HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Simple Turbine plant number-generator needed!
Summary: Help me out, please...
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:58:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



	I'm hoping there are a few wizards out there who can help me 
with the following problem.

	I need a program which will simulate, NUMBER-wise (the displays
will be driven by the numbers -- display program already exists) the
operation of a simplistic steam plant: i.e., boiler with water, steam to 
turbine, turbine spinning, generating power from the spin, condensing
the water, and returning the water to the boiler for another cycle.

	The inputs which are to be able to be adjusted by the user
(possibly by running this program as a subprogram) are :
	1) Fuel flow to boiler
	2) Water to boiler from condenser -- obviously with controls to prevent
overfilling boiler or allowing water to come from condenser when there
is none
	3) A makeup pump (for possible lost water), only on/off in nature.
I'd like, however, to be able to possibly modify the amount of water that
the makeup pump delivers when on, not while running the program but to
be able to set it at different levels.

	The outputs are to be the boiler water level and the speed of
the turbine.

	Concealed inputs (ones that the USER won't control, but which
will be passed to the simulator from the external program) will be
the load on the generator and "trip" inputs -- booleans which will trigger
a FAILURE in some part of the system, either a boiler leak, a steam leak,
or a condenser leak.

	The program is to be run on a Sun SPARCstation. The other programs
it is to work with are written in C, so obviously it's got to be compatible
with the other programs.

	One thing it does NOT have to do is be mathematically/physically
perfect. It DOES have to be good enough so that an engineer could watch
the behavior of the system and say "close enough", but it doesn't have
to do thermodynamic modeling of a steamplant cycle if simpler mathematics
will do.

	I'm SURE some such programs exist -- it's a relatively elementary
problem in engineering; I'm looking for a good source program, one that
has been tested (hopefully) and I can get working quickly.


			Thanks,

					Ryk E. Spoor
				        SEAWASP@vm2.cis.pitt.edu
				     or seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:43:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Apr15.170303.10462@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:

>Summary:  Hydrogen makes a lousy fuel for an internal combustion engine.

Even without the low compression problems, hydrogen has very serious
economic problems.  Claims of environmental groups notwithstanding,
electrolytic hydrogen is quite expensive.  The cheapest current source
is reformed natural gas, but then why not just burn the natural gas
directly?  Methane is cheaper, easier to use in an internal combustion
engine, easier to store as a compressed gas, and nearly as clean.

The only reason you'd want to go with hydrogen is for use in alkaline
fuel cells for a fuel cell/battery hybrid car.  Even then, existing
AFCs are still too expensive.  Other kinds of fuel cells might well
prefer reformable fuels, like methanol, which offer higher storage
density.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: NOx
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:32:13 GMT
Organization: <<< ESKIMO NORTH (206)-FOR-EVER >>>

In article <1992Apr11.141805.16715@grace.dsir.govt.nz>, srgxbhh@grace.dsir.govt.nz writes:
> I'm sure somebody with some knowledge of combustion will provide a more
> comprehensive response, but some of the above appears to ignore the
> documented problems of Hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines.
> Hydrogen does have a problem with NOx combustion products - as neither
> gasoline or hydrogen have nitrogen in the fuel the NOx apparently are
> produced from the nitrogen in the air. I believe some of the significant
> factors are the combustion temperature ( the higher the temperature then 
> the more NOx formed ) and the availability of oxygen ( lean operation ).

     You raise a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen (air) to a high temperature
under high pressure and some of it reacts and forms NOx..  Where is the
mystery in this?

     I can't see of any way to make an internal combustion engine that uses
air as the oxidizer not have this problem.  You can reduce the problem by
using lower temperatures and pressures, but you get lower thermo-dynamic
effeciency.  This is one of the reason gas milage went to hell around '74
when compression ratios were lowered in the name of meeting NOx emission
requirements.

     Hydrogen presents another problem in internal combustion engines, it has
a very low octane rating, which makes it difficult to use without knocking.

     One thing that reduces knocking, reduces NOx emissions and improves
effeciency is water injection.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.131515.16196@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ashraf@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Ashraf Mahmoud) writes:
>In article <11345@mindlink.bc.ca> Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
[...]
>>Result is that if the industry
>>did announce a way to safely store or, better yet, to somehow render the waste
>>non-radioactive, a lot of people wouldn't believe the glad news.  
>
>I will raise an issue of semantics that I raised earlier (to some confusion 
>I might add).  The industry *does* know how to "safely store" its radioactive
>waste.  In fact, it's probably being stored safer than any other toxic waste
>we generate.
>  
>What you (probably) are referring to is long-term storage.  This is not 
>nit-picking, because the implications of your original statement are not
>trivial.

