HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Adiposity 101
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:59:52 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <dnsurber.724007610@node_26400> dnsurber@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Douglas N. Surber) writes:

>I know I'm a little slow sometimes, but I don't get your point about
>physics.  From what I've understood from reading this thread, Chuck's
>position seems to be there are variations in human metabolism that
>cause some people to gain weight with less food intake than others.
>Your point seems to be that one pound of fat is the equivalent of some
>fixed number of calories, thus if one eats so many extra calories, he
>will gain so many extra pounds.
>
>The physical relationship between calories and fat is most likely correct,
>but why the assumption that every human metabolises food in exactly the
>same way.

I made no such assumption.  What I said was that no matter how few
calories you need for maintaining your weight, if you eat more
than that you will gain weight and therefore are overeating.
Chuch seems to want to define overeating as 3000 cal/day, or 2500 cal/day
or some such nonsense.  You don't have to eat a whole pizza or a
whole pie to be overeating.  If you maintain weight at 1200 calories
and you eat 1500 cal/ day, then you are overeating.  

As far as significant differences in human metabolism, aside from
exercise, no one has been able through careful calorimetry experiments
to determine that the obese have more efficient metabolisms than
normals.  Chuck asserts this time and again, but there are no
studies that demonstrate this.  If it were true, wouldn't you
think it could be measured?  I suppose it also depends on what
you consider significant.  It is true that a very small change
(say 5%) could lead to a significant weight gain over time, so
it is true that the calorimetry would have to be precise.




> My understanding is that most human metabolism varies over a
>significant range, and it seems reasonable that the metabolism of food
>would as well.  This doesn't violate physics that I can see.  We're 
>talking about a really large system, not a couple of weights and levers.
>Such a system is going to be very stiff and there are more input conditions
>than we can identify and control for.
>

Well, if you build a large calorimeter, put the person into it,
measure the heat generated, the weight changes, and the food taken
into the calorimeter, what other complex input conditions are there?
Seems reasonably simple to me.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst allied fighter in WW2
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:41 GMT


From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>

In article <Bzs8uq.LDr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

> What is a coupled engine? Would this be the H and W cylinder
> configurations we talked baout earlier?

A coupled engine is two engines mechanically connected via some sort of
fiendishly complicated gear box to drive one propellor.  They can be
side by side or end to end.  I don't recollect any truely successfull
designs although the Germans had one flying operationally.  It had an
unfortunate tendency to burst into flame fairly often.  The design was
an attempt to make a four engined bomber.  Things got pretty
complicated due to a strange request on the part of the German Air
Administration to have the bomber, among it's other design criteria, be
able to dive bomb.  Try to imagine a flight of B-17's approaching the
target then suddenly nosing over into a 70 degree dive.  Needless to
say, this didn't work, the neccessity for engineering the aircraft to
dive bombing specs wreaked havoc with the opperational performance. 
Eventually the powers that be realised the folly of the demand and
rescinded it, but by then the aircraft was hopeless.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok)
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:36 GMT


From mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok)

Max Abramowitz <madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the
>>Bradley.  Supposedly its extremely effective against armor and would
>>probably make a decent point defence weapon as well?  There's always
>>the ammo problem, but if you took an M3 and removed the TOWs you
>>would probably have more than enough room for ammo.  The only problem
>>is that I don't know how effective the GAU-8A would be against
>>missles and such.  Just a random thought.
>>
>>        Ken Watson
>>        Ksw3@lehigh.edu

>Mounting a 30mm GAU on a ground vehicle probably would not work.  At
>least if it did work it would not be as effective as the same weapon
>mounted on an airborne platform.  

This is just to remind you that the GAU-8A gun is used in the
Goalkeeper point defense system. So it will be effective against
a/c and missiles. As far as using the US Phalanx for the same
job, my answer is; just think about the A-10 and the Apache
Both can withstand 23mm fire. So it wouldn't be very effective
against those kinds of targets. Using the GAU-8A will also give
the vehicle some defense against light/medium armored vehicles.

Just my 2 dimes worth...

Maurice

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:27 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <Bz9Etz.6D4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Mcgregor <drm@mozart.esl.com> writes:
>
>To speculate in a bit more realistic scenario (and return to the  
>battle cruiser vs. heavy cruiser debate), how would the Alaska have  
>been employed if it had been available in late 1942 during the  
>Solomons campaign?
>
>Would they have been attached to the cruisers and destroyers  
>screening the invasion and interdicting Japanese resupply, or  
>attached to the fleet as gunfire support, a la _Washington_ and  
>_South Dakota_?
    
