HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:07:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: shamash.46427
Reply-To: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Distribution: na
Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc

In article <1992Aug13.174343.17890@pony.Ingres.COM>, bobm@Ingres.COM (Bob McQueer) writes:
|> BTW, I'm not reccomending Clarke's show ("Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World"?
|> I'm not sure of the title).  It had its interesting bits, but was terribly
|> uneven, and Clarke was no James Burke.  Hasn't run in several years anyway.

It's on the Discovery channel on Tuesday nights right after Terra-X (another
wonderful show IMHO :-) at 8:30 CST(??)

-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME               "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL_PRIMARY           "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
#define EMAIL_SECONDARY         "pbd@power1.cim.cdc.com"
/*** Most humans are living examples of koyaanisqatsi ***/
From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (dogbowl)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Lava Lamps!
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 06:36:14 NZT
Organization: The Dawghaus BBS

musjjh@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes:

> 
>  Yo Folks!
>  
>  I recently became the proud owner of a LAVA LAMP!
>  
>  (you know, one of those glowing glass cylinders from the '60's which
>  contained a perpetually ooozing goo).
>  
>  Does anyone know what the innards of a Lava Lamp contains? The clear
>  fluid in which the goo oozes looks like a thick oil, and the goo itself
>  when it cools and congeals looks like some sort of wax.
>  
>  Any suggestions?
>  
>  Expiring Minds Want To Know.....
>  

I got given one recently too.

I think the 'wax' is oil based, and the clear liquid water based with 
something added to lessen the specific gravity.

My one was stored on its side for a while, and lost some of the clear 
liquid. The (then) owner topped it up with water, and it's necer worked 
since. ( The waxy stuff doesn't bubble up, it just sort of sits there in 
a perpetual wave, almost-but-not-quite bubbling free. Also, it now sticks 
to the glass)

Any information on resurrecting it to its former glory would be much  
appreciated.....


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


Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
Reply-To: baylor@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 16:33:56 GMT

In article <1321@uknet.ac.uk>, tlg@uknet.ac.uk (Tim.Goodwin) writes:
>
>Caveat: the only thing I've read on this is Berkeley's "Towards a new
>theory of vision", which is, uh, probably a little out of date.  BTW,
>his explanation is that the brain correlates clarity with distance.
>When the moon is high in the sky, there's less atmosphere in the way, so
>the image is sharper, so the brain thinks it's further away.
>
Everyone here is making the same mistake. If the moon subtends the 
same angle, and you think that it is further away, then you would 
perceive its size as LARGER, not smaller. (Below is the best ASCII
picture I can come up with:

x--o vs x----O

where X represents the position of the eye, and I have no way to  draw the
actual angles, but have made the distances proportionate.)

With my eyesight, I'd certainly think that the sharper image was closer,
and the rest of your argument is valid with this correction.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Lightning and trees.
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: mstemper@ems.cdc.com's message of 11 Aug 92 20:22:59 GMT

In article <18849@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper) writes:

> 1. Electrical shock - The current travels through the tree to the ground
> and then spreads out radially. V = IR says that there will be a potential
> difference (voltage drop) between any two points that are differing
> distances from the center of the tree. In the power industry, this is
> called a "step potential". If your feet are at two differing potentials,
> there will be a voltage across them, causing current to flow up one leg,
> through whatever it might find along the way, and down the other one.
> Why not just stand so that both feet are exactly the same distance away
> from the tree? Trees are not perfectly circular, the ground is not a
> uniform conductor, etc.

> 2. Associated physical traumas - When lightning hits a living tree, it
> causes Ohmic heating in large amounts of the water that makes up 90% of
> the tree. This water is brought nearly instantaneously to a temperature
> well above the boiling point. This causes it to explode. Do you want to
> be around? On the other hand, when lightning strikes a dead tree, it
> starts on fire. Do you want to be around?

