a 1-manifold--is this S^1?) embedded in R^2. But a circle is a
degenerate case of a helix ("stretching" along the axis having vanished)
and is not in general a helix.

Someone educate me on this.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:25:16 GMT
Subject: Re: jokes & sexisim in physics
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics


Robert Merithew wrote:

>I'd like to point out that the apparent
>popularity of such jokes among physicists and physics students
>probably contributes to the very low participation of women in physics

To which I responded:

>Are you suggesting that women would enter a field because there
>weren't sexist jokes told?

To which Wendy Cornell responded:

>So a woman is only justified
>in feeling alienated in the physics community if other women *would*
>be willing to enter other male-dominated fields if not for the sexist
>comments?

To which I say:

No. The only justification one needs for feeling alienated, is to be
alienated. 

What I think is that the jokes contribute very little to the disparity
between women and men in physics. I'd guess environmental effects would
be greatest, followed by barrier to entry, followed by harassment,
followed by genetic differences. Well you might say that sexist jokes
are a form of harassment.

Harass: to trouble, worry, or torment, as with cares, debts, repeated
questions, etc.

>I can only conclude that anyone who would tell a woman that such feelings
>of alienation are unjustified is either insensitive or just not especially
>bright.

Actually, I'm as dumb as a post. But seriously folks, all I ment to say,
was I don't think sexist joke telling is much of a contributor (read < 1%)
to the lack of women in physics.

How about a poll: what percentage of women don't enter physics becuase of
sexist jokes?

I'd guess .1%.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino   c/o Hewlett Packard Co.    I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com  1501 Page Mill Rd Bldg 5M  I may be wrong, maybe so
415-857-7526    Palo Alto, CA 94304        What me worry?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: snil@daimi.aau.dk (Sven Nielsen)
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:05:36 GMT

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>You hit the nail on the head.  There are two good reasons for AC
>rather than DC: it's easier to generate (no make-and-break brushes in
>the generator); and it's much easier to step voltage up and down.  That's
>crucial because resistive losses go like the current you're transporting.

To be precise, the (heat) loss goes like the square of the current which 
Joule proved a few centuries ago : dQ/dt = R*I^2  where dQ/dt is the heat
dissipated per unit time and unit length and R is the resistance of the wire 
per unit length. This makes it extremely important to transport electricity
at low current and high voltage.
	
	DC power lines (in Europe) are in use where the cable is under water
or under earth. This is because the sea acts like a giant capacitor which
would cause big losses if you used AC because the sea 'shorts' the cable.
(capacitors don't transport DC current)

And about the claim that the magnetic field from AC power lines should give
a cancer risk. I doubt it. If you have read either the swedish or the danish
examination of this and you understand statistics you would doubt it too !
The danish paper concluded that extremely low frequency EMF might lead to 
cancer on a basis of 3 (three) cancer incidents over a test period of 18 years.
Noone has yet been able to point out a physical mechanism that via EMF turns
human cells into cancer cells as well as experiment with animals has not shown
that such a thing is possible. I just wonder why people always wants to fear 
what is not worth worrying about instead of thinking about what is really a 
threat to us humans - but I'll pass that over to alt.psycology .....

Sven ..... snil@daimi.aau.dk

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:19:30 GMT

In article <SMITH.92Nov5101553@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>
>> What I don't understand here is how "living in R^n" is of itself
>> creating complexity and obscurity.  I can see that the
>> arbitrariness of f might get in the way.  But where does the
>> complexity and obscurity creep in if for example we define a
>> manifold to be a smooth retract of an open subset of R^n?
>
>The choice of ambient space is also somewhat arbitrary.  If the
>manifold can be imbedded in R^n, then it can also be imbedded in
>R^{n+1}, to say nothing of imbeddings in other manifolds.  The point
>is that manifolds exists independently of their imbeddings in R^n or
>other manifolds.  Any reasonable definition should possess this
>invariance.

This won't wash, you've just replaced one arbitrariness with another
more complicated one, namely the notion of atlas.

No one's mentioned atlases and charts in any of these posts,
understandably, so I'd better say what they are, and in so doing give
the full and I hope standard definition of abstract manifold (to within
a certain notion of smooth coordination I'll skip).  An ATLAS F on a
topological space M is a family of CHARTS (fi,Ui) where the family <Ui>
is an open cover of M and each fi:Ui->R^n is a homeomorphism from Ui to
an open subset of R^n, such that the fi's of overlapping Ui's
"coordinate smoothly" at the overlap.  A MANIFOLD is a pair (M,F)
consisting of a topological space M and an atlas F on M.

