HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brett@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Brett Sealey)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Keywords: ants, microwave
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:09:06 GMT

millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:

>lanih@herald.Berkeley.EDU (J. Lani Herrmann) writes:

>>After that last posting I couldn't resist jumping in to the conversation.
>>Observation: putting ants into a microwave (actually, it was sugar mixed
>>with ants, and I was trying to get the critters to leave) only seems to
>>tickle them -- they run around a little more actively.
>>	My partner thinks it's because the ants are too small: their wave-   
>>lengths are less than the microwaves.
>>	Any more educated guesses out there?

>	I asked an engineering friend of mine, and he suggested (uncertainly)
>that it might have to do with the fact that microwaves vibrate the natural
>frequency of water.  Ants have far less water in them (proportionately) than,
>say, small dogs, or food. ;-)  Therefore they are less affected.  Oh, wait...
>You wanted *educated* guesses??  Oops.  Never mind. :)

My understanding is that the resonant frequency of water molecules has
little to do with the way a microwave works. A microwave is just a
domestic radio frequency inductive heater which works by inducing eddy
currents within the "target". These currents then heat the material via
resistance.

Supporting evidence to this claim includes:
	+ Salty water heats faster than distilled water. (I claim that
	  this is because of the reduced resistance)
	+ Substances which contain no water but are conductive will also
	  be heated.
	+ Small objects such as ants, and small roaches have can survive
	  because they don't have large enough conductive loops in them to
	  pick up enough energy. This is because the wavelength is larger
	  than they are.
	+ Highly conductive materials such as metals can pick up large
	  voltage differences. This leads to arcing.... (Fun!!!)
	+ The wavelength of a vibrating water molecule would be extremely
	  short! This would be dangerous to have around the kitchen and
	  hard to generate.
	+ The holes in the screen on the door have to be smaller
	  than the wavelength of the microwave to do their work. This
	  indicates a lower bound on the wavelength but in practice the
	  wavelength would have to be significantly larger than the holes.

Of course, this could all be circumstantial...

Happy microwaving,
      		  Brett.
-- 
  __   __   ___ ____ ____
 /__) /__) /_    /    /               brett@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au
/__) / \  /__   /    /                               Brett Sealey
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: moe@rainier.lib.washington.edu (Joe Shippert)
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters (was Re: Boiling frogs)
Organization: University of Washington Libraries, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:09:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.205409.27337@athena.cs.uga.edu> bday@athena.cs.uga.edu (bday) writes:
>Would wine, or other alcohol, really have the same kinds of affects
>on crustaceans, or other sea creatures, as it does on humans, and other
>mammals?  This is very interesting... What makes alcohol do the things
>is does to us, anyway?

This is the way I had it explained to me: Normally our little red blood
cells go through our vein like poker chips. All stacked up that way you can
get a maximum efficiency of blood cells being trandported. Alcohol causes
the blood cells to get all shakenb up and they go through our veins any
which way. This is MUCH less efficient and therefore less blood (and 
therefore oxygen) get to our brains and we get drunk.

In order to have a similar effect on other creature they'd have to have a 
similar oxygen trasnporting system as us. I don't really know how lobsters
or somesuch  do it.

Anyone else know? If this an accurate description of the effects of alcohol?
Am I way off?

-joe



-- 
==============================================================================
moe@u.washington.edu
If you can't talk about it, point to it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: gregn@coombs.anu.edu.au (Gregory Newton)
Subject: Re: That darn "Bug" story
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 13 Sep 92 08:55:10 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> Okay, we've all heard it:
> Long ago, when computers were still gymnasium-sized boxes and
>ran at 10 instructions a second, some scientists ran a trivial
>progam and got some gibberish for output.
> After painstakingly checking the program and the computer, they
>found a small moth that had died amongst the internal workings,
>causing the error.
> And that, my child, is why programming errors are called "bugs"
>today.

> So: Is this true? Really? Where and when did it happen?
>Or is it just an urban myth?

>Sincerely,

>Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
>                            || not those of the University of
>ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.

	There used to be this interesting old chap who lived across the road
from my long deceased grandmother's house who had worked with some of the
"dinosaur computers" ( I think but I'm not entirely sure that it was with the
university of Sydney & and a very long time ago (obviously) ) but one of his
favourite stories was how the machine he was working with was down for a week
after a cockroach got into the works.

	Secondly I know of a Macintosh that died after some sort of bug (insect)
climed into one of the air vents and died between the pins of the processor.

	These things happen and I would say it probably was where the term "bug"
 came from.

	- Greg N.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.computers
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: That darn "Bug" story
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 21:05:01 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep13.195909.27527@udel.edu> jrogers@hercules.cis.udel.edu (James Rogers) writes:
>
>BTW, I agree with E. Dijkstra --- instead of using ``bug'' we ought
>to be honest and just call them ``errors'', ie: ``The program still
>has a few bugs in it.'' ought to read ``The program doesn't work.''
>

Well, having a few bugs is more descriptive than not working.  Many
lines can be commented out, the programmer could have been confused
enough to try to send FORTRAN code to a Pascal compilier, or there
could be a simple sign error in a formula burried in a subroutine.

Any of these could cause the program to not work (there are many other
reasons, too), but the last reason that I'd listed really only qualifies
as a bug.  To me, a bug means a small error in logic, a typographical
error, or a misdirected pointer-- anything that is very hard to track 
down.  Bugs aren't, to me at least, major errors (wrong language, to
many commented-out routines from testing that weren't restored, or
blocks of code that were copied instead of cut and pasted).  All of these
can make a code not work at all.  But really only the bugs make it work
incorrectly.

BTW, it is possible to use the wrong language, especially if you code
mainly in one, but do a little work in another ocassionaly.
From: cad28526@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Chuck Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Boiling frogs
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:43:06 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>....  Oh, yes, and do lobsters
>prefer this method of death or do they prefer to be dropped into boiling
>water.  None of them will tell me.

I was watching Julia Child one lazy sunday afternoon and she mentioned
that when you are cooking lobsters, you should bring the water to a 
rolling boiling and place the lobster in head first.  This will instantly
kill the poor crustacean so that it doesn't have to sit in the water
and feel like a boiled lobster which would be somewhat cruel.  It always
seemed reasonable to me.  Take it for what it's worth.

-- 
Chuckers -- a computer operator/programmer/benthic sorter/emaciated aryan.
cad28526@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu	          |"You know I'll give you everything
Novanet:  douglas/o/nova douglas/cerl/nova|I've got for a little peace of mind!"
douglas-cerl OR douglas-o@nova.novanet.org|--"I'm So Tired" by The Beatles
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:06:57 -0400 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
	<olt.716109393@elwood.isgs.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na

Excerpts from netnews.alt.folklore.science: 9-Sep-92 Re: The dangers in
microwav.. J. Lani Herrmann@herald. (434)

> Observation: putting ants into a microwave (actually, it was sugar mixed
> with ants, and I was trying to get the critters to leave) only seems to
> tickle them -- they run around a little more actively.

Ants are small and fairly wiggly. They may just have enough surface area
to dissipate heat as fast as it's deposited.

--Z
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: jojo@sandman.asd.sgi.com (Jonathan Wesener)
Subject: Re: Explosions in space
Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:49:15 GMT

In <15SEP199217274418@rosie.uh.edu> st17y@rosie.uh.edu (Belding, Troy C.) writes:


> 	Just recently I heard someone say that most SF movies set in 
> space are completely phony, as explosions would not be heard in space.
> My thought is that even though space is a vaccum, any exploding craft
> or station would create its own atmosphere, so that a shock wave would 
> be conducted to the hull of any reasonably nearby ship.  This wave would
> turn the whole hull of the ship into a giant soundboard, thereby creating
> horrendous noise.
> 
> Any comments?

Would there really be enough atmosphere created by an exploding craft to
conduct a shockwave to a nearby ship?  Sounds doubtful. Perhaps debris 
from the explosion bouncing off the hull of the ship would cause a certain 
amount of ringing, though.  I doubt it would sound anything like the
explosions you hear in SF movies...  Anyone out there with firsthand
experience? ;-)

--
--jojo                                         jojo@sgi.com
    "language was created out of man's inner need to complain"
From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (dogbowl)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Boiling frogs
Summary: fresh water
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 10:56:09 Y
Organization: The Dawghaus BBS

> In article <1685F7FC0.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> > Some independent sources have said that if you place a frog into lukewarm
> > water and slowly boil it, it will not jump out and will just get boiled.
> > I trust this comes from some sloppy notions about difference thresholds
> > for temperature in the frog.  But is it true?  Don't worry, I don't
> > plan to boil anything.  I'm just interested.  Oh, yes, and do lobsters
> > prefer this method of death or do they prefer to be dropped into boiling
> > water.  None of them will tell me.
> 

In this part of the world, we drop crayfish ( rock lobsters ) into
_FRESH_ water. This kills them fairly quickly.

I don't think I'd want to have to deal with a (very active due to the heat
speeding up its metabolism) lobster or crayfish trying to get out of the pot
and run around the kitchen floor.

The original story I was told along these lines was that this applied to
*warm blooded* creatures. A classic example is the way you get used to water
temperature during a long bath.



dogbowl at The Dawghaus BBS  ( +64 6 357-9245 )


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: bogart@sabre.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart)
Subject: Re: Boiling frogs
Reply-To: bogart@sabre.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:57:18 GMT

Chuck Douglas posts:

> I was watching Julia Child one lazy sunday afternoon and she mentioned
>that when you are cooking lobsters, you should bring the water to a 
>rolling boiling and place the lobster in head first.

Old Julia must have tamer lobsters where she comes from.  In Mass where
I was raised, stuffing the lobster into the pot and getting the top back
on was always enough of a trial without the nicety of getting his head
in first!  

BTW  We always had the water boiling first.

Ed


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: syrjanen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters (was Re: Boiling frogs)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.220904.9448@u.washington.edu>, moe@rainier.lib.washington.edu (Joe Shippert) writes:
> This is the way I had it explained to me: Normally our little red blood
> cells go through our vein like poker chips. All stacked up that way you can
> get a maximum efficiency of blood cells being trandported. Alcohol causes
> the blood cells to get all shakenb up and they go through our veins any
> which way. This is MUCH less efficient and therefore less blood (and 
> therefore oxygen) get to our brains and we get drunk.

Hey, a good idea!  I must give it a chance!  
I just stop breathing, and sooner or later I'm drunk ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: That darn "Bug" story
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:22:36 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Okay, we've all heard it:
 Long ago, when computers were still gymnasium-sized boxes and
ran at 10 instructions a second, some scientists ran a trivial
progam and got some gibberish for output.
 After painstakingly checking the program and the computer, they
found a small moth that had died amongst the internal workings,
causing the error.
 And that, my child, is why programming errors are called "bugs"
today.

 So: Is this true? Really? Where and when did it happen?
Or is it just an urban myth?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
From: mrice@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Matt Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The greenhouse effect, Florida, and Hawaii.
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:42:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

What I heard in my environmental class (and other places) is that a warming
trend on the planet will result in much stronger storms, not just new 
weather patterns.  Weather patterns would change, due to increased evaporation
at the poles, warmer oceans, etc.

However, I have also heard that part of the reason that we are NOT 
experiencing a massive warming trend is that, while we are increasing the 
level of CO2 in the troposphere, we are also depleting the level of ozone in
the stratosphere.  The first results in a net gain of heat, and the second 
results (for very complex reasons) in a net loss of heat.  The result?
relatively normal heat patterns, but lots of skin cancer.

Of course, I've also heard that we are approaching a new ice age, and that
is the reason we aren't experiencing a massive temperature increase...

And I've heard that we ARE experiencing a massive temperature increase...

Who to believe?

| ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it opponents and 
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, 
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
							--Max Planck
mrice@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: phil@BofA.com (Phil Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:09:21 GMT

In article <sefsv1q00gpIFfTW9V@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.folklore.science: 9-Sep-92 Re: The dangers in
>microwav.. J. Lani Herrmann@herald. (434)
>
>> Observation: putting ants into a microwave (actually, it was sugar mixed
>> with ants, and I was trying to get the critters to leave) only seems to
>> tickle them -- they run around a little more actively.
>

Were these red ants or black ants? My best scientific guess is that there
are probably now several 6 ft long giant ants crawling around underneath
your house  :-)

-- 
 ___                                                            ___       
 These words are not my employer's ...                         (o o)  
 +------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--------+
 |   Phil Schlesinger  | San Francisco, CA     |                             |
 |   phil@BofA.com     | Tel. (415) 953-2152   |     THIS SPACE FOR RENT!    |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mjg51721@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis)
Subject: The greenhouse effect, Florida, and Hawaii.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:53:31 GMT

I once read that a predicted effect of the greenhouse warming was that weather
patterns might change.  Most notably, the paths that hurricanes took might
be different, which might explain Iniki and Andrew, two of the worst hurricanes
in history.  Perhaps the global climate has changed enough to divert these
storms away from where they would have gone in years past, and now is favorable
to making storms in more heavily devolped areas.

Anyway, is the true?  Any meteorologists out there?  Would a warmed climate
change the hurricane zone?

Mike Gebis  m-gebis@uiuc.edu
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The Other 95% of the Brain
Date: 5 Sep 92 10:20:59 GMT
Reply-To: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England


In article <1992Sep4.163105.21194@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>,
baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
|> In article <Bu0HI4.3DA@news.larc.nasa.gov>,
bogart@sabre.larc.nasa.gov (Ed Bogart) writes:
|> >If you want a FACT that you can throw out in casual conversations, use
|> >this; your brain is like a computer in that it has can only do one thing
|> >(or at best a very few) things at a time.
|> 
|> I never believed that one. As a musician, I am listening to the notes
|> evaluating the pitches, hitting the accents, keeping the beat,
|> expressing the words, evaluating the audience reaction, and sometimes
|> wondering what's for dinner, all at the same time. You (as an ordinary
|> slob ;-) can at least walk, chew gum, and observe the scenery (In itself
|> a complex multitasking process) at the same time.

Surely assertions of this form are said to be controversial with
respect to at least _some_ Americans?
--
Robin (dump Brian Kay) Fairbairns                    rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
[Finally back in work - what a relief!]
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: That darn "Bug" story
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:03:10 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

As I understand it, the "moth in the circuit" origin of the term "bugs" is
TRUE; I've heard it attributed to Grace Hopper (RADM, US Navy, author of
COBOL, who supposedly said it first while working on the early
UNIVAC/ENIAC machines in the late 40's/early '50's. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: olt@elwood.isgs.uiuc.edu (Scott Olt)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: Madame Tinkertoy's House of Blue Lights
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:16:33 GMT
Keywords: ants, microwave

J. Lani Herrmann writes:

>	My partner thinks it's because the ants are too small: their wave-   
>lengths are less than the microwaves.

So what's the wavelength of an ant, anyway?

--
Scott Olt                                  | Internet: sdo@uiuc.edu
Illinois State Geological Survey           | UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!sdo
"Most people wouldn't know music if it came up and bit them on the ass."
                              -- Frank Zappa
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Migratory habits of Mediterranean eels
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<1992Sep5.180730.11787@cco.caltech.edu> <Bu53yx.1oq@hatch.socal.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:48:10 GMT

In article <Bu53yx.1oq@hatch.socal.com> richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) writes:
   > In article <1992Sep5.180730.11787@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
   >>   Please take the time to do at least a little research before
   >>posting bullshit like this.  The Saint Lawrence river has
   >>connected Lake Ontario and the Atlantic Ocean for quite a bit
   >>longer than the Erie Canal's been around.

   True, but wouldn't the lampreys have a bit of a problem swimming UP
   Niagara Falls?

   I love it!!! Someone couldn't be bothered to do the little bit of
research needed here.  (Of course, they could have paid attention in
Geography class...Not!  We're talking about an American. :-)  For the
others of you who didn't listen in class, the Niagara Falls (on the
Naigara River) connect Lake Erie to Lake Ontario.  Lake Ontario flows
to the sea through the St. Lawrence River, one of the deepest rivers
in the world for most of its length (averaging 300 feet).  (The
Saguenay River which flows into the St. Lawrance from Lac Saint-Jean
is the deepest, over 2000 feet in spots.)  There are locks on the St.
Lawrance in Quebec, but I don't think they replaced falls, just made
the river navigable for large ships.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: bill.dehaan@rose.com (bill dehaan)
Subject: Fuel misers
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:19:04 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 09-10-92 23:14
In message <BAUDAIS.92Sep8084924@bmerh160.bnr.ca>, baudais@bnr.ca
(Michael Baudais) writes:

MB>Someone somewhere has invented a new engine/car/carbeurator/
MB>fuel-injector that will allow cars to achieve 100 to 200 miles per
MB>gallon.  The only reason we aren't driving these things is that the
MB>Big Bad Oil Companies (BBOCs) have bought out the inventors to
MB>preserve their markets.

MB>Anyone heard the same, and can we add it to the FAQ as a Fb?

God,  I  remember  hearing  this  in  grade  two! That was in... uuhhh..
nineteen sixty... (carry the one) eight! Yeah, 1968!

I'd say definately UL material.

----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
   SLMR 2.1a   Unicorns are always horny.
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285