HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Closed vs. Isolated systems
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:32:11 GMT

In article <schinder.712457467@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>doing.  If it's not isolated, and I'm asked to compute the change in
>entropy, I have to work to find out, and the answer may be either that
>it increases or decreases.  In this sense, the definition of "closed"
>that chemists use is not fundamentally useful, since I have to be
>given specifics to find out what the entropy does.  It has *practical*
>use in given problems.  But for example, if the "container" is
>transparent and I send radiation into the container, I can change the
>equilibrium state of the contents. I can't do that with an isolated
>system; once it's contents are in equilibrium, they remain there.

Herein lies the gist.  If a container is closed, but not isolated, then
it can recieve and lose energy but not matter.  Heat is unique in that
it depends on an external heat sink to leave, whereas work, be it chemical,
electrical, mechanical, or otherwise can leave without a heat sink.  The
problem is, that you have to have a heat sink that is cooler than some
part of the system to get the heat to flow out.  Or, you have to have some
point in a cycle in which the heat sink is cooler that system in order
for heat transfer out (following the expansion in a Carnot Cycle).  The
earth definitely has a heat sink.  Since the energy transfer out is
primarily by radiation, you do not have to have any matter in contact
with the system.  Radiation is special in that it "transcends" matter.
At the microscopic level, it is not so special, because it can be viewed
as matter - photons, etc.  At the macroscopic level it can't because you
can't contain it in a flask.  You can't measure volume, temperature or
pressure, not with a ruler, thermometer and pressure guage anyhow.
That is what engineers usually think in terms of - Physical measurements.
Nothing mystical, just that it does not depend on matter for the transfer.
The side of the earth opposite the Sun has a 3 K heat sink, so heat can
flow out by radiation.  There is a form of the second law especially for
this kind of situation - heat transfer but no mass transfer.  Historically
that law has been expressed in terms of what you *can't* do with a heat
engine.  Namely, you can't have a PMM2 - Perpetual Motion Machine of the
Second Kind.  This deals exclusively with cyclical apparati.  The apparati
are closed systems overall, but may have subsystems that are open - just
like the earth.  And what can't you do?  That's what it's all about.
 
>
>
>>-- 
>>Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
>>Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
>>CIS: 76347,2523                        |
>>Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
>--
>--------
>Paul J. Schinder
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Jul21.172154@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>  The argument is about the word "exactly" in proposition A.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of
every sort into the ark."

I interpret this phrase to mean EXACTLY two.  It is your right to
argue with this fact, but I must say you would lose the debate
(unless we had a creationist moderator).

You bring up "clean" vs. "unclean" and call them "inherent" in the
interpretation.  Maybe there is an inherent "unless you don't like
the person, of course" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."  Or
maybe there is an inherent "unless you are attracted to her" in the
commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Each person could
assume different things are inherent, making the Bible totally
meaningless.

-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon)
Subject: Eukaryotes w/o mitochondria (was Re: The evolution of sexes)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:08:49 GMT

In article <768@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> 
> In article <Bs2E5n.6DC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

> 
>AP |I'm not sure if Hurst & Hamilton (the original authors) deal with those
>AP |sexual eukaryotes which don't have organelles; it would be interesting
>AP |to see what happens there.
> 
SF> I don't think there are any.  The only *eu*karyote I know of without
SF> any organelles is Pelomyxa palustrus.  All others have at least one,
SF> usually several, mitochondria, if not other organelles as well.
> -- 
> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

First of all there are LOTS of eukaryotes (in addition to _Pelomyxa_)
that do not have organelles,that is chloroplasts (cp) and/or mitochondria (mt).
Second, cps and mts are the ONLY organelles in issue as they are the only ones of
clear endosymbiotic (eubacterial) origin and have their own genomes which 
are involved in this purported "Intragenomic confict." Since mt arose
prior to the endosymbiosis of cps, mts are the only organelle really in issue
here. (But see Palmer, Current Biology, 1992, v2: pp 318- 320 for evidence 
that cps may have arisen deeper in eukaryotic evolution than once thought). 

