HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfedkiw@crenshaw.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Axisymmetric Navier Stokes Equations
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:24:53 GMT

I'm trying to do a calculation of the full compressible Navier Stokes
equations for flow past an axisymmetric blunt body.
So, I put the equations into axisymmetric form and multiply
through by 1/Jacobian = r = distance from centerline (of axisymmetry).
I need to do this to put the equations back into conservative form for 
my method.
The obvious problem is that the equations are no longer valid along
the axis of symmetry (where r = 0). The Jacobian here is infinite.
I'm not quite sure what the implications of an infinite Jacobian are,
but from looking at my equations it becomes obvious that they cannot 
be used to solve the flowfield at r=0.

I was wondering what sorts of methods ae in common practice to solve
for the flowfield near r=0.
The solution is important here since this is where the flow passes
through the strongest portion of the shockwave. (It's a normal shock
at r=0 and the heating is high, also this is the where the stagnation
streamline lies.)
So, I need a good method, this might be the most important part of the flow!

Any help is greatly appreciated.

(I've thought about bounding the domain of the grid away from r=0,
 by 1/2 of a grid cell, but what boundry condition would I use?)

Ron Fedkiw

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
Newsgroups: sci.engr
From: candy@breezy.ssc.gov (Candy Robinson)
Subject: Re: P.E. licensing and reciprocity
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<1992Aug12.155348.17302@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<1992Aug13.013245.20620@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:27:51 GMT

The rules in Texas are changing this year (I think, this month). You can no
longer just have the letters of recommendation, but must take the exam. The
fee has also gone up from about $50. to about $150.
--
Candy Robinson
Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
2550 Beckleymeade Ave., MS-1002
Dallas, TX 75237
-----------------------------------------
candy@grumpy.ssc.gov
Magnet Test/Data Management Group
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: knapping (sp?)
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:10:52 GMT

 What is the point in knapping? I mean, Gee, whiz, we know what it feels
like to knapp now!! Is there any way to prove that it has any relation to
the archaeological record? What difference does it make? I mean, it sounds
like fun but wouldn't some TL dating of heat treated lithics be a little
more informative?

Wassail,
Al Billings

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Al Billings - Anthropology Undergrad - Admin for the Troth-l Mailing List | 
| SysOp of The Sacred Grove BBS (206)634-1980 -=- mimir@u.washington.edu    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

P.S. That's Socio-Cultural. I'm not an Archy major (no flames please).
From: joltes@husc10.harvard.edu (Richard Joltes)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: knapping
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:00:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug20.100006.14939
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings) writes:

> You will never know "Why" something was made or how someone felt. Those
>are not things that can be gotten from the archy record and are not things
>you can prove or disprove based on your knapping. Analysis of the
>artifacts is what is important, not how it feels to knapp a tool. What
>difference does it make? The way I was taught what Archy I have been
>taught (here at the U of Washington) is to use the scientific method and
>stick to the sort of things that are falsifiable or not. Knapping doesn't
>fall into that catagory. You know what it is like for YOU to knapp but
>there is no guarantee (and no way to prove) that that has anything to do
>with knapping in prehistory.

No, you'll never know "exactly" how someone felt when knapping a point, but it
is valid to undergo the experience for a variety of reasons.  First, you'll
get an idea what kind of shards are generated during the process, which can be
valuable since you'll spot evidence of such in a dig that much more quickly.
Second, you get an idea of the type of rocks used as tools--shape, size, and
other factors, and be more able to spot them as well.  The process also gives
an idea of about how long it would take to create a given item using only the
technology of the time.  Additionally, you learn about the texture and feel
of flints that would or would not make good points, thus allowing you to 
determine flint beds/deposits/outcroppings that might be likely places to look
for evidence of occupation.

Also, however, it *is* valid to examine something based on "how would this
person have felt" since otherwise we're just a bunch of 20th century scholars
making conjectures based on 20th century ideas.  Trying to get "inside the
head" of a Hellenic king, or a neolithic nomad or any other historical figure
is essential, otherwise we end up interpreting based on our culture instead of
reconstructing the one we're investigating.

The scientific method is important.  Otherwise, we can't verify anything since
there are no accepted procedures.  But intuition and other non-scientific
factors are just as important for success in this field--or in any other.

