HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: halogen lamps for heating
Date: 19 Nov 1992 10:45 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 <1992Nov18.091313.27702@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes...
> 
>I have one of these in my kitchen. Apart from the cost, the other
>drawback is that the light from the halogen element is very intense, so
>you can't see what you are doing unless the pot or whatever is large
>enough to cover the whole surface. But it is extremely clean.: 

The one in my parents' home has black glass as the cooking surface.  Though
you can clearly see the red light of the lamps, it is not nearly enough
to bother your eyes.  Your model, I assume, uses clear glass?

-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: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA - THE ENVIOUS REACTION OF TALBOT
Summary: TALBOT IS ENVIOUS OF ABIAN's  (A1) and (A2)
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: pv343f.abian.721860217
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


                                                11-15-92

Dear Mr. Talbot,
  
  In your latest reply to me  you have completely avoided the issue:

whether or not the PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY HAS BEEN
EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED FOR THE ENTIRE COSMOS !!
  
  You even avoided to say whether or not you believe that NO ENERGY IS 
LOST IRRETRIEVABLY IN THE COSMOS ! (leaving aside giving a proof of your
beliefs!) 
  
  Instead, you have resorted to offensive, obnoxious, execrable, repulsive 
and approbrious language and said:  

"I understand what Abian is trying to say, and I think it's garbage "

Well, I understand you - you are reacting based on envy and jealousy
- otherwise there would be no need of words such as "garbage" by which
you probably also mean beta-sigma.
  
   You are jealous that I am the first, the very first person who
has revolutionized the entire Physics, by stating:

(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA, i.e., TIME IS MATTER  and that some energy
       is irretrievably spent by Cosmos to move TIME forward. Thus,
       in particular, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be
       rejected. 


in accordance with:

(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PRO-
       VOCATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO

  With best wishes and regards,
                                         Alexander Abian





-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lok C. Lew Yan Voon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: hubble and black hole
Date: 21 Nov 1992 18:30:13 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


i don't think i've seen it mentioned here so i'll do so.
maybe it's not such a big news; i don't have the
scientific facts.

anyway, nbc news had a short piece 2 days ago that the
space telescope had resolved the nucleus of a galaxy
to a much better resolution than b/f, i think it's
supposed to be a 100 times smaller than previously
believed. from the picture they showed, one can easily
discern the boundary plus a jet-like structure emanating
from one of the poles.

apparently, it's highly unlikely to be anything but a black hole.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Top 10 Cited References in the 80's
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:23:02 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <Nov.22.20.37.14.1992.16349@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
>>Here's my suggestion: Publish an incorrect [top 10 cited] list. Everyone who complains
>>gets his tenure (or equivalent) revoked. Next suggestion: Physics should
>>order authors alphabetically. Final suggestion: all journals drop little
>>biographies and pictures of authors, and authors use initials instead
>>of names.
>
>I like the first one!!  But the next is bad, you'd just have people refusing 
>to work with anyone who came ahead in the alphabet.  In the novel "Cantor's
>Dilemna" by the chemist Carl Djerassi there is a character, a biologist,
>who in grad school changed her name from Yardley to Ardley for this 
>reason.

We do it this way in math for a good reason. (So nobody can infer any
relative importance from the ordering of the author's names.) You will, for
example find about 800 papers by Hardy and Littlewood, and exactly 0
by Littlewood and Hardy. You would be quite ill advised to presume that
Hardy was more important on this basis.

Guido Weiss is said to have gone through various contrivances to write
a paper with Antoni Zygmund, but in the one case where it happened,
another author had to be added so Weiss is (as far as I know) never first
in any joint paper.

The result? Nobody refuses to collaborate because of name order (that I
am aware of), since name order is alphabetical and has no other meaning.

> And I don't like the last suggestion - the initials
>in journals like Phys Rev are annoyingly impersonal.  I prefer the
>practice in some astronomy and most biology journals, where first names
>are allowable.  It makes the authors more human.

Initials are strongly recommended to alleviate statistically demonstrated
discrimination against female authors, and historically, other forms of
discrimination. Just like you don't use your various titles in the literature
(such as military rank, etc.) The human appearance of the authors and the
humane treatment of authors are not the same thing. As a result, I come
down on the side of humane treatment of all authors.

