HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Craig Fifer)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: NIST address?
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:38:01 GMT
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Roanoke)

I have one contact at the NIST.  I have never e-mailed him,
but here is his address:

John Roberts
roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV

I hope this helps!

-Craig Fifer
cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   Never play leapfrog with              |   Craig Fifer                   |
|   a unicorn!   -Murphy                  |   3736 Heritage Road, S.W.      |
|                                         |   Roanoke, Virginia  24015-4518 |
From: elrsc@lut.ac.uk (RSChandran)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Far-Field solution of an antenna
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:36:30 GMT
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.



Dear Friends,

I am having a little difficulty in solving a particular electromagnetic
problem. Probably some of you in the net could help me.

The problem is as follows.

I have an antenna as shown in the fig below. The element lengths decrements
equally in both directions as it moves towards the edges. This is not
a Yagi antenna because in a yagi antenna the element length do not reduce
as the number of elements increases.

                       |
                    |  |  |
                 |  |  |  |  |
              |  |  |  |  |  |  |
           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
          ---------------------------
           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
              |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                 |  |  |  |  |
                    |  |  | 
                       |
Now assuming that a plane wave is incident on the antenna, and the plane
of incidence is parallel to the computer screen. I want to derive the
expression of the field strength at a distance `L' over the otherside of 
the antenna.

In most of the text books, it is assumed that the element lengths are
the same and the corresponding expressions are derived. Could anyone
help me to find out the solution or could anyone point out any related
papers or textbooks?

All the helps will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

R.S.Chandran.
R.S.Chandran@lut.ac.uk
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: ENV SATELLITE SHUTDOWN IN DEC 1992
Keywords: nasa, environment, meteorology, satellite, ozone, aerosol
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:02:44 GMT

This is a repost of 6 Oct. posting (revised)...

We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9 (partial?)

     NOAA-10 (partial?)

     UARS (SPRING 1993)

Some of the following experiments that will terminate when
their satellites are shutdown are:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)
     
     Total Ozone Measurement System (TOMS)

     Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE)

     Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)

No plans have been stated to restart the satellites.

Budget cuts are specified in House Conference Report 102-902
that is attached to HR 5679, Sept. 24, 1992.

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
From: chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov (Alison Chaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: sputter targets (attention electron microscopists)
Summary: need to find Hummer company
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:26:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: lll-wink.138794
Distribution: na
Organization: Chemistry and Materials Science, LLNL

I am looking to buy a gold or silver sputter target for a Hummer V
sputter machine.  The company we bought the machine from, Technics
Electron Microscopy, has evidently gone out of business, and there is
no listing for Hummer in the _Physics Today Buyers' Guide_.  Does
anyone know how to contact the company that makes Hummer sputtering
machines?  Alternatively, does anyone another source of gold 3" ring
targets?  I see that electron microscopy supply companies like Fullam
sell small gold targets, but I don't know if they will fit.

Thanks in advance!
---

Alison Chaiken				chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov
(510) 422-7129				OR alison@wsrcc.com
Look if you like, but you will have to leap.
From: vxv4@po.CWRU.Edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: NIST address?
Date: 10 Oct 1992 13:22:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: vxv4@po.CWRU.Edu (Virgilio Velasco)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


	My brother (who's in another country) sent me a message asking:

----- 
    Could you try to find the Internet or mailing address of the 
NIST there?  The NIST is the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and is near the University of Maryland Baltimore 
County, 5401 Wilkens Ave., Baltimore, Maryland.  
-----
	Obviously, my brother could use the zip code of the NIST.
However, he'd prefer the e-mail address.  Can anyone help?

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr., grad student & roboticist-in-training, CWRU

   "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"    |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all."  |  Jewish carpenter.
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Subject: fyi #135:  EWBCR:  High Energy Physics
Keywords: science, funding, research, congress, physics, high-energy.
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:03:09 GMT

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: (202) 332-9662
Email: fyi@aip.org



Energy and Water Bill Conference Report:  High Energy Physics

FYI No. 135, October 5, 1992

On October 2, President Bush signed into law the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1993.  Both the
House and the Senate had approved the final conference report on
September 24.

This FYI provides information on High Energy Physics funding from
the House Conference Report 102-866, accompanying H.R. 5373, the
Energy and Water Bill.  See FYIs #132, 133 and 134 for conference
report language on the SSC, Magnetic Fusion, and Nuclear Physics.