Add number three.  Actually, put this one first.  If 
lightening strikes a tree, which it tends to do with
some preference, and it destroys part of it, like at
a major joint, what do you suppose happens to the part,
that large and weighty part, of the tree that is no
longer supported by that joint?  Can you say "timber!"
Where do you want to be when a tree falls down?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Water ionization via magnetism?
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:33:29 GMT
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:

: I remember many moons ago a blurb on the radio about replacing your
: costly water softener with a super-duper high power magnet.  It was
: supposed to do the same thing by just sitting on your pipes.

Most, if not all, of the stuff that softeners take out of the water
isn't magnetic, so I don't see how a magnet is going to do any good.
I don't think a magnet even has much affect on dissolved iron or iron
oxides.  If you actually have chunks of iron crystals suspended in the
water I suppose a magnet might trap them.

: Right now I live in an apartment that spits bricks out of the shower
: head.  Even if the magnet would ionize 10% of the water, I would use
: it.  So is there any truth to this?

You can't ionize anything with a magnet can you??

But, we all know that taping stomach magnets to the fuel line in your
car will increase your milage by %800.   

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Are you mentally here
Rosemount Inc.                                |at Pizza Hut??
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: $50,000 Divining Rods!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 05:03:52 GMT


Why not?  I once bought a four foot oaken (I think) stick for $15.  I'm
thinking of having it engraved or something. 

Big Al.  It was at the rennisance festival.  On my birthday.  I needed a
walking stick.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Seriously, microwave health risks?
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:15:44 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <BETSYS.92Aug21163628@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>One thing I have heard, and maybe you folks can shed some luminescence
>on this, is that one should wait 30 seconds after removing food from
>the microwave so that the microwaves can "settle down."
>  Do microwaves "bounce around" inside food for a while? Or, will food
>continue to heat up for a few seconds after the machine is stopped?
>  thanks, Betsy
>--
>System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
>MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
>100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
>Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....

  In 30 seconds, a microwave will travel approximately 9 million kilometers.
If the microwave always takes the longest possible path in your oven, and your
oven is very big, it will bounce off the walls about 20 million times.  One
would think that somewhere in there, it would hit the food and be absorbed.

  In other words, by the time the little fan stops humming, the microwaves
are gone.


-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
From: RMG@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Lightning and trees.
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:10:55 GMT
 <1992Aug12.050555.20089@cco.caltech.edu> <govender.713710105@shannon>
 <1992Aug14.121756.26708@cl.cam.ac.uk>,<RFowler.330@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <1992Aug14.162319.12265@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

I think that the safest place to be, should a thunderstorm happen to blow
your way, is to get into a car with a metal roof.  Then, stay inside until
the storm is past.  Should lightning hit the car, the current will flow
around you, rather than through you.  Even the current effects which would
get you if you were flat on the ground will not get to you, as the current
will flow through a relatively good conductor (the metal car) and you would
not be part of that path.

If lightning does strike the car, then the thing to do is to stay put inside
until the residual charge has been bled off.  This is because when the
lightning hits the car, a spark jumps across the tires from the rims
to ground, leaving a residual charge of many thousand volts on the car.
This residual charge could be lethal to you as you climb out.  There is a
technique to discharging a charged car, but a person inside the car probably
will not be able to do it.

Bob     :-)

The usual disclaimers:  I am not speaking for the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center, the DOE, or Stanford University.  I may not even be speaking for
myself!
From: bresler@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Leo Bresler)
Subject: Re: Sparking grapes
Followup-To: sci.chem
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:45:02 GMT

Hi, everybody!

I have no explanation of this, but I conducted similar experiment with grapes.
If you place whole grape(with seads) into a microwave, it stats shooting with
seads.

I suspect it has some electro-magnetic nature. Microwave probably induces
circular current inside the grape, which makes it to speat the seeds out.

It's definitely interesting to here the expert's opinion.
								Leo.
============================================================================
Leo Bresler (bresler@nwu.edu) , Dept. of Chem. Eng., Northwestern University
2145 N. Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL  60208, USA.     Phone (708) 467-1754

Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3056 sci.chem:3089
From: pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Sparking grapes
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:04:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.ceYYPuW00Uh781R4Mj
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Why not stop posting so many guesses on why split grapes sparkle in a
microwave and do some experiments?  Let's see some science.

PJK
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.183551.9077@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:
>
> try this : the visual portion of the brain has gotten used to thinking that
> things higher up are farther away.  The brain assists by (subconsciously)
> enlarging the (sun/moon) when it's low, while similarly when we tilt our
> heads up (higher, more vertical) the brain shifts the perceived image size
> to smaller.  Our visual system is probably tied with the inner ear to sense
> head position.  comments? flames ?

Nah.  Probably has a whole lot more to do with all the atmosphere between our
eyes and the sun/moon on the horizon distorting the size.  At least that's
what I remember from 8th-grade science class.

Test of the Dave and Carrie Theorems:  photograph the moon at moonrise and
again at its apex.  If the photos show different sizes, then the Carrie
Theorem has evidence (the light reflected by the moon is as distorted for the
camera as it is for our eyes); if the photos show the same size, then the
Dave Theorem has evidence (the camera doesn't have a brain affected by tilt).


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Of life the mingled wine and brine I sit and sip pipslipsily." - Anon. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Aug13.014852.10681@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>  For the record:  if you really believe that you can detect underground
>or otherwise hidden metallic objects using bent wires (which colloquially
>would be called "dowsing", although one correspondent restricts that word
>to detection of water) then you should contact James Randi, who will gladly
>award you a prize of $10,000 upon proof of this ability.
>
>  Reminder:  Randi has tested quite a few dowsers before, and they have
>universally failed under controlled conditions.

Please note that Randi's offer is in abeyance until he recovers financially
from the costs of defending the lawsuit brought against him by Uri Geller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.183038.23505@unixg.ubc.ca> dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca (Derek K. Miller) writes:
>In article <1321@uknet.ac.uk> tlg@uknet.ac.uk (Tim.Goodwin) writes:
>>In article <uuefcmu@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>>Nah.  Probably has a whole lot more to do with all the atmosphere between our
>>>eyes and the sun/moon on the horizon distorting the size.  At least that's
>>>what I remember from 8th-grade science class.
>>
>>I thought the whole point was that the angle subtended by the moon's
>>diameter is the same, it just looks different.
>>
>>>Test of the Dave and Carrie Theorems:  photograph the moon at moonrise and
>>>again at its apex.  If the photos show different sizes, then the Carrie
>>>Theorem has evidence (the light reflected by the moon is as distorted for the
>>>camera as it is for our eyes); if the photos show the same size, then the
>>>Dave Theorem has evidence (the camera doesn't have a brain affected by tilt).
>>
>>I believe that the photographs will show the same size.  Has anyone
>>tried this?  Be neat if someone could take the photographs, feed the
>>results into a scanner, and post them here.
>
>Uh, there's an easy way to test this. Stick your arm out and cover the moon
>with your thumb. You can. You can also do the same with it over your head.
>In fact, try it with the sun at midday. No photos necessary. And we know
>that the Dave and Carrie Theorem is false.

This test is worthless (a new motto for afs???). Your thumb subtends a greater
angle when held over your head than when held straight out from your body
parallel to the ground, simply because it's closer to your eyes. Your arm
is the same length in either position, of course, but because your shoulder
joint is below your eyes, raising your arm over your head brings your thumb
closer to your eyes, by a matter of inches...

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. I just can't resist sticking my
oar in...

Later,

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: djr@vthnw.cvm.msu.edu (Dan Redder)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: loch ness (to be or not be)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:02:47 GMT
Organization: Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Michigan State Univ.


I saw a news snippet of some commercial(?) vessel heading for the loch to 
"test its new sensory equipment," not to search for nessy....  I haven't
heard anything else....

Dan
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:18:50 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:


>   try this : the visual portion of the brain has gotten used
>   to thinking that things higher up are 
>   farther away. 

>   The brain assists by (subconsciously) enlarging the
>   (sun/moon) when it's low. While similarly when we
>   tilt are heads up (higher, more verticle) the brain shifts the
>   perceived image size
>   to smaller. Our visual system is probably tied with the inner
>   ear to sense head position.

>   comments? flames ?
>   dave

One reference I read went through a bunch of talk to finally end up saying
that, really, no one really understood this.  I should have thought that if
the phenomenon were related to cognitive matters like high versus low,
things on the horizon would look small because far away.  The best
suggestion in the article in question had to do with the processing of lines
and circles that seemed to the visual system equally distant and close
together --- but I can't remember what it was!  The point here is the
article came up with convincing arguments why it wasn't cognitive (e.g.
comparing the size of the moon with the size of adjacent objects; higher
objects are farther away; etc).  Wish I had a reference!

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Lightning and trees.
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:43:54 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

RMG@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>I think that the safest place to be, should a thunderstorm happen to blow
>your way, is to get into a car with a metal roof.  Then, stay inside until
>the storm is past.  Should lightning hit the car, the current will flow
>around you, rather than through you.  Even the current effects which would
>get you if you were flat on the ground will not get to you, as the current
>will flow through a relatively good conductor (the metal car) and you would
>not be part of that path.

I wouldn't count on it... The dangers of lightning strike are greater than
just exposure to the intense electric field. Most vehicle bodies these days
are very light guage metal, during a lightning strike there is a risk of
vapourising parts of the car body, exposing the occupants to burns from
flash, ear damage from concussion, flying bits of molten car body, toxic
fumes from incinerated plastics etc, etc.

A tank would be a better bet...

--
Geoff, Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 [4 Lines]
                               Voice: +64 (3) 3852101
        "Hi. You have just entered the fourth dimension. Small isn't it?"
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:3016 alt.folklore.urban:21404
From: rvs@parst1.UUCP (Roelof van Suilichem)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Microwaved cat explodes
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:17:44 GMT
Organization: Paradigm Systems Technology

In article <Bso8Gq.K0y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.175551.16820@Cadence.COM> vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni) writes:
>>    What would be _really_ sick would be to take a cat, a very small 
>>    puppy, a six inch section of sheep's intestines, three slugs 
>>    (softened a bit with a cheese grater) and a furball, and jam them all 
>>    into a blender, set it on "pulverize" and then, after starting the 
>>    high-speed camera, let it rip, watching closely, and perhaps saying
>>    "nice kitty, nice kitty" a few times in a warm, _comformting_ voice, 
>>    as it tears into the cat's flesh. Eventually, after a smooth milky 
>>    consistancy is achieved, turn the machine off, get the film developed, 
>>    and then show the whole thing _backwards_ to a group of pre-school 
>>    children, and tell them that that's where cats come from. 
>>
>>    Now _that_ would be _really_ sick...

>And it would be a snuff film! 

<bzzzzzzzzt> !!
Nope!
... it would be a ffuns film.
Furrfu.

/*------------------------------------------------*\
| Roelof J. van Suilichem | Email: rvs@parst1.uucp |
|-------------------------| Snail: P. O. Box 75026 |
| and please don't send   |        Lynnwood Ridge  |
| any post-cards either   |        0040            |
|                         |        South Africa    |
\*------------------------------------------------*/
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: why the moon/sun looks bigger -new expl.
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:46:37 GMT

In article <l70nb341@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.183038.23505@unixg.ubc.ca> dkmiller@unixg.ubc.ca (Derek K. Miller) writes:
|> >Uh, there's an easy way to test this. Stick your arm out and cover the moon
|> >with your thumb. You can. You can also do the same with it over your head.
|> >In fact, try it with the sun at midday. No photos necessary.
|> 
|> This test is worthless (a new motto for afs???). Your thumb subtends a greater
|> angle when held over your head than when held straight out from your body
|> parallel to the ground, simply because it's closer to your eyes.


It's easy to maintain the same eye-to-thumb distance if you try.  Make
sure when you look at a moon when it's high in the sky that you maintain
(roughly) the same relative angle between your extended arm and head by
bending your torso back.  

Those that are still skeptical can use a yardstick with a perpendicular
notched cardboard scale attached the far end of it.  Hold the yardstick
up to some convenient part of your face near one eye and sight down it
like one might aim a rifle.  Comparing how many (arbitrary, if you wish)
units the moon substends on the home-made scale you have affixed to the
far end of the yardstick both when the moon is low and high should help
you "see the light" once and for all ...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science