I go so far as to devalue my estimation of any author _posing_ as a
mathematician who appears out of alphabetical order in a paper, since
they are not conforming to the mathematical practice. (I.e. _real_
mathematicians appear in alphabetical order...)


And yes, there is at least one paper where I would have used a different
ordering when publishing in a physics journal if I were a physicist, but 
didn't, to make sure no mathematicians thought the less of me.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power >>THE TRUTH!<<  *=*
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:31:03 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)

In article <5TBDuB2w165w@iowegia.uucp>, quest@iowegia (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>[dietary gibberish omitted]

>        The poor and uneducated often don't wash their hands to eat [...]

The not-so-poor and not-so-educated often take to fad diets with the
most ludicrous of pseudoscientific justifications.  Go ahead, post to
sci.med.nutrition and get flamed in gory detail.  s.m.n hasn't had a
major crackpot for a whole month now, unlike some sci.* groups I could
name.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: paithan@filter.ecn.purdue.edu (Dilip Paithankar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Construction of crystal structures
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:50:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


I am interested in constructing a collection of atoms in specific
symmetries such as icosahedral, cuboctahedral, octahedral, and
truncated octahedral. There are certain magic numbers of atoms for
which these structures from compact, closed-shell structures (and have
extra stability).  These magic numbers are different for different
structural motifs.

Can someone direct me to programs that generate the coordinates of
atoms in a magic number collection of atoms for the above structures?
I am interested in constructing aggregates with large number of atoms
(greater than 1000) for different magic numbers.

Please email replies to me. I will summarize them to the group if there
is interest.

Thanks,

Dilip Paithankar
E-Mail - paithan@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:38:38 GMT

In article <1eblgoINNj5@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.003058.127@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>
>>>Any finite-state machine.
>>
>>     I actually had 'nature' in mind.  I can *create* any number of systems
>
>All systems are "natural."  There are no physical phenomena
>that are "unnatural," certainly not the interaction of
>electromagnetism and quantum mechanics that constitutes
>modern computational electronics.

     Indeed.  Where do you get a finite difference system in 
     electrodynamics and quantum mechanics? Or are you talking
     about some inherently approximate ideal supersystem made up of 
     electronic components?

>The string example someone else gave is a devised system of
>organic fibers, but those fibers are themselves no less
>devised (by the plant on which they grew).

      And are just as continuous as the rest of nature seems 
      to be.  Tell me exactly where you think the molecule leaves
      off?  Where does the electromagnetic interaction leave off?
      Further, at what exact point does the strong force take over?

>And recall your Calculus I.  All of this continuous
>analysis is merely the effect of taking the limit as the
>problem is raised to an infinite number of finite
>analyses.  You've probably never seen a truly continuous
>system in your life (including quantum gravity).

      You've never seen a truly discrete one.

>>     I do not recall finite state machines described 
>>     by FDE's in our current description of nature.
>
>Then you don't see cells as part of it?

      Like everything else, they do not seem to be
      well-described by FDEs.

>>     Interesting analogy.  However, my load doesn't decay at all.  It
>>     seems to be a monotonically increasing sequence.
>
>That explains a great number of things; Corky, you need to
>take a shit.

      Your concern about my gastrointestinal health is touching
      but is, I assure you, unnecessary.

      With this style of reasoned argumentation, I'd bet street
      preachers everywhere are shaking in their boots.

                              dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19489 sci.archaeology:2873
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:20:13 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Emmanuel Gustin writes:
>for him throughout the year, and used the farmers only for the transporting
>of the stones -- and to pay taxes. Under the reign of later pharaos there

The newspaper article I referred to (only appeared in sci.archaeology)
would tend to cast doubt on this.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.     V.R.PRATT's LATEST COMMENT ON FTA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:31:01 GMT

                                                11-22-92
Dear Mr. Pratt:                                  

  In your 11-20-92 posting you correctly quoted my  11-11-92 abridged
proof.  Here are your words:  

>For the record here's Abian's proof (that 1+z+z^2 has a zero) again.