This is probably a FAQ, but as I didn't find a FAQ either here or in
news.answers...

Does the industry know how to "safely store" its radioactive waste for the
long term?  Is it doing so?  If so, could you (or someone else) point me to
some literature on the subject?

If we know how to deal with long-term waste products of nuclear reactors,
and are doing so, then even the staunchest environmentalists should have
no problems with nuclear power (if they're amenable to reason, that is :-) ).

>>However, I worry far less about
>>an explosion that about wastes that might damage DNA and create problems for
>>people born 100 years from now.
>
>It is appropriate that you use the word "wastes" alone, dropping the
>adjective "nuclear".  I worry about wastes that might damage DNA also (plus
>a myriad of other effects).  Nuclear waste is not among these.

Again, could you please cite some references to back up this statement?

>Jeremy Whitlock                     "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
>WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA

		Thanks!

		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: Mike Wiese <mlwiese@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1a2
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:15:43 GMT

How about an IVT - Infinitely Variable Transmission? I've seen a demo
videotape from EpiLogic (located somewhere in California) of their
transmission powering an 18-wheeler. 
It really goes all the way from 0:1 to 1:1, and it's always engaged. 

The company is interested in licensing the technology, so you'd proabably
have to find someone with a license.

If anyone else knows about this, please post.
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Subject: Re: My objections to the collapse postulate
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<1992Apr10.212404.2528@math.okstate.edu> <219@mtnmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:36:01 GMT

In article <219@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (paul) writes:

> In article <1992Apr10.212404.2528@math.okstate.edu>, gindrup@math.okstate.edu (Eric `'d'kidd' G..) writes:
> >...The information that the second
> > observer obtains does not travel between observers faster than light, because
> > the second observer cannot know whether either observer was actually
> > "there" when the photon collapsed.
> > ...
> > What's the problem?
> ...
> Using this technique we can prove that the remote observations
> were instantaneously correlated with the local observations and manipulations
> of a local polarizer.

It's that "instantaneously correlated" part that bothers me.  Various
observers moving with different velocities will disagree about what
events are simultaneous.  How is this feature of QM reconciled with
the relativity of simultaneity?
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio                               
uunet!centerline!franl || CenterLine Software R&D                     
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
From: kcdutt@window.Princeton.EDU (Kevin C. Dutt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: MD/Ph.D ..... Which schools have them?
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:07:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


	I was wondering if anyone has any information or personal experience
with any MD/Ph.D programs.  Also are there any undergraduate medical 
physics programs out there.  Last question:  I'm assuming that medical 
physics undergraduate programs probably don't exist so if not what school 
(other than Princeton) would have a good program (supposing i wanted to do 
some experimental radiology work ... )?
From: long@next3 (Richard Long)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Success of Quantum Mechanics (Galileo's argument)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:46:43 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <1992Apr3.165031.22717@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl  
McCullough) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.084700.23470@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
> (John Snyder) writes:
> 
However, it
> seems to me that a simple thought experiment can show that heavy objects
> can't in any simple way have a greater acceleration than lighter objects:
> 
> Imagine two twins jumping from an airplane. They fall at the same
> speed, since they are identical in every way that is relevant. Now
> imagine them joining hands, thus creating a single object with twice
> the mass. Is it plausible to anyone that they would start falling faster
> because they are holding hands?
> 
> Daryl McCullough
> ORA Corp.
> Ithaca, NY
This, in fact, is the exact same argument used by Galileo in is Discourses.   
His argument uses identical lead spheres instead of identical twins, but is  
otherwise "identical".  If you came up with this yourself, you should be  
pleased, since all the great thinkers before Galileo were unable to see it  
(this line of thought was certainly available to the ancients).

Richard Long: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: People against Supercollider???
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:59:19 GMT

In article <22528@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>The reason that we don't [wait until new technologies are developed to
>build the SSC] is that the particle physicists are in a race against
>time.