More on the issue of euks w/o mts: Tom Cavalier-Smith wrote a nice "News and
Views" article a few years back (Nature, 1987, v326:332-333) in which he
recognizes at least FOUR major groups of eukaryotic protists w/o mts. 
Archamoebae (to which _Pelomyxa_ belong), Metamonada (which includes the 
diplomonad _Giardia_), Microsporidia (includes _Vairimorpha_), and Parabasalia
(ie:_Trichomonas_). These Phyla (at least the last three, for which there are
data) branch off of the main eukaryotic line of descent very early - BELOW 
organisms known to have mitochondria (ie:trypanosomes). This is
based on ribosomal RNA (and in some cases, protein) sequences. This led Cav.-
Smith to state "..some of these protozoa are living relics of the earliest 
phase of eukaryote cell evolution and diverged from our own anscestors before 
the symbiotic origin of mitochondria (ref above)." The current data also 
support this contention.

There are a few euks whose mt have apparently been LOST secondarily, including 
some protists and fungi. The interpretation of loss is based on the
phylogenetic perspective that their close relatives indeed do have mt. 

All that to make a simple point. Thanks for staying with me 8-).

Anyway, Andy raised an IMPORTANT issue. 

Is there any evidence for sex in these primitively mt- organisms?

Anybody out there Know?

John
___________________________________________________________
John Logsdon         Department of Biology
                     Indiana University
                     Bloomington, IN  47405
                     (812) 855-2549
                     (812) 855-6705 fax

jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
____________________________________________________________
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Palm World 100M: The Breathers
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 20 Jul 92  22:31:00

The shorter plants, forced into marginal niches in the shadows of the taller, 
begin to rely less and less on photosynthesis. Some become pale humus
processors, and take up the role that fungi fill on Earth. Others expand the
role of respiration. These are the Breathers.

Breather A: the leaves have become a mass of fine filaments, to maximize
contact with the air. Oxygen is directly catylized below a very flimsy outer
membrane.

Breather B: the leaves are spongy bladders. They slowly fill up during the
day. At night the oxygen is processed, and just before dawn the bladders
contract, expelling the now CO2 enriched air.

When the processes become efficient enough, some Breathers develop fast
metabolism. Some even become warm while burning! They can now grow very fast
and are well equipped to enter new niches.


10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8845 sci.astro:8417
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Age of the galaxy (was: stars & carbon)
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:45:03 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

hfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) says:
> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes...
>>> This brings to my mind the question, how old is our galaxy?

I thank you for your answers.  Since I first asked my question I have done
some reading.  Now I can ask it more clearly :-).  There are two competing
models for the dark matter that is postulated to make up the bulk of the
mass in the universe: "hot" and "cold" dark matter.  The two models predict
opposite orders to structure formation.  Hot predicts that large structures
(bigger than galaxies) are formed first, while cold predicts that small
(subgalactic) structure comes first.  It seems that if one were able to
measure the age of galaxies and other objects, just as one can measure
the ages of stars, this would provide evidence for one model or the other.

So what I want to know is, can one measure, with a minimum of cosmological
input, the ages of galaxies and other large objects?  Knowing the answer
would be very interesting.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:40:45 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
>>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
>>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
>
>Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 

Thats been done, take a look at computer recreations in last months
scientific american. I posted my own version of a genetic algorithm
both here and on comp.programming. It solves a magic square problem
in several minutes which I have no idea how to solve. If you want I
will repost it. Or post your own problem which you believe cannot
be solved by evolution.

>>                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
>>                be tested?
>
>Molecular biologists might do more work in actually proving (i.e. via
>directed mutagenesis) that it is possible for molecules to evolve through
>genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.  

Again look at artificial life research, yes it works quite well. Genetic
algorithms arn't just scientific curiousity's they are finding there
way into commercial applications.

>Creationists hypothesize that
>this is not possible for the same reason my note won't change into an 
>pro-evolution diatribe by dancing my hands over the keys in subsequent
>editions and followups to the note.  