>>  PROOF.  Assume on the contrary, and without loss of generality, let
>>     1 + z + z^2  have no root, i.e.,  1 + z + z^2  never vanishes.
>>Long divide  1  by  1+z+z^2  in two ways - in descending and ascending 
>>powers of z,  i.e., 
>> 
>>    1/ (1+z+z^2)  =   1 - z + z^3 - z^4 + z^6 - ...
>> 
>>    1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 
>>   
>>The two expressions on the right side of =  must be identical. But 
>>they are not.  Contradiction.  Hence our assumption is false and the 
>>Theorem is proved.

    You notice that I said  "The two expressions on the right side 
of = must be IDENTICAL"  (by virtue of the well known uniqueness
of the expansion of Analytic Functions). The reason that in the 
unabridged version  I mentioned the "singularity" -because  people 
would have then asked "Why they should be identical" - in fact someone 
asked !
So I used both versions, one in the abridged form the other in the unab-
ridged form.
    How come you did not note my word "IDENTICAL" on 11-11-92 ?
    
                                                 Alexander ABIAN                                  


-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Ramsay's questions to Sarfatti
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:16:16 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

I wrote:
>If you squint your
>eyes, the two states arriving in the detector look a lot alike. But
>they are distinguishable by their momenta-- so they couldn't possibly
>be parallel or differ only by a phase.

In article <1992Nov16.205308.27242@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca 
(Brent Buckner) writes:
>Why wouldn't this argument be valid contra the classic double-slit
>experiment exhibiting singlet interference?

Consider a wave-interference experiment like the one described in the
first few pages of vol. 3 of Feynman's Lectures. We have two waves,
emerging from two gaps in a barrier, whose amplitudes and phases at a
far wall are given by complex functions f and g (say). The intensities
of the waves separately are |f|^2 and |g|^2. The intensity of the two
waves combined is |f+g|^2. It is not true that |f+g|^2=|f|^2+|g|^2
everywhere-- there is destructive interference in places where the
phases of f and g are opposite, and constructive interference where
they are similar.

What I am claiming is that two states referred-to in Sarfatti's
thought-experiment are orthogonal. What this would mean for simple
wave-functions f and g is that the *integral* of f times g-bar (the
complex conjugate of g) is 0. It doesn't imply that the values of f
and g at particular points can't interfere constructively or
destructively. For that it would require that f times g-bar at each
point is 0.

In fact the orthogonality of f and g ensures that in general, if there
is constructive interference, there will be a commensurable amount of
destructive interference (somewhere else) as well. This is physically
natural. If f and g differed only by a phase, then there would be
constructive and/or destructive interference everywhere, uniformly,
according to what that phase difference was. This is physically
unnatural. In Sarfatti's calculation, he asserts that two states
(corresponding to the state of a photon in one or the other path) have
a bracket whose norm is 1. That implies that the two differ only by a
phase. That's simply not consistent with the theory.

I hope that this answers the question. I don't know, because I can't
see what the would-be argument is supposed to be. Why does what I have
said not serve as an argument against the result of the double-slit
experiment? To me the idea appears simply as a non-sequitor, a gap in
logic. Hence I've taken a guess as to what is missing.

In my discussion with Sarfatti: at various points he has remarked that
if what I said were true, experiment [blank] could not work, and
regarded this as a convincing "refutation". He doesn't explain why,
other than to say that the situations are parallel. The discussion is
a close enough approximation to his simply asserting untruths as
"obvious" that I doubt we'll go much further. He'll probably "win" in
his own mind, feeling certain that I just don't understand.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - THE ENVIOUS REACTION OF TALBOT
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:24:09 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <abian.721860217@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>  
>  Instead, you have resorted to offensive, obnoxious, execrable, repulsive 
>and approbrious language and said:  
>
>"I understand what Abian is trying to say, and I think it's garbage "
>
>Well, I understand you - you are reacting based on envy and jealousy
>- otherwise there would be no need of words such as "garbage" by which
>you probably also mean beta-sigma.

TIME HAS INERTIA II:  Abian's Back...and this time it's personal...

no...no...

TIME HAS INTERTIA II: Just when you thought it was safe to read
			sci.physics again...

no..no...thats not right...

TIME HAS INERTIA II: The Next Regurgitation

no...nooonooo.....

Got It!

Its Jim Henson's TIME HAS INERTIA Babies!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: oususawm@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Mark Wistey)
Subject: History of AC vs DC Power--and Media
Reply-To: oususawm@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Mark Wistey)
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:06:16 GMT

The much-quoted Swedish study, I have read, was repeated by a member of
the IEEE.  Instead of blithely asking "Do you live near a power line?
Do you have cancer?", the followup research placed electromagnetic
sensors in the bedrooms of the children in question.  There was no
connection found between field strength in the bedrooms and the 
incidence of cancer.  (Sorry, I don't have a reference for that.)
I suppose one can argue that any member of IEEE has an interest in
proving electricity safe, and that the study may have been therefore
biased.  But as someone mentioned earlier, it does make us stop to
wonder what assumptions the first study made.

A second followup study measured field strength at 60Hz at varying
distances from common three-phase (the most common) transmission lines.
At a distance of a few hundred feet, the fields "radiated" by the 
transmission lines were almost undetectable.  This should make sense 
as the magnetic fields produced by three-phase power lines, physically
close together, cancel rapidly with distance.  Two-phase systems, I
would guess, would show the same result.  (Two-phase power systems
are common in houses and their immediate connections; three-phase
lines are used for high voltage transmission and high-power distri-
bution, which was the object of the Swedish study.)  So even if there
were reason to fear 60Hz fields, transmission lines would pose minimal
threat unless your house was directly under one.

Now, for the history?  Westinghouse Electric held all the rights to
use Tesla's designs for inductive motors and big AC alternators.
General Electric only had Edison's designs for DC motors.  Despite
all-too-familiar politicking, paranoia, moneygrubbing, and power-
grabbing, most cities at the turn of the century balked at GE's plan
to build a power plant every few blocks. :-)  The first big electric
power plant was in Niagara, NY; once they decided on AC, the rest of
the nation pretty much followed along.  Aside: it's been said that 
Edison paid boys to "kidnap" pets from around the city so he could
electrocute them with AC power to show the public how "dangerous" AC
power was--"They've been Westinghoused!" was the supposed slogan.
The things history books neglect...  
(Info for the last paragraph was taken from a biography of Nikola
Tesla.  Reference available upon request.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Wistey: oususawm@trex.oscs.montana.edu  | Bicycling, Christ-like living,
Quad E #23B, Bozeman, MT  59715  (BikeNet)   | Apple II's, Music, & Physics!
From: sl3nf@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SCHOOL DAYS
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:08:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.1992Nov15.170825.60872
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Nov14.004431.3351@wdl.loral.com>, mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>>Gordon_Wong@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Wong) writes:
>>
>> I read that Einstein was a very poor student in his early years. Was it
>> because he just didn't bother to go to school because he found that what was
>> being taught just wasn't stimulating enough for him or was it something else?
>> 
> 
> I read somewhere that this is a myth.  Einstein moved from one country
> to another in the middle of his education, and the grading systems in the two
> countries were very different.  If I remember right in one of the countries
> 5 was a good grade and 1 a bad while in the other it was other way around.
> Someone looking at Einstein's grades, without knowing about the difference,
> started the rumor that Einstein did poorly in math in grade school.

	From what I remember from reading Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_  Einstein was
absolutely brilliant as an adolescent, spending much of his time on thought
experiments such as the simultinaeity (sp) paradox and the like.  The time he
spent on his studies suffered while he let his imagination roam.

 "... where the 'stuff of life' is raining out of the skies..." 
                                -Carl Sagan 
                         sniggerfardimungus
                        in%"sl3nf@cc.usu.edu"
                 The usual disclaimers apply anywhere 
                     you can find a sticky spot.
 
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Semiconductor Question
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:44:46 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Semiconductor question
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


Has anyone come across a reference that discusses carrier
diffusion length in semi-insulating Gallium Arsenide?


PS. Is this the correct newsgroup for this question?
    This group appears to be dominated by QM buffs :-)
    I couldn't find a semiconductor group. Is there
    enough interest to create one?