High Energy Physics:

FY 92 funding:                           $627,999,000
Administration request for FY 93:         630,884,000
House bill:                               613,384,000
Senate bill:                              623,384,000
Conference bill:                         $613,384,000

The conference report states, "The conferees agree with the Senate
with regard to the asymmetric B meson production facility
(B-Factory) and the $2,500,000 for high energy physics research
eliminated by the House."  This leaves intact the recommendations
contained in the House and Senate reports for these items, as
follows:

The Senate report recommended that "up to $3,000,000 be spent on
engineering work on the B-Factory from within funds provided to the
Center to further develop this proposal for future submission to
Congress" (see FYI #110).

The House report shifts the requested $2,500,000 for SSC laboratory
research operating expenses out of high energy physics into the SSC
program funding (see FYI #83).


The conferees provide $15,000,000 for the Fermilab Main Injector
upgrade, equal to the House mark, but $10,000,000 less than the
Senate mark, and $15,000,000 less than the Administration's
request.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########


Newsgroups: sci.research
From: leok@archimedes.eecs.umich.edu (Leo Charles Kempel)
Subject: Re: Far-Field solution of an antenna
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.133630.25970@lut.ac.uk>, elrsc@lut.ac.uk (RSChandran) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Dear Friends,
|> 
|> I am having a little difficulty in solving a particular electromagnetic
|> problem. Probably some of you in the net could help me.
|> 
|> The problem is as follows.
|> 
|> I have an antenna as shown in the fig below. The element lengths decrements
|> equally in both directions as it moves towards the edges. This is not
|> a Yagi antenna because in a yagi antenna the element length do not reduce
|> as the number of elements increases.
|> 
|>                        |
|>                     |  |  |
|>                  |  |  |  |  |
|>               |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|>            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|>           ---------------------------
|>            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|>               |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|>                  |  |  |  |  |
|>                     |  |  | 
|>                        |
|> Now assuming that a plane wave is incident on the antenna, and the plane
|> of incidence is parallel to the computer screen. I want to derive the
|> expression of the field strength at a distance `L' over the otherside of 
|> the antenna.
|> 
|> In most of the text books, it is assumed that the element lengths are
|> the same and the corresponding expressions are derived. Could anyone
|> help me to find out the solution or could anyone point out any related
|> papers or textbooks?
|> 
|> All the helps will be appreciated.
|> 
|> Thanks in advance.
|> 
|> R.S.Chandran.
|> R.S.Chandran@lut.ac.uk

	What you have here looks like a two-sided log-periodic array.
Carrel did any analysis of a one-sided array back in the 1960's as his
dissertation.  Recently, you might want to look at:

	Peixeiro, "Design of log-periodic dipole antennas,"
        IEEE Pt. H, Vol. 135, No. 2, April 1988.

	Kyle, "Mutual coupling between log-periodic antennas,",
	IEEE T-AP, Vol. 18, Jan. 1970.

in order to understand the properties of a one-sided array.  In order
to solve your problem, I would suggest that you solve for the currents
on the elements via a Method of Moments computer program.  Look at
any good antenna book (e.g. Balanis) and they will describe a straight
forward pulse-basis, point matching procedure for a thin wire.  Just extend
such it to an array.  We did this at UM in a course for the one-sided array
without difficulty.  Once you have the currents, convolve them with
the Green's function (far-zone approx. for RCS purposes) and
away you go.

Good luck,
-- 

Leo C. Kempel
Graduate Student Research Assistant
Radiation Laboratory
Mail:
         Radiation Laboritory
         3228 EECS Bldg.
         Univ. of Michigan
         Ann Arbor, Mi. 48109-2122

Fax:     (313)763-1503

e-mail:  leok@caen.engin.umich.edu
From: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Perots Economic Plan
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Travel Online / St. Louis Online - St. Louis, MO
Reply-To: carl.camurca@travel.com (Carl Camurca) 

Mess' by Jon Noring

JN>------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92

Same as voting for Hitler. This man has a problem with basic human
rights.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Without fools ther would be no wisdom.
                                                                   
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Subject: fyi #134: EWBCR:  Nuclear Physics
Keywords: science, funding, research, congress, nuclear, physics.
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:00:39 GMT

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: (202) 332-9662
Email:  fyi@aip.org



Energy and Water Bill Conference Report:  Nuclear Physics

FYI No. 134, October 5, 1992

On October 2, President Bush signed into law the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1993.  The House
and the Senate had both approved the final conference bill on
September 24.

This FYI provides information on Nuclear Physics funding from the
House Conference Report 102-866, accompanying H.R. 5373, the Energy
and Water Bill.  See FYIs #132, 133, and 135 for conference report
language on the SSC, Magnetic Fusion, and High Energy Physics.

Nuclear Physics:

FY 92 funding:                           $354,390,000
Administration request for FY 93:         363,500,000
House bill:                               363,500,000
Senate bill:                              309,100,000
Conference bill:                         $309,100,000

The conference report states, "The conferees agree with funding the
Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) in Atomic Energy Defense
Activities as proposed by the Senate."

The Senate report (102-344) stated, in part, that "the reduction to
this appropriation takes into account the plans to cease operations
at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.  The Committee strongly
disagrees with any plans to cease operations as this would clearly
force closure of all facilities dependent upon LAMPF's beams.  We
believe that premature termination of the LAMPF beams would be a
serious mistake. . ."

"In the light of the central role LAMPF plays in the research and
development agenda at Los Alamos, the Committee has provided funds
for its operations under the atomic energy defense appropriation."
(See FYI #109 for additional text.)

With the exception of LAMPF, neither the conference report, nor the
House or Senate reports carry language preserving the nuclear
physics facilities that DOE intends to close down due to
constrained funding.  DOE's budget submission stated that the
Holifield Heavy Ion Research Facility at Oak Ridge and the Fast
Neutron Generator at Argonne will be terminated, and a plan will be
developed to phase out the Bevelac at Lawrence Berkeley after
completion of its approved experiments for fiscal year 1993.

The conferees provide $71,400,000, the full request, for continued
construction of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and
$33,000,000, also the request, for continued construction of the
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:01:27 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct15171848@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I note that this very long article about people who believe present
>society can't be sustained and people who believe it can mentions
>no concrete problem of sustainability.  Name two, and those of us
>who consider the present standard of living sustainable, including
>individual transportation, will undertake to showw that they are
>solvable.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

The problem with your challenges John is that you consider issues in
isolation.  The problems of our nonsustainable society do not exist
in isolation.  Sure, enough nuclear plants could ne built for 20
billion people, IF there was the capital.  Sure, we could develop
a technology to deal with many types of pollution, but how many
types of technologies will we need for this?  What if these 
creative talents were going towards a positive benefit instead of
preventing a negative?  By saying that I should name two, you
create a framework that biases the entire debate in your favor.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:12036 talk.environment:4235 talk.politics.misc:52340
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:28:03 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Oct14193402@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Does Loren Petrich ever come from Livermore to the Stanford area, and
>how does he do it?  In fact, if he will come from his home in Livermore
>to Stanford University entirely by public transportation I will give
>him a free lunch at the Stanford Faculty Club.

	No thanks, but I can do it. I know what the major Bay Area
transit systems are, especially the ones I use :-), and I'm sure I
could do it. I've actually passed by Stanford U. on occasion, having
ridden CalTrain out of curiosity a couple of times.


	Here's my route (weekdays):

My home

	Wheels (local Livermore bus)

The Valley Memorial Hospital in Livermore (major bus transfer area)

	BART Express bus

The Bay Fair BART station

	BART

The Union City BART station

	Dumbarton Express bus

Palo Alto's center

	local bus

Stanford University



	(weekends):

My home

	Wheels (local Livermore bus)

The Valley Memorial Hospital in Livermore (major bus transfer area)

	Wheels (Livermore-Pleasanton-Dublin bus)

Dublin Blvd. and Golden Gate Ave. (transfer center)

	BART Express bus

The Hayward BART station

	BART

{

The Powell St. BART station

	Muni (San Francisco bus)

4th and Townsend St. Southern Pacific depot (CalTrain station)

} or {

The Fremont BART station

	Santa Clara Transit (bus)

San Jose Southern Pacific depot (CalTrain/Amtrak station)

}

	CalTrain

Palo Alto's center

	local bus or walk

Stanford University



	It would take me a rather long time to make the trip, I must
concede; I'd guess about 2 hours or so on weekdays, probably 3 hours
or more on weekends.

