HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com!baylor
Subject: Re: Pressure
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 19:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.131752.22360@alf.uib.no>, s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
>(One of them accidentally swallowed a gulp of air at 180m, which
>on the way up expanded to roughly 19 times its volume, and ruptured
>his stomach, but apart from that, things seemed to go 'well'.)
>
>Is this a record?
>
>Are there any limits how deep this can be done from? (We're talking 
>about going from 180m to surface in a matter of seconds..)
>
>What are the medical problems that can arise? (except from teh obvious
>ones of holding your breath and blowing up!)
>
>     Ketil Malde,           In real life: s082@ii.uib.no 
>     ISO-8859-1 rules         Honk if you love unicorns! 
My understanding of subs, is that they are maintained at 1 atmosphere.
(I am not a submariner, so I could be wrong). Most decompression injuries
are one of 2 things: Taking a breath of pressurised air & holding it, or the
bends. If these sailors had scuba gear (so as not to look like an old 
hard-hat scuba accident--and you DONT want to know what that means) and 
immediately ascended PROPERLY, they would not have been under long enough
to get the bends.
From: poynton@thai-yang.trl.OZ.AU (Steve Poynton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Falling people
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:42:11 GMT
Reply-To: s.poynton@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs., Melbourne, Australia

In article <1322@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>, news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news) writes:
|> From: news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news)
|> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
|> Subject: Re: Falling people
|> Date: 31 Mar 92 20:07:23 GMT
|> 
|> In article <1992Mar31.001026.5562@trl.oz.au>, poynton@ondine.trl.OZ.AU (Steve Poynton) writes:
|> [STUFF DELETED INTENTIONALLY]
|> >
|> >One of the main reasons the water is so hard on impact is the surface tension. 
|> >I have heard a story of a man who jumped (fell?) off a bridge, but just before 
|> >he hit the water some coins which had fallen out of his pocket hti the water 
|> >first and broke the [STUFF DELETED ACCIDENTALLY]
|> >
|> >Does anyone have any reliable details for this?
|> Anyhow, it wouldn't work as described. The coins would be falling at 
|> approximately the same rate he was. One might be able to toss them down, if
|> their terminal velocity is greater than yours. Also, how long would the
|> water stay "broken"?

If the coins fell from his pocket near the top of the bridge, and accelereted
slightly more (due to greater density & hence less wind resistance), they would hit the water only a fraction of a second before the man. The point of the above story though, is that the surface tension of the water is what makes a landing on water hard enough to injure or kill.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
From: dogbowl@acme.gen.nz (Alan Brown)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:10:07   Y
Organization: ACME BBS - Palmerston North Public Access Usenet

andyg@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Andrew Gryc) writes:

> I think that an alarm snoozes for 9 minutes because it uses the frequency
> of the AC line (60 Hz) as a time measurement, and it is using an 9 bit
> counter.  1/60 * 512 = 8.5 minutes, so this is about right.  I remember 
> reading this somewhere, but I can't recall exactly where.  I think that
> 9 minutes was chosen as a human-convienent amount of time to snooze, and 
> since it has a machine-convienent representation, most alarm clocks do
> it that way.  But I could be wrong.
> 
OK what about the parts of the world using 50 line frequency?
(most clock chips have a 50/60Hz select). This would give a
result of 10.24 minutes, and I've timed my clock at exactly 9 minutes 
every time. ( New Zealand uses 50Hz )
From: bergman@glycine.cs.unc.edu (Larry Bergman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Eggs and vernal equinox
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:23:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: borg.11040
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

>
>While we're on the subject of tricks with raw eggs (so to speak),

This reminds me of a couple of egg "tricks" from my childhood

  1)  Get a raw egg and a hard boild egg.  Spin the raw egg
      rapidly.  Stop it and then let go of it (this must be
      done quickly).  Try the same thing with the hardboiled
      egg.  This is a reliable way of telling raw from hard-
      boiled eggs.

  2)  Put an egg (I can't remember if this works better with
      raw or hardboiled - I'd guess hardboiled) egg in a glass
      full of vinegar.  Allow to sit for several days.  After
      a few days, the acetic acid will have leeched the calcium
      out of the shell leaving an amazing "rubber" egg.  

Have fun,

Larry Bergman
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: olt@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu (Scott Olt)
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Reply-To: sdo@uiuc.edu
Organization: Madame Tinkertoy's House of Blue Lights
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:38:22 GMT

In <1992Apr12.174859.13643@athena.mit.edu> erspert@athena.mit.edu (Ellen R. Spertus) writes:
>On all the alarm clocks I've used, pressing the snooze button causes
>the alarm to go off in nine minutes.  I've always wondered why it's
>nine minutes, instead of ten, which would be a more intuitive number
>to ordinary people.
[theories about "why is this?" deleted]

That's strange...on the last two clocks I've had, hitting the snooze button
caused the alarm to go off in seven minutes. 