   I probably would have employed them as cruisers, and tried to pick off
Japanese CAs whenever possible. Their speed would have given them the
needed mobility.

>
>It certainly would have been interesting to see how the _Alaska_   
>changed the dynamics of the night battles.  My guess is it would have  
>been torpedoed, since that was the killing weapon after dark, and its  
>guns wouldn't have come into full effect.  But _Alaska_ vs. _Hiei_ at  
>2,000 yards, now that would be interesting. Or the effect it would  
>have on some of the Japanese heavy cruisers during a night gun  
>battle. Or _Alaska_ replacing one of the US BBs in the other night  
>action with the Japanese BB and cruisers.
>
    They might well have been torpedoed, especially if they were employed
as cruisers, as I suggested. Alas, the Alaskas would not have fared too
well against the Long Lance. Dulin & Garzke report that their anti-torpedo
protection was poor. (and their diagrams back this up) But keep in mind,
that the Alaskas DID have radar, which would have improved their performance
at night, perhaps even beyond the performance of the Long Lance.  
    As for Alaska vs Hiei, I'd still put my money on the Alaska, for the
same reasons as I mentioned in the Alaska vs. Renown debate. Even after
reconstruction, the Hiei was still basically a glorified Lion, (read
"very little armor", exact stats unavailable) and probably had especially
poor deck armor. Also, I doubt if the Hiei's guns could elevate more than
30 degrees. Add to this mix the Alaska's radar, and the Alaska would be
the clear winner at long range. At 2000 yards, it might be a different story,
but I doubt the battle would last that long. (Of course, the Kirishima DID
get lucky with the South Dakota, so anything's possible!)

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Shakos, Busby's and the Light Brigade
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:10 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
> 
> 
> Depended just exactly who you were and when!  In the Crimea the 3
> British Hussar Regts wore Busby's, German (from the minor states)  and
> French Hussars during Napoleonic times wore shakos, though the 11th
> Hussars (French) as raised in 1810 had white busbies for the light
> troop!  I also have drawings of French hussars in shakos from the 7th
                                                    ^^^^^^ 
> (trumpeter, 1809 and Flanker, 1813), 8th (1809) and 12th (1813) with
> no explanatory text. (Funken's "Arms and Un iforms of the Napoleonic
> Wars)

Opps - should read "Busbies".  Sorry.
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:28:24 GMT


From emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bzs8v0.LGz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk Nusbacher) writes:
>
>First, it is useless to expect any military value from personal
>firearms if they are selected without regard to standardisation.
>Without standard ammunition and parts, there is no military point to
>having everybody armed and ready to turn out.

A bullet between the eyes leaves you just as dead regardless of whether
it comes from a standardized military issue weapon or a hunting rifle.
This isn't large unit spray and pray we're talking about. It's small
unit ambushes and sniper fire. Ammo requirements are modest, and widely
available on the civilan economy.  Bolt action rifles are robust, even most 
of the semi-autos in civilian hands never need the services of a gunsmith.
Standardization is only needed by mass formations with long supply trains,
like your conventional invading army requires. The locals face no such
limitations.

>Second, the above point implies that standard issue firearms would be
>kept at home, after the Swiss model.  Now, I would trust the Switzers
>with their five-hundred-year tradition of maintaining combat weapons
>at home, to give their firearms the attention they'd need.  However, I
>would not trust some cussed, individualistic Anglo-Saxons of the sort
>found in abundance in North America, to keep their firearms clean,
>bright and slightly oiled.  Some would, but most would turn their gear
>up for inspection with rust, wear, and filth.  And that would pretty
>much moot the whole idea of having them.

I don't think that's true of the general run of American gun owners,
and even if it were, modern arms of the kind kept by civilians are
very tolerant of abuse while still continuing to function. They might
not look pretty for inspection, but they still function just fine.
Now you can't treat an M16 that way, but an AK47, SKS, or just an
old bolt action Mauser won't mind being buried in the mud for a few
months between uses. The VC routinely buried their arms between raids
so that search and destroy missions only found harmless peasants working
in the fields.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rick Pavek <kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Sheridan
Organization: Boeing
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:01 GMT


From Rick Pavek <kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

In article <C017Cr.3qw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "William M. Aldo" <nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> writes:
>
>The 152-mm gun/launcher was also the main weapon installed on the sh*tty piece

In the 3rd ACR in the 70's we still had the M-551.  Personally, I liked it
but it was an old piece...  also, for a 6' to sleep inside the vehicle he
had to be a contortionist.

