HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:21:59 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International


 [authors deleted to prevent accidental misattribution]
>>>>Most thermometers that you would use to measure body temperature are
>>>>accurate to 3 digits anyway.
>>>
>>>BULLSHIT: 3 digit accuracy implies 1 part per thousand.
>>>	  You might manage 1 part per 50 (ie 2%).
>>>	  This implies tenth of a degree over a 5 degree range (37 to 42C).

BullShit yourself! 1 part per thousand is of the quantity being measured,
not relative to some arbitrary starting point (such as the triple point
of water or the lowest number on your instrument).
The fact that your instrument only reads temperatures between 37C and
42C is irrelevant. All that matters is that it is within +/-0.1K in
that range.
Let's say you measure something's temperature as 37C +/- 0.1C
That means that the temperature is between 36.9C and 37.1C
However, the total temperature is (273.15K)+(37C +/- 0.1C), or:
310.15K +/- 0.1K, which is between 310.05K and 310.25K, or better than
one part in THREE thousand!

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: mhirsch@dynastar.princeton.edu (Michael Hirsch)
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:34:59 GMT

>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 06:05:02 GMT, steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Stephen Oakes) said:

SO> Why does the sky appear blue?

Because it reflects the ocean!

[This response is stolen from Tom Weller's extremely funny book,
"Science Made Stupid."]
--


Michael D. Hirsch		mhirsch@cs.princeton.edu    
Computer Science Department	Voice: (609) 258-1751       
Princeton NJ, 08544		FAX:   (609) 258-1771
From: raudenbc@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:11:04 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <616@highett.mel.dbce.csiro.au>, steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Stephen Oakes) writes:
> Why does the sky appear blue?  I have heard that it is because water
> particles (or perhaps "air particles") have a slightly bluish tinge.
> More importantly, if it were not so, what would we see when we look
> skywards?
> 
> --
> | Stephen Oakes      CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering |
> |                    Post Office Box 56, Highett, Victoria, Australia   3190  |
> | Internet: steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au  Tel: +61 3 252 6000 Fax: +61 3 252 6249 |
> |_____________________________________________________________________________|
Sunlight entering the atmosphere encounters many small particles, which scatter
the light.  When these particles are small in relation to the wavelength of the
light, a condition known as Rayleigh scattering occurs, and the scattering is
inversely proportional to the fourth power of the wvelength of the light.
This means that short wavelengths are scattered more than long wavelengths.
The scattered short wavelength light gives the sky its blue color.  Long
wavelength light is not scattered as much, and most of it is transmitted
directly through the atmosphere to the observer, making direct sunlight
appear yellow.
From: jojo@sandman.asd.sgi.com (jojo Wesener)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Tapping soft drink cans
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:50:43 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.asd.sgi.com

Actually, back to the original subject...

If I shake a can of soda and then tap the top of the can before opening
it, the soda doesn't spray out.  A friend showed this to me a few years
back and it's always worked for me.  If I wait the same amount of time
without tapping the can, the soda sprays out.  So, I've observed this
phenomenon myself.  I haven't seen an explanation for this, only
people saying it can't possibly have any effect.

jojo
--
--jojo                                         jojo@sgi.com
	In your lifetime your heart will pump 
	enough blood to fill 13 giant cargo ships.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: hobson@mpr.ca (Darryll Hobson)
Subject: Re: Blueness
Organization: U of A
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 19:45:45 GMT

Actually, the fact that a body of water reflects the "blue sky" and that is
the only reason it is blue...  is wrong.  Common misconception.

If you consult a somewhat detailed physics book (or perhaps look in an
encyclopedia under "water" or "color" ) you will find that a water molecule,
H2O is in fact "colored" blue...  ie:  white light striking the H2O causes it
to emit a "blue" wavelength photon.
 
The reason water doesn't look blue, if it's in a shallow container, is 
similar to observing tinted glass...  if you look through 1 panel of tinted
glass...  it looks clear, if you look through a stack of 10 panels, it will 
look colored...  (probably brown).  

Just as one may ask...  how many panels of tinted glass do I have to look 
through before it "looks" brown?  A person (ie: myself, or my old grade 12
physics teacher) may wish to ask how deep water must be for it to "look"
blue...
 
Of course, the whole matter is complicated by the fact that every body of 
water we look at, is not completely H2O...  
 
Owell...
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: RADAR screens
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:21:52 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan20.172250.15906@berlioz.nsc.com>, nelson@desktop.nsc.com (Taed Nelson) writes:
=It occured to me last night that in the "real world", ie not on TV shows or
=  movies, that RADAR screens (non-computer controlled -- probably only old
=  ones) wouldn't have that line that spins in circles.  As I reason, the
=  reason that the images (the dots) remain on the screen is due to the
=  percistence [sic] of the phosphor on the screen -- timed so it's about the
=  same as one revolution of the RADAR antenae.  If that spinning line were
=  displayed, then it would also stay around for some period of time --
=  rendering the entire screen completely white/green/whatever.
=
=So, what's the scoop?  Is this some TV-lore, is there some other method, or
=  what?  It would be nice if someone knew for sure.

Ah!  A man who's never used a Tektronix strorage tube terminal!  Here's the
scoop:  For the scan line, you use a relatively low current.  The scope has a
"threshold" current, above which the image becomes persistent.  So:  If you
light the screen with a low voltage, the image disappears immediately.  If you
use a higher current, you form enough of a charge that the storage scope
displays a persistent image.  The current is, of course, controlled by the grid
of the tube.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: jojo@sandman.asd.sgi.com (jojo Wesener)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Another UL dies, plastic verus wood cutting boards.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 01:56:31 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.asd.sgi.com

I recently read a report on a study which came to the conclusion
that wood cutting boards were better than plastic cutting boards.
Studies using salmonella and other harmful bacteria showed that
when the bacteria was left on wood boards overnight, the bacteria would
die.  When the same bacteria was left on plastic boards overnight, the
bacteria counts would increase.

A news report was recently posted to one of the clarinet groups.  The
researcher's involved couldn't find any studies which claimed plastic
to be better than wood.  It all appears to be word of mouth, marketing
propaganda.

Figures,
jojo
--
--jojo                                         jojo@sgi.com
	In your lifetime your heart will pump 
	enough blood to fill 13 giant cargo ships.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: vhalkka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Vesa Halkka)
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:32:43 GMT

In <C1F1Er.E5E@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin) writes:
>>claim, the scientific community has a different definition of "3-digit
>>accuracy."  The latter definition means, as you fail to understand, "one part
>>in 1000."

>Sorry, what definition of "3-digit accuracy" do you use where, say, a
>temperature of 37.2 +/- 0.1 degrees doesn't meet the definition?  First
>poster said that medical thermometers were accurate to 3 digits; next
>poster said "bullshit"; I pointed out that I had SEEN such thermometers.
>Is there some distinction between "3 significant figures" and "3 digit
>accuracy" that I'm not aware of?  Do you insist that your thermometer
>actually HAVE a range of 1000 before you'll allow that its readings are
>accurate to within 1 part in 1000?  Carl, you've completely lost me.

a normal (cheap) medical thermometer might have a range of
32.0-44.7 giving 12.7 degrees, 127 steps, 7 bits.
-> one part in 127.

It's display has been scaled to show 0.1 degrees/bit.

Still nobody has said it's accuracy is 0.1 degrees, the digits
could be just bullshit, with a wrong gain in the input
amplifier the number could be 0.5 too small near 32
and 0.7 degrees too big near 44.

My thermometer, four digits, has a display unit of 0.01 degrees,
but the manual says:

Accuracy:
 +- 0.10 C between 32.00-42.00 C at an ambient temperature of 22.0 C

VesA
From:  (Skarn)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Blueness
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:09:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science
Organization: Inst. for Geologi, Univ. i Oslo

In article <C1JCBF.756@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com (Michael
Moroney) wrote:
> 
> Water isn't blue. The ocean appears blue because it reflects the sky.
> (look at it on a stormy day, it's gray)
> 
> -Mike

Not exactly.  Refraction of sunlight through the water must also be
considered. That is why "gin clear" water is green when shallow, and gets
more blue with depth.  Even on a cloudy day, shallow clear water looks
green (although with a decidedly grayish cast).

Adios
From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Coriolis (again!) on Pole to Pole
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:52:24 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
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.

On last night's Pole to Pole, part 5 with Michael Palin he has 
gotten halfway to his goal of the south pole -- the equator.
At the site of a burned out hotel, in Kenya, a man was
demonstrating with a rectangular tub (about 0.3 meters widest)
with a small hole at the bottom, that on one side of the equator
it emptied swirling in one direction, on the equator no swirling,
and on the other side swirling in the opposite direction.
No one, including Michael, repudiated this nor was it endorsed.
I'll have to rewatch the episode to see if they got the 
directions right. I couldn't see him giving a little start
to the process.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:44:30 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <C1665H.Ap@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin) writes:
>In article <1jjnrvINN1tq@nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de> sav@nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
>
>>>Most thermometers that you would use to measure body temperature are
>>>accurate to 3 digits anyway.
>>
>>BULLSHIT: 3 digit accuracy implies 1 part per thousand.
>>	  You might manage 1 part per 50 (ie 2%).
>>	  This implies tenth of a degree over a 5 degree range (37 to 42C).
>
>In case you hadn't noticed, a tenth of a degree on a temperature between 10
>and 99 gives you three digits of accuracy...
>
>I seem to recall reading medical thermometers to the nearest 0.1 or 0.2'F;
>I know that the digital thermometers currently in use can easily read to
>the nearest 0.1'C.

In case YOU haven't noticed (and obviously you haven't), the person to whom you
were replying pointed out that, though, within a couple of degrees of normal
human body temperature, the thermometer has [technically] the accuracy you
claim, the scientific community has a different definition of "3-digit
accuracy."  The latter definition means, as you fail to understand, "one part
in 1000."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: Freeze Dry
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:34:14 GMT

>ppxpjr@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (P.J.Rodgers) writes

>>Finally have clean room facility in case of contamination problems.  We want to
>>freeze dry Ice cream.

What the heck is dry ice cream?

Oh, you mean you want to freeze-dry ice cream.
Never mind.
-- 
Every child shall be treated with complete respect.

Glen Ecklund     glen@cs.wisc.edu   (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y
Department of Computer Sciences        1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355
University of Wisconsin, Madison       Madison, Wis. 53706  U.S.A.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: peig@maths.tcd.ie (Maighread Gallagher)
Subject: Goats floating
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:38:42 GMT

To James Stepanek,
    Have you considered a large helium balloon? Or a bunch of small ones?
I occasionally find a rocket helpful for takeoff, but a hot-air balloon has
better floating capabilities.
          Peig
From: jimwelch@ravel.udel.edu (James Miller Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: RADAR displays
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:25:50 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

The top of the line RADAR screens available today (such as FURUNO's, for
example) have a display which is a CRT, just like your computer screen, so
the whole screen, including all contacts and the scanning line, are
redrawn multiple times every second, since they are represented as pixels,
not simply as persistent phosphor glows......

They have all sorts of options, so the range rings, overall range
displayed, brightness, and display of the scanning line are all determined
by the user...  if you opt not to display the scanning line, it is still
possible to see where the antenna is by watching the objects represented
on the screen change with each pass of the antenna... One neat trick is
that they have a cursor controlled by a tracball which can tell you the
distance from you to any contact on the screen.

Most of the other skippers to whom I've talked prefer to display the scanning
line.  One reason for this is that it's possible to freeze (intentionally
or not) an image on the screen (since it's a pixel image) and the rotating
scanning line confirms that the display being seen is an active one.
-- 
Jim Welch
University of Delaware
Graduate College of Marine Studies
jimwelch@ravel.udel.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:38:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <616@highett.mel.dbce.csiro.au>, steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Stephen Oakes) writes:
>Why does the sky appear blue?

Rayleigh (sp?) scattering.

>I have heard that it is because water
>particles (or perhaps "air particles") have a slightly bluish tinge.

No.  It's scattering.  Nothing at all about a "bluish tinge" as in the
particles having a color.

>More importantly, if it were not so, what would we see when we look
>skywards?

The stars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: george@epsilon.ee.ufl.edu (George L)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: RADAR screens
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:23:35 GMT

In article <1joi1jINNt5t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1jkhpeINNi19@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
>=
>=    The screen is made of a long-persistance phosphor - but this just
>=    means that it's initially bright and decays for several seconds until
>=    it is too dim to see.  So targets the antenna has just passed are
>=    brightest, and those the antenna is about to come to have practically
>=    faded out, and those in between are of intermediate brightness.
>
>Sorry, but last time I looked, there's a second grid, right next to the
>screen, that controls whether or not the display is persistent.  At least,
>that's the way I remember a Textronix storage tube terminal working (the cursor
>didn't leave a persistent image, but any character or graphics you displayed
>would).
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
Well (not to get in the middle of this), but last time I checked, you had to 
clear major sections (usually rectangular) of the storage tube at the same 
time. Can you clear a storage tube in a cyclically rotating sweep pattern?
If you were using a storage tube, you would have to have it cleared in the 
area just ahead of the rotating sweep.

While you could probably use a storage scopein some sort of RADAR display, I 
think the display the original poster refers to does indeed rely on a 
persistent phosphor.

Just an opinion,
george@alpha.ee.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: Dave Filpus <filpus@bnr.ca>
Subject: Re: Creationist Evidence
Organization: BNR
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:22:09 GMT

In article <1jdqjhINNjnf@gap.caltech.edu> Carl J Lydick,
carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <Jan.15.16.59.52.1993.20617@zeppelin.rutgers.edu>, 
>trott@zeppelin.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:
>=I was wondering if anyone could direct me to what they might consider
>=the best resources that debunk and the best resources that endorse
>=creationism.  Specifically (here's the folklore part), I'm looking for
>=something (on the debunk side) that will not only explain why the
>=evidence for evolution is overwhelming (I already possess resources to
do
>=this) but will also point to specific examples of creationist
>="evidence" that have been discredited (such as a hoax discovery of
>=human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints, or something of that
>=nature).
>
>Ask Chris Colby in talk.origins.  Or read Stephen J. Gould's books.

Or look in sci.skeptic.  This thread surfaces occasionally there.
Dave Filpus
BNR, Inc.
filpus@bnr.ca

Opinions expressed are my own expert analysis and do not reflect those of
BNR or Northern Telcom.
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Boneheads was Re: Tapping soft drink cans
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:47:09 GMT
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.

pbwhite@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (White) writes:

>In article <mcampbel.727553725@eola.cs.ucf.edu> mcampbel@cs.ucf.edu (Mike Campbell ) writes:
>>judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
>>
>>>Does tapping the top of soft drink cans really prevent them from "exploding"
>>>when you open them, or is it a UL?
>>
>>I think this is pure poppycock.
>>
>This is almost as dumb, and almost as widespread as the "Let's slap the bottom
>of the bottle of Snapple or Veryfine or whatever"
>People think this makes the bottle easier to open (like its a big chore any
>way).  It doesn't - and It doesn't "pop the top" either like a lot of 
>people think.  You can keep slapping the damn bottom all day if you like.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shouldn't you take this to alt.sex.bondage??  (-;

Charlie


-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@koneko.shr.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
From: hobson@mpr.ca (Darryll Hobson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Blueness
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:02:00 GMT
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada

We all know that water is blue...  if you look at the ocean, it's clearly
blue (unless you're looking into one of the multitude of oil-spills now
polluting the coastlines)...
 
Anyhow...  when you pour yourself a glass of water...  it's clear.
 
Keeping in mind that water molecules have a blueness to them, how deep
would water have to be in order for it to appear 'blue' instead of 'clear' ?
 
It's a brutal question, but I remember it from one of my highschool physics
assignments... (ie:  I got it wrong)