All IMHO, of course.  Flames aren't expected (this is a sci. group) but good
informed discussion is!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Joltes						joltes@husc.harvard.edu
Hardware & Networking Manager, Computer Services 	joltes@husc.bitnet 
Harvard University Science Center

"Mind you, not as bad as the night Archie Pettigrew ate some
sheep's testicles for a bet...God, that bloody sheep kicked him..."
From: ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: knapping
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:30:26 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

joltes@husc10.harvard.edu (Richard Joltes) writes:
)mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings) writes:

)> You will never know "Why" something was made or how someone felt. Those
)>are not things that can be gotten from the archy record and are not things
)>you can prove or disprove based on your knapping. Analysis of the
)>artifacts is what is important, not how it feels to knapp a tool. What
)>difference does it make? The way I was taught what Archy I have been
)>taught (here at the U of Washington) is to use the scientific method and
)>stick to the sort of things that are falsifiable or not. Knapping doesn't
)>fall into that catagory. You know what it is like for YOU to knapp but
)>there is no guarantee (and no way to prove) that that has anything to do
)>with knapping in prehistory.

)No, you'll never know "exactly" how someone felt when knapping a point, but it
)is valid to undergo the experience for a variety of reasons.  First, you'll
)get an idea what kind of shards are generated during the process, which can be
)valuable since you'll spot evidence of such in a dig that much more quickly.
)Second, you get an idea of the type of rocks used as tools--shape, size, and
)other factors, and be more able to spot them as well.  The process also gives
)an idea of about how long it would take to create a given item using only the

:
:

Simulations are a very very important part of modern science.  The
variety that is directly done by man is much more useful than the kind
done by computer.

Interpretation of the results is more direct, natural, accurate, and USEFUL.
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Dates of Dead Sea Scrolls
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:10:30 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

I've read several articles recently which said that some of the Dead Sea
Scrolls have been radio carbon dated. I gather that the scholars who
held the mainstream view of their dates are all patting themselves
on the back saying what clever fellows they were, but none the
articles actually said what the results of the dating were.
Does anyone know what dates were assigned to the scrolls that
were tested?

-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre| E-Mail       b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury          | or         cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand         | Phone +64 3 364-2331 Fax +64 3 364-2332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dbsjwb@Edm.Arco.COM
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Southwest USA GIS effort
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:03:13 GMT
Reply-To: bielak@arco.com
Organization: ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
Originator: dbsjwb@doofus


Can anyone point out a person or place interested in tracking 
Anasazi cultural artifacts using Geographical Info System(s)?

Thanks in advance,

jwb


-- 
bielak@Arco.COM             ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
james.bielak@Edm.Arco.COM   2300 W. Plano Parkway PRC-D1139A
(214) 754-6184              Plano, TX 75075
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: pat@mtl.mit.edu (Patricia E. Varley)
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:53:58 GMT



I'm a little surprised no one on this bb has brought up a
solution that is routine in our university archaeology lab.
Unless I was mislead, the answer is in the skeletal remains
and, in particular, the scapula.

We were given a set of partial remains of skeletons of persons
who were known to be right-handed or left-handed.  (In addition,
we were also given ancient (?) skeletal remains for examination.)
We were asked a series of questions including which ones were
left-handed or right-handed.  Now this occurred at the beginning
of the course.  Whether we were right or wrong was immaterial.
The point of our exercise was for our professor to see how we had
arrived at our individual conclusions.

The scapula will change size and thickness becoming thinner and
broader (noticeably) on the side one uses most.  This was true
even with the individuals who had only lived to about 10-15
years of age.  Even the act of writing will produce noticeable
results.  However, we were told by the doctor (from the OTHER
;-) university) that even individuals who can not write will
show these results.

Other areas of wear will show on the shoulder, ulna, and other
bones of the arm depending on what kinds of stresses are put on 
it.  Bone will wear under ordinary stresses of evryday life,
but these wear marks were very noticeable even to the untrained
eye.

Has anyone experienced this in their comparative primate
anatomy class?  Does anyone have any references to support or
refute these points.  Its been so long since I took that
course that I forget the references.

Pat
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson)
Subject: Working on digs in Isreal + Egypt
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:20:53 GMT

Hi, my name is Michel Robinson.  I am an engineering student working at the 
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.  I am planning a trip to 
Israel and Egypt in about July 1993.  I am looking to work on archeological 
sites in either country and would appreciate any information about who to 
contact, procedures to follow, existing and available projects etc.

Thank you in anticipation.