My fondest memory of the Sheridan's missile system was the caveat:

Thou shalt not fire the main gun if thou dost wish to fire remaining
missiles.

That was because firing the main gun created a shock that was almost
certainly going to knock the missile electronics out.

Biggest thrill:  Firing missiles during stockpile tests.  Most exciting:
The one that went straight up.  (Or was it the one that dived less than
100m from the bunker...?)

Biggest wonder:  Watching a lapse and seeing my former Sheridan exit
the C-130 and tumble across the LZ.  Broke the machinegun mount clean off,
but after righting it the crew got a missile "go".

Biggest laugh:  Watching the previous tank to the above go out too late
and nosedive from 450'.  Creamed it so bad that the vehicle couldn't
be stripped for any parts.  After this mission, LAPSE was verboten.

Biggest bonfire:  When a cable under the turret floor snagged and ignited
the hydraulic fluid on the hull bottom.  Bad?  Sure.  What was worse was
the vehicle had just cleared an ammo point for the next range run and was
full of live (not practice) main gun rounds.  The crew felt they would be
more useful elsewhere and dismounted the tank in record time.  (We called
it "Unassed the vehicle".)  After burning for 10 minutes a torchlike flame
appeared from the open hatches and a few moments later the turret was blown
out of the turret ring by an explosion.  Gee, I'd never seen aluminum melt
before...  The ammo point was saved by the heroic efforts of the troop
commander who drove his vehicle between the ammo point and the problem
vehicle.  We took a vote after that and awarded him the title of the
"CO with the biggest balls".  Should have received at _LEAST_, an 
ARCOM.  Of course, since the tank was totaled/melted, and he was the
CO, and was responsible for the maintenance, they didn't.  Go figure.

Most fun:  Driving the M-551 in the El Paso desert at 2:00AM with no moon
at 30 MPH dodging sand dunes.  I _knew_ there was a reason I joined the
army...

Rick Pavek
-- 
Rick Pavek                       | Never ask a droid to outdo its program.
kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com    |           
Seattle, WA                      |   It wastes your time
                                 |          and annoys the droid.  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Sugi Sorensen <ssorensen@jpl-pds.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Info Req: Small Arms Trainers/Sims
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:27 GMT


From Sugi Sorensen <ssorensen@jpl-pds.jpl.nasa.gov>

I am looking for information on companies that market systems or
sub-system components for small arms trainers/simulators used by 
military customers and law-enforcemet agencies. Examples of the
systems I seek info about include: marksmanship trainers, US Army
Squad Engagemet Training System, interactive video-disk simulators.
I am already familiar with FATS in Georgia. Am seeking info on
other vendors/players.

Please reply via e-mail. Thanks in advance.

Sugi Sorensen
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
ssorensen@jplpds.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:24:53 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>



MegaZone23 writes:
#The Avenger is carried by the A-10 and the only other cannon I know which uses
#the same shells are the single barrelled guns on the German GEpard air
#defense vehicle.

The Gepard uses the Oerlikon 35mm gun. You may be thinking of the Hellenic
Arms Industries ARTEMIS 30, which uses the Mauser cannon firing 30x173mm
ammunition.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PFAN000 <PFAN@music.lib.matc.edu>
Subject: Re: USS Abraham Lincoln
Organization: Milwaukee Area Technical College
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:14 GMT


From PFAN000 <PFAN@music.lib.matc.edu>

>USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72 - Handle: UNION) had keel laid on 3 Nov 1984,
>and was commissioned 11 Nov 1989.  Overall length is 1,092 feet, extreme
>breadth is 257 feet, 5.5 in.  Full combat load displacement is approx.
>100K tons.  Speed is listed as "in excess of 30 knots"; on the way back
>into Alameda, the monitor displayed our speed as 32 knots.  At 100K tons, I
>found this to be rather impressive.
>
>For the very curious, Lincoln also consumes 20,000 meals a day, and churns
>out 250 haircuts a day.  Really! :-)

Here's some additional info out of my cruise book on TR.  It's
probably similar with ABE:


Type of Vessel: Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
Builder:        Newport News Shipbuilding
Propulsion:     Two Nuclear Reactors
Speed:          Over 30 Knots
Length of Flight Deck: 1092 Feet
Widest Point:   257 Feet
Height:         244 Feet
Area of Flight Deck: 4.5 Acres
Number of Aircraft:  86 Aircraft
Weight:         97,000 TONS
Total Crew (Air Wing Embarked): Over 6200
Weight of Anchors: 30 Tons Each (2 anchors)
Weight of Anchor Chain: 360 Pounds Per Link
Height of Propellers: 21 Feet Each (4 Propellers)
Weight of Propellers: 66,200 Pounds Each
Number of Telephones: Over 2,000
Structural Steel:     60,000 Tons
Weld Metal:           Over One Million Pounds
Length of Electrical Cable: About 900 Miles
# of meals Per day:   20,000

Lots of stats....

Pete Fanning
Computer Operator
Office of Information Technology
Milwaukee Area Technical College

Internet: pfan@music.lib.matc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:10 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bzq2uD.4nE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok) writes:
> 
> 
> This is just to remind you that the GAU-8A gun is used in the
> Goalkeeper point defense system. So it will be effective against
> a/c and missiles. As far as using the US Phalanx for the same
> job, my answer is; just think about the A-10 and the Apache
> Both can withstand 23mm fire. So it wouldn't be very effective
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> against those kinds of targets. Using the GAU-8A will also give
> the vehicle some defense against light/medium armored vehicles.
> 
> Just my 2 dimes worth...
> 
> Maurice
> 
> 

Gee, I didn't know that these aircraft can withstand having about 100 deplete
uranium shots hit them with the same shells that kill tanks.  ;-)

Also, unless my memory has failed me, I thought Phalanx shoots 30mm shells 
just like the GAU-8A and I thought that the Phalanx gun is a GAU-8A on a ship 
platform.  If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore 
and those that either protect or support the power projectors."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:40:04 GMT


From "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>

In article <Bzs8v0.LGz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca> writes:
>Second, the above point implies that standard issue firearms would be
>kept at home, after the Swiss model.  Now, I would trust the Switzers
>with their five-hundred-year tradition of maintaining combat weapons
>at home, to give their firearms the attention they'd need.  However, I
>would not trust some cussed, individualistic Anglo-Saxons of the sort
>found in abundance in North America, to keep their firearms clean,
>bright and slightly oiled.  Some would, but most would turn their gear
>up for inspection with rust, wear, and filth.  And that would pretty
>much moot the whole idea of having them.

Well, most of the "cussed....Anglo-Saxons" that I know would probably
turn up with  their issue weapons having most of the MIL-SPEC parts
swapped  out for surplus rejects and the good  parts substituted into
their personal weapons. Come to  think  of it, the Swiss weapons that
I have seen  have almost every part serialized. Probably just  their
sense of tidiness ;-).

>Western civilisation developed the armoury for a reason.

Ah, yes. Prime targets.
-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * Life only admits two states: 
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * growing and dying. So what,
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * if I've put on a little weight?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Anssi Oorni <oorni@hkkk.fi>
Subject: Re: Gladiators in WWII RAF service
Organization: Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:45 GMT


From Anssi Oorni <oorni@hkkk.fi>

In <Bzq2ow.4GJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:

>>I seem to remember that there was a single squadron still equipped
>>with the type in 10 (?) Group (SW of England) during the "Battle of
>>Britain", August - September 1940.  The final delivery was only in
>>April 1940 (!!!!).

>Mike,
>     You might well be right, the timing's the thing.  The OoB for June-July
>and August in the vital Sector 11 (SE England) features only one "funny": the
>Bristol Blemheim "fighter" -- a 4 x 303 Browning gunpack bolted on under the
>nose.   

There seems to have been one flight of Gladiators in 247 Squadron
stationed at Roborough. Don't know if they saw any action.

My source of information is:

Richard Hough and Denis Richards, The Battle of Britain (ISBN 0-340-53470-2)
Page 376, Appendix VII, Fighter Command Order of Battle 8 August 1940
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
|  Anssi Oorni (oorni@hkkk.fi)                    |  I really know where my  |
|  Helsinki School of Economics, Computing Centre |    towel is... er was.   |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+


Newsgroups: sci.military