Yes it can. All you need is a program that randomly changes it, and posts
it, if it gets flamed less then it is more fit and will be the basis
for the next post, eventually (in a few years or so), you will have a good
evolution argument.

>Hypothesis:  a better understanding of gene regulation and developmental
>controls will make today's naive posturings of evolutionism sound like
>"the greatest deceit in the history of science."  [S. L0vtrup, 1987].

Wait until your dishwasher uses genetic algorithms to determine
the best water tempature etc :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:28:33 GMT

The discussion about heavy element ("Metals" >He) production
and dispersion into the intersteller medium reminds me that
life, as we know it, consists primarily of the commonist
elements in the universe, not the rarest. If life were
so special, then why would it not rely on Gold, or some
other rare element, not Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen,
and other common elements lighter than Iron? I think that
the reason is clear, life is not special, it evolved from
the properties of substances here in abundance.

What properties would allow other elements to form the
basis for life under different circumstances. The Sci
Fi writers like to chide us for our "Carbon Bias", but
would Silicon based creatures breathing Sulfer fumes
be possible? Would low temperature superconductivity
allow some energenic schemes for life?

Bruce Salem
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Closed vs. Isolated systems
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:45:20 GMT
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL

In article <btd.712385199@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
|> 
|> 	The following paraphrased definitions courtesy of James Henley:
|> 
|> Closed System:  a system which does not exchange mass with its surroudings.
|> 
|> Isolate system:  A system isolated from its surroundings, exchanging neither
|> mass nor energy.  Entirely non-interacting with surroundings.
|> 
|> 	Mr. Henley claims to have obtained these definitions out of an
|> engineering thermodynamics book.  (Or several.)  Fine,  I'll believe him.
|> However, I would like to point out the following:
|> 
|> 1) the above definition of 'closed system' is not what I'm used to as a
|> physicist.  The above I find confusing, because I have never seen the above
|> distinction between 'closed' and 'isolated'.  However, as long as you clearly
|> define what you mean by 'closed' -- as you have -- you can define it to
|> mean whatever you want.
|> 
|> 2) I am curious to see what practical purpose there is behind the definition
|> of the 'closed' system you have above.  All of the laws of thermo I'm
|> familiar with apply to 'isolated' systems; I know of no situation where
|> the above distinction is usefuls.
|> 
|> 
|> 	By the way, Mr. Henley:  I was perhaps unnecessarily harsh in my
|> early reaction to your FAQ.  I think the main problem is that you were
|> using familiar terminology in an unfamiliar (at least to me) manner -- the 
|> way you have shown it is different from what I have seen elsewhere.  I 
|> will try to be more careful in the future.

The concept of a closed system is quite useful in the context of chemical thermodynamics.  For example, if 
I take a bunch of chemicals, put them into a sealed container, and heat that container, I will, in 
the general case, induce chemical reactions among the constutients of the system such that the free energy 
of the system is minimized at equilibrium at a given temperature.  Depending on whether the "container" is 
designed to maintain constant volume or constant pressure, either the Helmholtz or the Gibbs free energy, 
respectively, is the appropriate energy function that is minimized.
 



-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
From: jmeritt@retina.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden & Bales
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:04:53 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Originator: jmeritt@retina.mitre.org


Has anyone seen a change in the positions in the postings of either Bob Bales
or Ted Holden over the years, regardless of the number of times that they
have been demonstrated wrong?

If yes, what and when?
If no, why expect it now i.e. why argue with a rock?
-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:48:57 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>In article <schinder.711942290@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:

>You are confusing closed systems with isolated systems.  You didn't read
>the FAQ.  The definition of a closed system is a system that does not have
>mass transfer across system boundaries.  Maybe it is because of the balloon
>model?  The wall of the kind of balloon I have in mind does allow a lot of
>radiation to enter the balloon.

You remember those glass globes with a 4-vane rotator in the center?
Each vane is painted black on one side, and white on the other. When
the sun shines on it, it starts to rotate. That energy (the rotation)
is now 'available energy'. So, since you are claiming that a system
closed mass-wise cannot find it's entropy decreasing (available energy
increasing), could you please explain this, O chemistry graduate
student?

>Are you are trying to say that the earth is not a closed system because some
>sunlight gets converted into matter, thus increasing the mass of the earth?

I am not very impressed with your exposition of thermodynamics.

>Did you even read the FAQ?

Yes I did. Did you even write it? Your special definition of closed
is not to be found in any reference on thermo I have consulted. I
believe that this is something that you have copied out of
creationist literature.

In the FAQ, I mentioned energy transfer by
>electrical work, mechanical work, chemical work, radiation, convection,
>and conduction.  You are confused about what a closed system is.

Sadly, you are the one who is confused. Recall the reference to
Prigogine's nobel prize earlier? Could you please interpret his work
in terms of your peculiar definition of closed?

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
From: brinkman@edseq4.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and Bales
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:47:41 GMT


   In article <1992Jul24.120453.13656@linus.mitre.org> 
jmeritt@retina.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) asks...

>Has anyone seen a change in the positions in the postings of either Bob Bales
>or Ted Holden over the years, regardless of the number of times that they
>have been demonstrated wrong?

   Sort of.

>If yes, what and when?

   In the Holdenian infestation of early-1991 (ahh, a vintage showing), Ted
claimed that the Venerian atmosphere could be well modelled by comparing it
with the Earth's ocean.  Using this argument Ted claimed that it was obvious
that the surface of Venus must be cold, like the ocean floor, for the most
part, is.  Ted also claimed that it was obvious that the polar regions of the
Venerian surface must be significantly cooler than the equatorial regions
within the SGH model, since the only energy entering the system would be from
good ole Sol shining on Venus.

   It was pointed out to Ted that these two arguments were inconsistent.
After all, the temperature of the ocean floor on Earth does not vary
significantly as a function of latitude.  Thus, either Ted's claim that the
Venerian atmosphere was well modelled by the Earth's oceans or the claim that
such a system externally heated only at the top would necessarily have colder
poles, is false.*

   Now, after many exchanges to-and-fro, Ted finally understood (or at least
claimed to understand) that he was arguing from inconsistent bases, and should
knock it off.  If nothing else, this does demonstrate that given enough time
and re-explanation, Ted is capable of learning, provided the subject is not
one of the multitude of dogmatic beliefs he holds.

>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org

*My conclusion on which of these is false is that the Venerian atmosphere
 CANNOT be compared with the oceans of Earth.  The transmission/absorption
 spectra of H20 and C02 + H2SO4 +... are completely different.  Ted's other
 conclusion may also be false, because the ocean floor data does show that
 a fluid externally heated primarily on top may create an isothermal surface
 underlying the fluid.  This should be only secondarily effected by the
 constitution of the fluid.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:36:09 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <14ldcoINNjci@agate.berkeley.edu> utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
|Chuck, is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." a moral absolute?
|

Well, I'm not Chuck, but ...

when properly translated from the Hebrew ("You shall not commit murder"),
yes it is.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:36:49 GMT

schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes:

>In <1992Jul28.200827.7159@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:

>>I just talked to a physics professor at your university named Gary Cantini,
>>and gave him your description of why you believe that order can
>>only decrease on the earth, since, no mass enters this system, and
>>according to you, pure energy coming into a system doesn't count.
>> 

>Whoa.  I don't remember Henley ever claiming this.  In fact, I asked
>him specifically in e-mail if he agreed that a closed (his definition)
>system could decrease in entropy, and he agreed.

Then why did he just contest the veracity of this quote(email), if he actually
agrees with it? Why has he contested the analogies I have put to him to
demonstrate this point? Sorry if I have been confused, but his posts
have been confusing.

>(Maybe we should
>post our correspondence, James.)

Yes. 
>--------
>Paul J. Schinder
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov

BTW my first response to your article was flawed, because I had already
written it off line to respond to Jim, and then when I saw your article
I pasted it in there instead, and didn't edit it adequately enough. In
one place it looks like I am attributing something to you that Jim said,
and in another I forgot to edit out a statement that no longer applied.

Sorry. it was late. Mea maxima culpa

	Max
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209