	It's rather annoying that San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties
didn't join the BART district to begin with, or I'd have an easier
time :-)
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:30:18 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct11101741@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > I often happens that all the above factors are present and still
 > no-one in a position to make the innovation does so.  People are
 > often just stuck in their old ways.

What makes them "stuck", do you think? What evidence do you present in
support of this proposition.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:04:35
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au's message of 15 Oct 92 01:04:37 GMT

In article <-1366781019snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Oct13115213@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu writes:

    > That still leaves casual violence, and plenty of it, either way you're dead.

   What casual violence? Please cite documented cases with reference to
   specific nations that correlations can be established in support of
   your argument.

The original debate centered around organised violence, I simply
noted that the discussion should also consider "casual" violence,
ie interpersonal violence.
	What precisely am I supposed to document? I do not
contend that violence and prosperity are directly correlated,
I noted that there are very prosperous societies with very low
levels of violence, both organised and "casual" and that very
poor societies cannot sustain any level of organised violence.

    > Yet the same hills produce some of the fiercest fighters in the world
    > when provided with the resources and incentive.

   No more or less than fighters from anywhere else, but still no data to
   establish a positive correlation between poverty and violence.

Nepal? They are actually famous for providing high quality
mercenaries, although their principal employer can no longer
afford their services. So yes, more fighters than many other places
fewer than some.

    > So what. If I wanted to I could buy several cows, this would boost my
    > living standard immensely by some measures. By my measure it would
    > severly reduce my living standard. Is the other way better?

   Your unanswerable relativism is insipid and pathetic.

You're funny, newbie to the net, right? 
If your memory extends so far, you might recollect that
Dingo was in mid-discourse on the fact that Nepalese have
(allegedly) a different measure of "standard of living",
essentially a complication in the "is violence and
standard of living correlated" debate, I noted that and cited
an instance that illustrates relativity of living standards.
I am not quite sure what your comment is supposed to add
to the debate, are you an absolutist on "living standards"?
If so, please state your criteria and we can look at correlations,
if it's an attempt at an insult I'm afraid you'll have to do
a lot better to get a rise out of me. 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:30:15

In article <1992Oct14.164033.26412@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <2927472659.0.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes:
   >
   >Perhaps it's selfishly person-centric of me, but being, myself, a person 
   >rather than a highway, I am inclined to believe that transportation 
   >should be designed around people and what they are really like, not the 
   >other way around. (Members of the Highway Liberation Front will no doubt 
   >flame me vigorously for this grotesque example of organic chauvinism.)

   I agree that transportation should be designed around what people really
   like. Unfortunately for the mass transit boosters, what people really
   like is cars.

   Gary

Gary you misunderstood Michael Smith when you tried to agree with him.
He doesn't want to design transportation for what people like but for
what people *are* like.  What this means is unclear, but it certainly
gives him scope for designing transportation systems that people won't
like.  For example, he can decide that people *are* bad, and therefore
should be forced into transportation systems they won't like, because
that's what people deserve.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Subject: [commute] taking the train
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:23:23 GMT


     [C^i tio estas en la Angla lingvo.  Se bezonos, mi faros Esperantan
tradukon.  C^i tio dissendig^as tra la mondo, kaj oni devas provizii
mondlingvan tradukon -- ec^ se nur lau'bezone.]

     I posted about car-pooling with three other people.
Now we are back to commuting by ourselves.  I like commuting by myself, too.
I can go to work when the sun rises and leave when the sun sets -- when
the sky is still bright.  It really keeps me awake when I leave when
bright.  Moreover, I happen to live where I can walk to the CalTrain
train station (the same convenience occurs if you live near B.A.R.T.).
So I can not-drive ("can" + "not drive") at all to work.  And on the train,
I can rest, listen to Walkman, or read a book, and I do not have to
worry about having to be awake (*) enough to drive.  Walking between the
train station and work, which is within twenty minutes, keeps me awake
for the day too.

     And moreover, I like the cleanness (low fuel consumption and low
exhaust) of taking the train.

(*) I mean the Chinese:
 | |  |   /      +-+ /   /  
 +-|  |  /       |-+ ---    
   |  |  ---     /     /    

						Daniel Chung (Mr.)