--
Scott Olt
sdo@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.))
Subject: Re: Pressure
Organization: D and D Data, Vienna Virginia
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:29:01 GMT

In article <5628@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> gee@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Thomas Gee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.074615.12947@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>>s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
>>
>>>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>>>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.

	[ ... ]

>But I expect that  submarines use only one atmosphere (more or less)
>of pressure internally.  After all, if they used higher pressures, then
>the crew would have to decompress after surfacing if they had stayed
>down for any length of time.

	But, if the interior pressure of the sub is one atmosphere, and the
ports of a sub are designed to withstand pressure (they open out only), how
did they ever get the ports open?  (Did they shoot the poor divers from the
torpedo tubes? :-)
-- 
Donald Nichols (DoN.)     | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2020 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
D&D Data                  |  Email: <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
I said it - no one else   |         <dnichols@ceilidh.aes.com>
	--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: TV 'buzz' when graphics are on screen (was:Re: FCC Call letters)
From: dogbowl@acme.gen.nz (Alan Brown)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:03:20   Y
Organization: ACME BBS - Palmerston North Public Access Usenet
Keywords: buzz,tuning,intercarrier

krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick) writes:

> [BIn article <32556@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (99E99)
> writes:
> >
> >	Unrelated question.. (this group seems to have become an open forum
> >for any question..Sort of a worldwide Straight Dope.. so here goes)
> >
> >	WHY do TVs, even new TVs, put out an audible (irritating!) buzz 
> >when graphics are shown on screen?  I mean like "typed text", and pictures
> >and such.
> >
> >	New TVs don't seem to do it as much as old TVs, but it still happens
> >on occassion.
> >
> If I remember correctly, the problem occured in the editing of the tape.  (Th
> placing of the graphics on the screen.)  I think it is because that when the
> graphics were dropped on the screen, sometimes less-than-perfect equipment wa
> used, and sometimes a background hum was accidentally edited into the
> soundtrack at the same time.
> 
There is another explanation, relating to the spacing on the graphics 
causing harmonics of the video signal to be detected by the audio stages 
if the audio/video carrier tuning is not set correctly. (To check this, 
detune the set slightly)  Usually, the buzzing can be completely 
eliminated by a trip to a TV workshop, where the techs can retune the IF 
stages to the correct frequency spacing between audio and video. 
This problem is fairly common the world over, and it's amazing just what 
people will put up with, sound and picture wise.


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: osiris@polari.com (David Ruggiero)
Subject: Re: De-ionized water mishap - another line of speculation
Organization: Seattle Online (polari)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:41:34 GMT

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

> [Story about deionized water 'danger' sign deleted]
>
> [Lots of further, interesting speculation on said sign's meaning deleted]

This is all quite captivating, but I think you might all be missing the
obvious...that the sign was a joke, directed at ignorant lab visitors
and the like. It recalls things like "DANGER! 10,000 OHMS!" that I used
to see around electrical suppy shops.

Just a thought, mind you.

 

-- 
|   J. David Ruggiero      Osiris Technical Services       Seattle, WA       |
|            osiris@polari.com    or  ...!uunet!polari!osiris                |
|      Living in Seattle is like being in love with a beautiful woman...     |
|                         who's sick all the time.                           |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: erspert@athena.mit.edu (Ellen R. Spertus)
Subject: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:48:59 GMT

On all the alarm clocks I've used, pressing the snooze button causes
the alarm to go off in nine minutes.  I've always wondered why it's
nine minutes, instead of ten, which would be a more intuitive number
to ordinary people.

I've been able to come up with two theories, neither of which is very
satisfying.

	1) The first good alarm clock IC that came out happened to 
	   use +9 minutes, and all clock manufacturers just use this
	   chip.  (This is analogous to why there are so many 8088 
	   family computers.  Oops, sorry for the religion.)

	2) The snooze alarm uses a special counter that only goes up
	   to nine.  (I could understand a counter with eight states
	   (3 bits), but nine?  Perhaps there are some counters that
	   go up to nine for base ten applications and don't signal
	   when 0->9.)

If I weren't a software type, I suppose I could open up my alarm clock
and try to figure it out that way.  Does anybody know the answer?  Is
there a more appropriate newsgroup?