     Really?  Who else is working on a machine that is likely to produce
similar results to the SSC?  I know about the CERN proposal but the
Europeans have to convince their own governments of the wisdom of their
proposal before they can go ahead.

>If more and more scientists move into high-energy physics, this is an
>indication that HEP is where the action is.

     Yes, but the previous poster's point is that the "action" in
High-Energy Physics (HEP) is artificially created by government
largesse.  If there were less money in this area, young physicists would
take their talents elsewhere.

>Would you like to decide from you armchair what each of us should work on
>according to *your* sense of what's interesting or important?  

     I think that those of us who pay taxes should be allowed some say
in where our dollars are spent.  Of course, I'm just an interested
bystander in the SSC debate since I'm a Canadian.  (At least so far I'm
just a bystander...)  I never understood this "just give us
semi-infinite amounts of money and we'll bring in the Nobel prizes"
attitude which some scientists seem to display.  As a society, we need
to support the sciences just as we need to have funds in support of art
and artists.  I have never heard of an artist who expected to be
showered with the sorts of money which physics (among others) seems to
demand.  The sciences of course play a special role in our highly
technological society and our governments have generally given us
preferential treatment because of this.  I'm not saying we should count
our blessings, but we should ask ourselves how much we can expect
without generating a backlash.  Mega-projects are just another symbol
around which anti-science sentiment in our society (and there is much of
that) can rally.
     Some mega-projects are worth the bother, others aren't.  I honestly
don't know which category the SSC falls in.  I can't say I'm as enamoured
of HEP as some others clearly are; I suppose that I oppose Canadian
participation in the SSC (as I opposed the kaon factory) on a sort of a
gut feeling.  As a taxpayer, I believe I have that right.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca (Warren G. Anderson)
Subject: Vacuum Temperature
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:25:00 GMT

In answering a recent post by Ronnie B. Kon, I stumbled upon an interesting
question. Can one define a temperature for vacuums on curved space-times?
If so, could some examples be given (your choice of vacuum and manifold)?

--
########################## _`|'_ ##############################################
##  Warren G. Anderson     |o o| "... for its truth does not matter, and is  ##
##  Dept. of Physics       ( ^ )  unimaginable." -J. Ashbery, The New Spirit ##
##  University of Alberta  /\-/\      (anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca)      ##
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, there's no superluminal communication
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:04:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The reason why I don't believe in Lorentz invariant quantum
"collapse" is that no one's come up with a theory of it, OK?
You can throw words around: mechanistic, nonlinear, chaotic,
but it makes no progress.  Just go off and invent the theory,
please.

 mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>It's almost as if people don't want to bother to really look.  (Why?
>Might small science actually get a Nobel Prize by accident?)

Why?  Because the chances of getting anything done are
minimal and you will have a tough time convincing anyone to
give you a job.  Here let us remember some advice attributed
to David Mermin: "No one should work on Bell's theorem until
after they have tenure."

Ben Weiner

"No one should waste time reading netnews until after they
have tenure."
Xref: sparky sci.physics:6585 sci.comp-aided:41
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.comp-aided
Subject: Re: Complex Hermitian eigenvalues
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:46:05 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I posted an addendum to my previous post, but apparently it went only 
to sci.math.  I had not paid attention to the send line. 

My addendum noted that you would get 2 and 0 if one used a matrix with 
trace of 1 
             ( 1-E  i )
             ( -1  1-E) 
rather than what I did, which was put a 1 on the diagonal after misreading 
the way the original post stated the problem.  I think the error was to 
enter the matrix I used into his code rather than the intended one above.

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, there's no superluminal communication
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:49:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: Acutally, it's my opinion that the experimental evidence _for_ superluminal
: collapse is weak, and experiments testing any sort of collapse phenomena not
: too numerous.  Most physical experiments don't depend on how collapse
: &cetera work, only on things like energy spectra and cross sections.

: Forgetting about GR, I don't think that any sensible theory could
: reasonably be expected without new experimental results, though.

To expand on my point:  most of the notable features of quantum mechanics
have their roots in a few seminal experiments--- the photoelectric
effect, the spectrum of hydrogen, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and of
course, the structure of the periodic table of elements.

But there's no "classical" experiment that led to the copenhagen instant
observer-makes-collapse rule, is there?  Or is this also part of
the Stern-Gerlach-type experiment?

Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: People against Supercollider???
Date: 1 Apr 92 17:13:05 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <1992Mar31.182325.10553@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>      Horseshit.  There is little justification for the SSC as
>      a technological tool.  It will probably just make us more competitive

How fast can it turn bismuth into gold?

				--Blair
				  "Inchworm, inchworm..."
From: sawyer@sscvx1.ssc.gov (Lee Sawyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: FAQ
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:27:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sscvx1.14APR199216272939
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <22705@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov               writes...
>********************************************************************************
>		  PROPOSAL FOR A NEW SCI.PHYSICS FAQ LIST
>********************************************************************************
[bulk of the article deleted]
>To begin the game I propose the following:
> 
>	(1) Please comment upon this post.  I want to make sure that a broad
>	    range of opinion is sampled, and that the FAQ represents all 
>	    of the regular participants, and not just the organizers.
> 
>	(2) I request that previous summary-style posts which anyone may have
>	    on the following topics be E-mailed to me, so that I can get the
>	    ball rolling as quickly as possible:
> 
>		(a) FTL communication
>		(b) SR paradoxes, specifically the twin paradox and the
>		    barn-pole paradox.
>		(c) EPR and Bell's inequality
>		(d) Schrodinger's Cat
>		(e) antigravity
>		(f) perpetual motion and the Second Law of Thermo.
> 
>--------------------
>Scott I. Chase
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV
> 

 Scott,

  I think this is an excellent starting point, and would encourage the
inclusion of all these topics. One other topic, which may warrent a 
separate section, is the discussion of science vs psuedo-science. Given
the number of posts along the lines of "All the universal constants derived
on the back of an envelope", there should be some statement about experimental
validation and falsification, and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

				-- Lee

 ==============================================================================
         Lee Sawyer     | Dept of Physics          
       (SSCVX1::SAWYER) | Univ of Texas - Arlington    
                        | Arlington, TX            
 ==============================================================================
From: mcarrick@metz.une.oz.au (Mick Carrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Xeroxing mirrors
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:27:29 GMT
Reply-To: mcarrick@metz.une.oz.au
Distribution: world,local
Originator: mcarrick@metz.une.oz.au

From article <1992Apr13.110604.2909@arizona.edu>, by frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning):
> <8400009@trsvax> pauls@trsvax.tandy.com:
> 
>>I tried to Xerox a flat mirror. The paper came out pitch black.
> 
> You know, it occurred to me you'd get the same result if you put a
> second Xerox machine upside down on the first one, aligned the glass
> plates, and operated them simultaneously

This reminds me of Lily Tomlin's question:

What does a chameleon see when it looks in the mirror?

A. Another mirror.

Mick (shall inherit the earth) Carrick
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Gravity from Z.Point.E. 
From: rph@einstein.canterbury.ac.nz (Richard Hugtenburg)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:24:59 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

A few years ago, I read a topical article describing gravity as a consequence of the zero point energy fluctuations, perturbed by mass and the accelerating frame to produce action impulse that we see in matter. This was an idea originally proposed by Sakharov. I am currently looking at this and other aspects of the vacuum state and have plenty of material but would be interested in finding this particular article. It could of been in any of the popular journals, American or British, 1990 or earlier.
Ideas? Suggestions? Reference?

--
Richard Hugtenburg.
Physics Department, University of Canterbury.
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:46:13 GMT
Organization: UB


	Well, you can link time to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and relate
it to the increase of entropy (or loss of free energy) in the universe.
	Some readers will voice an objection which I will put here to save them
the trouble of posting: we don't know if the universe is a closed system.
Some will go further and point out that we've never actually seen a truly
isolated closed system.
	On a lighter note, this could explain the saying "Time flies when
you're having fun."  During fun moments, entropy is usually increasing faster
than normal, and hence time is flowing more quickly. ;-)

*****************************************************************************
* Matt Bernhardt        * "Indeed the finite interaction between object     *
* Mad Scientist         *  and measuring agencies conditioned by the very   *
* University of Buffalo *  existence of the quantum entail... the necessity *
* mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu  *  of a final renunciation of the classical idea of * 
*************************  causality and a radical revision of our attitude *
*   SHOOT THE BUNNY     *  toward the problem of physical reality."         *
*                       *              - Niels Bohr, 1935                   *
*****************************************************************************
Xref: sparky sci.physics:6687 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:1236