Now why do you object to my arbitrariness and not the arbitrariness of
atlases?  You chop up a manifold in some arbitrary way into overlapping
pieces and then paste it back together with charts that coordinate
smoothly at the overlaps.  For example to chart a 2-sphere you might
chop it up into the northern and southern hemispheres, slightly
extended to open sets so that they overlap at the equator, and then
glue them back together "seamlessly".  But you might equally well chop
it into east and west, or into 240 pieces, one per country or sea.
What is nonarbitrary about this chopping?

The only arbitrariness in my definition is the choice of neighborhood
of the manifold and its retraction onto the manifold.  No chopping, no
charts.

Furthermore my definition is a *lot* simpler, I'd say, even without
going into the notion of smooth coordination required to define an
atlas.

There has to be some other reason why the complicated notion of atlas
is essential.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:40:55 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

          
          
                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

               I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
          maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
          Spacecraft, "just stories". 
    
               I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
          U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on 
          Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it.  
          All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and 
          military.  A couple of years ago, the TV program "Unsolved 
          Mysteries" showed an excellent segment about the incident. 
    
               The Roswell Incident illustrates a serious problem here.  
          Whenever there IS physical evidence of a UFO Spacecraft, the 
          military always confiscates it, using "national security" as 
          an excuse, and then ACTS LIKE THE MAFIA toward the finders 
          and other witnesses by THREATENING them if they don't keep 
          silent!  (They did it to the rancher in the Roswell 
          Incident.) 
    
               I wonder if Carl Sagan has been pressured by the 
          government into continuing to make negative public statements 
          about UFO's.  It's too bad that so many people accept his 
          pronouncements without question.  He may very well be another 
          case of THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND. 
       
               This is supposed to be a FREE country.  FREEDOM OF 
          SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land.  The 
          government (and its military) is supposed to be of, by, and 
          for The People, NOT the other way around.  People need to 
          know THE TRUTH about EVERYTHING in order to intelligently 
          participate in the democratic process.  It is an ORGANIZED 
          CRIME for the government to withhold or suppress information 
          and physical evidence of UFO's from us. 
    

               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:29 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <MATT.92Nov6134208@physics3.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>In article <6NOV199212364099@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> 
>> The speed of light is what it is for *some* reason, or it would have a
>> different value!  (I know I'll get flamed for this one.)  I expect that
>> this reason will ultimately be accessible to us.
> 
>I agree that the speed of light is what it is for some reason, but I
>don't think that the reason is particularly interesting or
>fundamental.
> 
>The speed of light is a dimensional quantity, so it has the value that
>it does only because we happen to use a certain set of units; I think,
>then, that a better way to phrase the question is: why do we choose to
>measure distances in centimeters and times in seconds?  

Oh, come on.  That's just a dodge.  The speed of light is independent
of the units you choose to measure it in.  If I take two light beams,
and you measure the speed of light in cm/sec and I measure the
speed of light in droobles/flimbat, the light from the two beams will
still travel at the same speed.  Why *that* speed?

-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
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18157 sci.physics.fusion:2615
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:37:37 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:

>reflector/absorbers in his "basement breeder" reactor to build a 
>bomb- given the current situation as you and I have both iterated, 
>the materials may very well be available on the market- given the 
>break-up of the soviet union.

About 4kgs of what was described as "bomb grade" Plutonium was seized by
customs official in Germany about two weeks ago. It was being smuggled via
Poland and its destination appeared to be the Balkans. This is the second
customs seizure of Plutonium the Germans have made in the last 6 months.

Scary huh?

Dave

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: rusin@mp.cs.niu.edu (David Rusin)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:57:37 GMT

In article <SMITH.92Nov5132141@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>For argument's sake, lets call a locally Euclidean space a manifold,
>and a locally Euclidean space endowed with a differentiable structure
>(atlas) a differentiable manifold.

Just for the record, a manifold is a HAUSDORFF locally Euclidean space.
You want to exclude examples like the real number line with two origins.
(X= (Rx{0,1})/~ where (a,b)~(c,d) iff a=c and either b=d or a=c <>  0.)

As for the arbitrariness of the atlas, I have seen manifolds defined as
a pair (M,F) where F is a _maximal_ family of compatible charts. Then
in any application one selects a collection of charts which covers M
and is handy for the application, without making the choice of chart
be an explicit part of the manifold's construction. I don't find this
to be a very natural perspective, but if you like Bourbaki...

dave rusin@math.niu.edu


Newsgroups: sci.physics