					Ellen Spertus
					erspert@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: TV 'buzz' when graphics are on screen (was:Re: FCC Call letters)
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:54:32 GMT

In article <krikket.0486@meltdown.chi.il.us>
krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick) writes:
 
>[BIn article <32556@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (99E99)
>writes:
>>
>>	Unrelated question.. (this group seems to have become an open forum
>>for any question..Sort of a worldwide Straight Dope.. so here goes)
>>
>>	WHY do TVs, even new TVs, put out an audible (irritating!) buzz
>>when graphics are shown on screen?  I mean like "typed text", and pictures
>>and such.
>>
>>	New TVs don't seem to do it as much as old TVs, but it still happens
>>on occassion.
>>
>If I remember correctly, the problem occured in the editing of the tape.  (The
>placing of the graphics on the screen.)  I think it is because that when the
>graphics were dropped on the screen, sometimes less-than-perfect equipment was
>used, and sometimes a background hum was accidentally edited into the
>soundtrack at the same time.
>
No, it's purely an artifact of a high level of video modulation spilling over
into the audio subcarrier.
               --mje
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: De-ionized water mishap
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:42:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.1992Apr6.214247.22929
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
: nessie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Amy Elisabeth Frost) wrote:
: 
: > Furthermore, bacteria and other nasties could pass through the ion-
: > exchange column unharmed...
: 
: *That* sounds more like it.
: 

I can only speak for the way things are done here, but the de-ionized
water is passed through a UV sterilizer.  I don't know exposure levels
or times, though.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Edwin Meese made me
Rosemount Inc.                                |wear CORDOVANS!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Reply-To: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 15:28:03 GMT


I think the 9 minutes is because it's 10 minutes-1.  My clock radio has a
9 minute "snooze" function and a 59 minute "sleep" function, which allows you to
go to sleep to music.  Both functions show the number of minutes left if
you press the proper button, and decrease the count.  I have noticed that
I can get it to display "00" sometimes, when it does, the radio is/goes off
if on "sleep" and the alarm goes on if "snooze".  It seems the 00 state is the
"unused" state of the function, when the counter is 00, the function is
disabled, and the counter does not count, if it reads any other number, the
function is enabled and the counter counts down once a minute.  The counter
is a minutes counter, with a maximum of 59 minutes.  The snooze and sleep
functions share the same counter.

-Mike
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: ...filling in the holes
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:27:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: cms.167C476E4.MEDELMA
Organization: Wayne State University

Answering a few questions:
 
72 MHz is the Citizens' Band allocation for radio control.
The original (class A) citizens band allocation was around 450
MHz, but equipment there was too expensive then, so 11 meters
was realllocated. 450 is usually referred to as "business band". It's
part of the land mobile service.
 
Amateurs begans with everything 200 meters down.(150KHz and up) As uses for
these frequencies became apparant, the allocation dropped a bit. Currently
we have allocations around 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17, 15, 10, 6 and 2
meters, as well as (switch nomenclature here) 220MHz, 440MHz, 900MHz,
1240MHz, 2400MHz, 10GHz and a few more that don't come to mind as I don't
often go above 440MHz.           --mike
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:53:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45327

In article <1992Apr12.174859.13643@athena.mit.edu> erspert@athena.mit.edu  
(Ellen R. Spertus) writes:
[a conjecture:]
> 	2) The snooze alarm uses a special counter that only goes up
> 	   to nine.  (I could understand a counter with eight states
> 	   (3 bits), but nine?  Perhaps there are some counters that
> 	   go up to nine for base ten applications and don't signal
> 	   when 0->9.)

Perhaps the three-bit theory explains why my snooze alarm goes off every  
SEVEN minutes. Those that have a nine-minute cycle probably are using a  
single-digit BCD representation for the minutes (four bits to represent a  
decimal digit), which is likely because that is how the decimal digits in  
the clock display are represented anyway.

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: dabg7181@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (HE-DAN Master of the Universe)
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.163131.14891@dsuvax.dsu.edu> rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.153605.23117@cco.caltech.edu> rknop@cco.caltech.edu (Robert Andrew Knop) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>Here's my theory: it is intentional, and the snooze alarm doesn't really do 9
>>minutes.
>
>>[...]

>The observed behavior on my (digital) clock/radio is this:
>
>Alarm is set for (say) 6:00
>
>SLAP snooze --- the clock shuts up.
>
>Alarm again fires at 6:09 --- not 6:10
>
>SLAP . . .
>
>6:18.  Etc.
>-- 
>                                              --- Tim Rolfe
>                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
>                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET

Right.
Time:	6:00	01  02	03  04	05  06	07  08	09
Minutes:  1	2    3	 4   5	 6   7	 8   9	10

No unclearness to me.

Dan Brown
dabg7181@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu.us
Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures
Univ o' IL


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: sforslev@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Susanne Forslev)
Subject: Re: Irradiated fruits and vegetables
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:14:22 GMT

In <1992Apr02.002216.22016@microsoft.com> chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih) writes:

>In alt.folklore.science lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>;Any solid facts on this subject?  

>Wrong newsgroup.  Try alt.solid-facts.science.

>Now, a friend of a friend of my brother-in-law's brother-in-law's
>fencing instructor claims that irradiated fruits and vegetables
>glow in the dark if you chew them vigorously, but I haven't tried
>it myself.

>---
>chris


Only if you hide wintergreen lifesavers in them :-}.

Sue Forslev
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Magic
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:46:40 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <todd.702269015@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu>,
todd@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (Todd W. Thompson) writes:

>It was done by cables. Transparent, as
>in fishing line. We figured there were two of them, though I'm not sure
>about placement, because that would explain his bodily gyrations.
>
>Anyways, after reviewing the hoop scene several times, neither the ball
>thing nor the two hoops actually pass over Copperfield. The ball thing
>never does a full rotation around him, and the two single hoopers twisted
>their hoops at the last moment to make it look like the hoops went over
>David, but really didn't. We figured the top of the glass box might have
>pinned the two cables to the sides of the box, but nothing that would rule
>out cables.

Yes, exactly.  The first thing you look for when hoops are involved is: 
Do they pass over all points of the subject?  The answer in this case
was clearly no, which surprised me since Copperfield has done other
tricks in which the hoops did at least appear to pass over all points. 
Also note that the "ball thing", which was two rings fixed together, was
rotated continuously from when it was brought on stage to when it was
taken off, making an impression that it sweeps through whatever is there
and making it hard to examine.  But there was a brief side shot in which
it could be seen that the two rings were not joined at a 90-degree
angle; they formed an acute angle and an obtuse angle.  It was quite a
large obtuse angle too, allowing plenty of margin to rotate while not
passing directly over Copperfield's center of gravity.

There is one problem with this explanation in the box.  Throughout most
of his time in the box, Copperfield's center of gravity does not move up
or down, as if the supporting cables are pinned by the lid, except when
Copperfield puts his feet down and stands.  (But he does it so well and
later lowers himself onto the cable again so well that it looks more
like floating than standing and sitting.)  But there is one point where
his feet are off the floor and his whole body does appear to move up. 
However, this is immediately accompanied by a hand motion that looked
suspiciously like grabbing a cable and pulling oneself upward.  He lets
go very quickly though, so he might have been wearing a device that
would reel in slack and hold it.  Also, it would probably need a lot of
upper body strength, practice at not grimacing with the effort, and
something to protect his hands from being sliced by the thin cable.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Falling people
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:17:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Don't olympic divers sometimes dive off of a 50m platform?

Why would they do that? That is 5 times the height of the
highest competition platform. My guess is that there is not
a single 50m diving platform anywhere in the world.

Klaus O K
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Pressure
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.074615.12947@odin.diku.dk>, klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
>
>>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
>>(One of them accidentally swallowed a gulp of air at 180m, which
>>on the way up expanded to roughly 19 times its volume, and ruptured
>>his stomach, but apart from that, things seemed to go 'well'.)
>
>>Is this a record?
>
>>Are there any limits how deep this can be done from? (We're talking 
>>about going from 180m to surface in a matter of seconds..)
>
>>What are the medical problems that can arise? (except from teh obvious
>>ones of holding your breath and blowing up!)
>
>The water within your body has gasses disolved in it, and
>is in an equilibrium with the air you breathe. What happens
>when there is a quick drop in air pressure? Try opening
>a bottle of pop. You don't want this to happen inside your
>tissues! Note that the little bubbles can not just raise to
>the surface and disappear, they will stay. If you are placed
>in a pressure that is higher than the one you rose from too
>fast, the bubbles will usually be disolved. However, there
>was a case a few years ago where someone was still suffering
>from paralysis due to bubbles in his central nerveus system
>after spending a few hours a week in a pressure tank for
>6 months.

But in the case under discussion, based on the description of events, the crew
exited from a sub and immediately surfaced.  Most of the water pressure in a
submarine is handled by the submarine's structure rather than by pressurization
of the crew compartments. Hence, there would have been relatively little time
for additional gas to dissolve in the crewmembers' bloodstreams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.