Michael.
PS. Please mail me personally since my news feed is erratic.
Robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu (Eugene Powell)
Subject: walled settlements
Followup-To: Where are remnants of ancient walls  
Summary: Egyptian monuments  
Originator: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu
Keywords: Demolition of structures, life of architecture  
Organization: Dept. of Entomology - NCSU, Raleigh, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:03:26 GMT

 To follow a thread about searches for fortifications, city walls, and
evidence of construction of particular types from ancient cultures, may
I add that much material for building has been gleaned from extant piles
of rubble (structures fallen into disrepair). It seems in Egypt it was
common, indeed even accepted practice to pillage unused buildings when
a source of material was needed. What is more interesting to me is
information I have read concerning the reverance Egyptian priests held
for certain buildings. Apparently some buildings at construction were
planned with a finite life; at the end of a predetermined length of time
a structure was partially demolished, and in some cases systematically
disassembled. perhaps people learned in this way that in some cases it
was ok to dismantle a perfectly good structure if a better purpose was
deemed appropriate for using the stone(usually). Often richer classes
of people built more substantial structures thereby causing 'commoners'
to resent their ability to do so, inspiring enthusiasm for demolition.
To really appreciate organized razing, one need only read of what great
efforts were made by some pharoahs to expunge the record of the
existence of their predecessors. In the case of Anketaton (I'm sure I
misspelled that name), his entire city was systematically destroyed,
chipped into small blocks (talatats?) , and used as filling material
in other pylons. In this way was a good deal of info left for the
archaeologists if they can ever reassemble them. I would submit that
material from city walls would be the first to go when used in this
way, or upon the attempt to raze an enemy's fortifications.
From: woody@knapper.cactus.org (Woody Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: handed ness
Date: 17 Aug 1992 13:06:22 -0500
Organization: Aurora Contracting
Reply-To: "Woody Baker" <woody@knapper.cactus.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Perhaps you could also consider that the "dents" in the baboon skulls
might have been inflicted from behind?  This of course is quite likely,
and would invalidate the conclusions.

As for knapping.  I have a friend who is a left handed knapper.  There are
small but subtle diffrences in his points.  If you take a point knapped by
a right handed person, you will generaly find that the pressure flake 
scars are slightly diffrent along the edges.  Most knappers work from 
base to tip.  When you run one set of flakes, then flip the point upside down,
you run another set of flakes on the opposite side, AND the opposite edge.
If you are bevel-resharpening the blade, that would be  the final edge.
So on resharpened points, it is indeed easy to tell a left-handed knappers
work from a right hander.  On a smooth biface, the clues are a lot subtler,
but generaly, the edge that is flaked first will have longer flakes thant
the second edge that is flaked.  That is, you can look at the face of a blank,
and generaly, you will find that the right handed knapper's flakes will
be longer on the right hand side of the face, than on the other.  The best
way to determine this, is to find you a left handed knapper, and look at his
work. (grin).  My points tend to have a slight twist to them, if I am not really
taking my time, and I've seen the same slight twist in other knappers work,
so that is something else to look at.

On another topic, I have been continuing my experimenting with micacious
ware.  I have samples from 2 diffent mica operations.  One turns colors, from
clear through brown-boronze-gold, depending on the temprature.  The latest
round of stuff however, merely turns a much paler white, and loses some of
it's fish scale look, all the way to cone 6 (no color change).  Seems that
not all mica's are the same.

Cheers
Woody
-- 
Woody Baker Postscript consultant/Flint knapper  512-837-8317 (Austin, Tx)

"If you ain't bleedin' you ain't knappin'" ---> go ahead, ask me...

woody@knapper.cactus.org
woody@chinacat.unicom.com (temporary) is forwareded to woody@knapper
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
From: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu (Eugene Powell)
Subject: Dead Sea scrolls
Summary: Dating  
Originator: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu
Keywords: Writing style, content  
Organization: Dept. of Entomology - NCSU, Raleigh, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:16:26 GMT

 I was underthe impression that dating of the Dead Sea scrolls had been estimated
after determining writing style and content. I'm not aware of carbon
dating or other methods, but I believe it is the general feeling of
scholars of the subject, of which I am not, that the scrolls range
from first century B.C.E. to fourth century AD. My source is "The
Dead Sea Scrolls in English"(sorry can't remember author). Whether
some scrolls are copied from earlier texts is a much debated topic,
and I would guess hard to ascertain.
From: woody@knapper.cactus.org (Woody Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: knapping
Date: 18 Aug 1992 14:21:39 -0500
Organization: Aurora Contracting
Reply-To: "Woody Baker" <woody@knapper.cactus.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

This one caught my eye.... :)

>Al Billings writes:

> What is the point in knapping? I mean, Gee, whiz, we know what it feels
>like to knapp now!! Is there any way to prove that it has any relation to
>the archaeological record? What difference does it make? I mean, it sounds
>like fun but wouldn't some TL dating of heat treated lithics be a little
>more informative?


I certainly hope that this is tounge-in-cheek.  Knapping is trmendously 
important.  You can't BEGIN to appreciate an artifact until you have tried 
to reproduce one.  Flint knapping has progressed from the TARZAN of the
APES horse puckey, to a fairly well understood art.  One can study lithic
debitage, and points for ever, and not really get a feel for how they were
made, and why.

The aboriginals heat treated flint to make it easier to work.  For a long 
time people thought that something that sophisticated was beyond the abo
knowlege base and abilities.  How and why were points fluted? How were
Andice points made?  The questions could go on and on.  Experimental 
flint knapping sheds tremendous light on these questions, and archaeology
also sheds light on flint knapping.  (We know how certain points were
made by looking at the debitage).  Flaking patterns on tools tell how
they were made (different technologies left different scars and so forth.


Cheers
Woody

-- 
Woody Baker Postscript consultant/Flint knapper  512-837-8317 (Austin, Tx)

"If you ain't bleedin' you ain't knappin'" ---> go ahead, ask me...

woody@knapper.cactus.org
woody@chinacat.unicom.com (temporary) is forwareded to woody@knapper
From: indiana@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: C-14 and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:39:52 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review):"The probability that the document falls 
within the black bar (or bars) is 68 %.
   BAR considers that "in general the C-14 tests appear substantially to
validate the paleographic dating." (Outstanding exception:Testament of Kohath.)
   The Swiss lab speculates that "chemical contamination" affected the results
on the Testament of Kohath, but don't explain how. "They point out that C-14
dating from the Kohath sample cleaned ultrasonically differed by about 350 years
from the date provided by the sample cleaned both ultrasonically and chemically.
In no other case did they get the difference between samples subjected to
differing cleaning procedures."
   2 publications, presumably with the definitive data:
1.George Bonani (the helpful one), Magen Broshi (the curator), Israel Carmi (the
P professor), Susan Ivy, John Strugnell, Willy Wolfli :"Radiocarbon Dating of 
  the Dead Sea Scrolls", 'ATIQOT 20 (July 1991), pp 27-31.
2.George Bonani, Susan Ivy, Willy Wolfli, Magen Broshi, Israel Carmi, and John
  Strugnell, "Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls", RADIOCARBON,
  forthcoming (1991).

Has anyone news of Iridium-testing, as to what might have been tested, etc.???
From: rcox@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Cox)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Bows and arrows in different cultures
Keywords: Bows and arrows Nth America, Europe, China...
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:25:00 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

I am not an archaeologist but I have long wondered whether the use of
bows and arrows developed independently in such diverse cultures as
North American natives, Chinese, Europeans...?

Richard Cox
rcox@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk
From: rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:52:44 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

Forgive me for not stating any references (I'm at work and haven't them
handy), but as I recall, some of the early work in southern Africa
bears on the right-left handedness. (I want to say it's Raymond Dart's
work, but I can't be sure.)

This work involved skulls of baboons that had been bashed (presumably by
Australopithecines and presumably with a blunt instrument). The 
percentages of baboon skulls with dents on their left side (indicating
a strike by a right handed agent) vs. those with dents on their right
side (indicating a left handed agent) mirrored current day percentages
of right handed and left handed people.

Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
From: miliu@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (zaphod beeblebrox)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: left-handedness
Date: 17 Aug 92 03:34:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug15.165244.123@news.uwyo.edu> rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky) writes:
>This work involved skulls of baboons that had been bashed (presumably by
>Australopithecines and presumably with a blunt instrument). The 
>percentages of baboon skulls with dents on their left side (indicating
>a strike by a right handed agent) vs. those with dents on their right
>side (indicating a left handed agent) mirrored current day percentages
>of right handed and left handed people.

All this is assuming that the confrontation between the two was
frontal?  I recall reading somewhere that stone tool shapes
facilitate ambidexterity.

			Zaphod 
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology