HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Avogadro Number
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:15:53

In article <foo> "Stephen M. Lacy" <sl31+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
   Excerpts from netnews.alt.folklore.science: 11-Dec-92 Avogadro Number by
   Guntur N Balaji@andrew.c 
   > Just wondering how Avogadro got to his number.  6.023E23 atoms....

   One more curious question, what EXACTLY is Avogadro's number?  It only
   has 24 digits, right?  (since we can't have < 1 atom)  I've never seen
   it anywhere, although I don't have access to Physics or Chemistry CRC's.

Well -- actually, there's no limit at all to the number of digits.  
The reason is that Avogadro's Number is a conversion factor between units,
rather than a specific count of something.  If you worked it out to the
last atom, exactly how many carbon-12 atoms it took to make a gram, then,
using the same conversion factor, you'd end up with some fraction of a 
proton left over if you then weighed out exactly a gram of hydrogen.

--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:59:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.202554.29968@cs.odu.edu> carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr) writes:
>...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
>each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
>been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
>Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
>if the 2/3 answer were correct?

No, because the same rules do not apply. The 2/3 answer is based on the
assumption that the host always opens an unchosen door to reveal a goat. You
can't always do that if there is more than one player, unless you add more
doors and more goats.

However, you can analyze it this way. You have three players, and each chooses
a different door. Now, take them out of the room and bring back just one at a
time to play the game by the standard rules, so that no one gains information
from the play of the others. Let's say the car is behind door B, and all three
contestants are using the "switch" strategy.

	1. First contestant has door A. Host reveals goat behind C.
	   Contestant switches to door B and wins.

	2. Second contestant has door B. Host reveals goat behind A
	   or C (doesn't matter which). Contestant switches and loses.

	3. Third contestant has door C. Host reveals goat behind A.
	   Contestant switches to door B and wins.

There you have it. You still win 2/3 of the time by switching.

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Hot Water flow mystery.
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:47:49 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

check@dbsun.uucp (checkett) writes:

>I have a question that bothers me every morning. I wake up and go to the john
>to have a shave and turn on the hot water full blast. Over the next 20-30
>seconds the water temperature goes from freezing to quite hot as desired. 
>The problem is that the flow rate of the water drops off as the temp goes up. 
>If I don't touch the faucet the flow nearly stops. What is happening? 
>I assume it has something to do with the expansion/contraction of the pipes 
>in response to the temp. Any good plumbers out there?
>One more thing, the pipes start to scream as the water gets hotter but if
>I increase the flow by turning the knob the noise disappears.


>Dave Shine, St. Louis, MO

Not an expert opinion:  It's not your pipes, it's the faucet changing.  I had
this happen with my old cold-water faucet, until I replaced it.  So it might
not even be heat-related.  Perhaps there is some slack in the parts and
the water pressure slowly moves them.
The scream is probably caused by the faucet, too.  If it vibrates, it's likely
to vibrate the pipes.
Try turning off the water heater for a day, and see if it still happens.
Or try it after somebody has used up all the hot water with a long shower.
-- 
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.
From: carr@fog.cs.odu.edu (Eric Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Monty Hall / Shell Game / Dixie Cups
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va

...But suppose there were, for every time the door was opened, TWO players
each standing in front of one of the doors. (The third player having already
been disappointed by being told he/she was the proud owner of a goat.)
Wouldn't BOTH of these players supposedly statistically benefit from switching,
if the 2/3 answer were correct?

	The logic seemed OK to me until I thought of this aspect... Now I'm
truly confused! 8-) I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this facet of
the problem. I don't really care if I'm right or wrong -- I'd just like to know.

 
                                        Eric Carr
                                -- The Cyber Linguist --
				 carr@xanth.cs.odu.edu

-- 

					Eric Carr
				-- The Cyber Linguist --
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Avogadro Number
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:04:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.195146.28828@u.washington.edu>, godden@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Godden) writes:
> 
> OK, that all makes sense, but when/who/how (particularly how) did grace
> us with 6.02e23?  How do you go about counting the number of carbon atoms
> in 12 grams?  Light scattering?  Osmotic theory?  Those all seem too 
> insensitive for the number of decimal points I've seen quoted.
> 
 Perrin measured the diffusion coefficient of Brownian particles and applied
 the Stokes-Einstein equation. This isn't very precise since, among other
 things, it assumes that the Brownian particle is a sphere - but it did get
 him a Nobel Prize in 1926.

 Nowadays the way to go is to measure the masses of individual atoms (or
 rather, ions) in ion traps. (Measure the frequency and radius of cyclotron
 motion). The precision of such measurements is fantastic - people are
 seriously talking about measuring the relativistic mass difference associated
 with electronic excited states of atoms.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: redmond+@cs.cmu.edu (Redmond English)
Subject: Car Batteries die in the Winter - Why?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:28:29 GMT


Hello,

  My car battery just up and died the other day.  I have been
informed that this happens a lot in the winter, but I can't
think of any reasonable explanation.

  Any ideas?

                             Red/.
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Long hair causes boldness???
Keywords: hair, long, gravitypull, boldness
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:42:27 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

allister@gphs.vuw.ac.nz (Allister J. Gorman) writes:

>I have never had long hair, and I have only recently started wearing
>hats and I am going bald.  I think genes have a lot more to do with it
>than these two factors.  It is hard for me to think of a male in my
>extended family (except non-genetically linked) older than me (27) who
>isn't bald or going bald.

>Allister J. Gorman, <allister.gorman@vuw.ac.nz>.

>P.S. I have only started wearing hats to keep the sun off my sensitive
>head now that there is less hair protecting it.

>P.P.S. I wouldn't worry about going bald too much, there are much more
>important things to spend your time worrying about!
>
Hey, another Gorman. Wonder if we're related somewhere? My dad was 
adopted but Gorman is his real name and his dad came from Oz, but that's
another story. This hat and long hair causing baldness is obviously a
complete load of bollocks otherwise most girlies would be bald dead young
wouldn't they? I mean, Crystal Gail's hair has been 6ft long (taller than
her) for god knows how many years and it's still there. It is, as you say,
I believe, in the genes. 

PS I've got loads so we probably aren't related.
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Monty Hall/Shell Game..
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:03:50 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology


I can't believe we are going through this again, but I suppose it is
somewhat educational.

In <X382VB1w164w@perseus.spk.wa.us> don@perseus.spk.wa.us (Donald Byrne) writes:
>     He was asked to change only after the elimation of one of the other 
>doors. Now we know that there are two non-win doors in the game, and the 
>object of Monty Hall is to elimanite one by the rules. If our player has 
>any smarts he knows that he will either have a winner or a looser, and 
>that Monty Hall will asure him of that. The reason is that of the three 
>doors he will only really deal with two. Monty Hall will elimaniate the 
>other. So unless I'm not seeing the game properly it seems to me the 
>final results should be 50%.
>     Now explain why all of you say 66% of a chanch if he changes to the 
>other one of the remaining two??

Think about it this way:  If the person guessed correctly initially,
then switching would not benefit him.  Since he selected one door from
three, the odds of having a correct initial guess are 1/3.  There should be
no dispute on this point or a review course in probability is necessary.

Now, this isn't quite as easy to see, but if the person guessed
INCORRECTLY initially, then he automatically wins by switching.  Why?
Because Monty always reveals a non-winning door.  He equivalently says to
you: you can have the door that you picked, or the TWO doors that you
didn't pick.  Since He always reveals a goat, if the initial guess was
incorrect, then the remaining door contains the prize.  The odds of the
initial guess being incorrect are 2/3 by the same reasoning as above.

If you want an empirical demonstration, we can set up an experiment and I
will win all of your money without cheating.
-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: godden@stein.u.washington.edu (Jeff Godden)
Subject: Re: Avogadro Number
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:51:46 GMT

jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox) writes:

>In article <wf_Eage00WB79IkpAh@andrew.cmu.edu> gb29+@andrew.cmu.edu (Guntur N Balaji) writes:
>>Just wondering how Avogadro got to his number.  6.023E23 atoms....
>>Looks like the mysterious Eddington number.  Can someone give a
>>plausible explanation and substantiate Avogadro's number.  Looks like
>>the explanation must be simple, as I can't think of somebody suggesting
>>such a number without knowing quantum theory and etc...:-)

>  I believe that for a significant length of time, the value of
>Avogadro's number was not in fact known, so chemists just used the
>number of moles they had without worrying about how many particles
>this represented (as there was no way of finding this out.)

OK, that all makes sense, but when/who/how (particularly how) did grace
us with 6.02e23?  How do you go about counting the number of carbon atoms
in 12 grams?  Light scattering?  Osmotic theory?  Those all seem too 
insensitive for the number of decimal points I've seen quoted.

A chemist who should bloody well know this,
j godden
From: dkelly@bio3.acpub.duke.edu (Dianne Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Long hair causes boldness???
Keywords: hair, long, gravitypull, boldness
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:34:11 GMT
Reply-To: dkelly@bio3.acpub.duke.edu (Dianne Kelly)



|> >  Long: The hairs get heavier and gravity sort of pulls them out.
|> >        Also your hair will turn thin, as longer hair needs more
|> nourishment
|> >        but doesn't get more. (I thought they were as dead as
|> nails...)
|>
	Haven't you ever noticed how many women wear their hair long? Baldness
in females is extremely rare thanks to an extra X chromosome.
							
						Diane "down to my waist" Kelly
						Duke Zoo.
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Non-Relflecting object
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:55:35 GMT

dwarner@milo.ub.com (Dave Warner) writes:


>Okay, so suppose the existance of an object that does not emit or reflect 
>anything in the visual spectrum.  The object is not transparent or 
>translucent.  Let the object assume the mass and dimensions of a 4 x 8 sheet 
>of marine plywood.

>What does it look like?

If it is non-reflecting, it cannot also be non-emitting UNLESS it is
cooled to absolute zero.  In that case, you wouldn't see it for the
layers of frozen oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water that
would quickly form on it.

If it is a perfect absorber, then at any temperature above absolute
zero it will radiate some light.  But if it is at room temperature
(or not too much warmer than that) this radiation will be invisible
to the human eye, and it would look like a sheet of plywood painted
matte black.
From: don@perseus.spk.wa.us (Donald Byrne)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Monty Hall/Shell Game..
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:43:20 GMT


     I have a question about this idea of the Monty Hall game thing that
has been going around in this post?
     If I understand the rules and all, it says that the person must pick 
one of three doors. Only one of the three has the prize. The other two 
doors will not be a winning door. So when this person picks one of the 
doors, Monty Hall will by the rules eliminate one of the other two doors. 
then Monty Hall will ask the person to change his pick of the door he 
picked to the other door, or stay with the door he origionally picked. 
     He was asked to change only after the elimation of one of the other 
doors. Now we know that there are two non-win doors in the game, and the 
object of Monty Hall is to elimanite one by the rules. If our player has 
any smarts he knows that he will either have a winner or a looser, and 
that Monty Hall will asure him of that. The reason is that of the three 
doors he will only really deal with two. Monty Hall will elimaniate the 
other. So unless I'm not seeing the game properly it seems to me the 
final results should be 50%.
     Now explain why all of you say 66% of a chanch if he changes to the 
other one of the remaining two??
     I remain confused??


                                          
D.E. Byrne
From: bush@wigner.physics.upenn.edu (Judith Elaine Bush Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Red-rimmed lunar eclipses
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:20:23 GMT

The justification I heard:
 
Think of all the lovely, red sunrises & sunsets you've seen. This is the
atmosphere bending the sunlight around the earth. I suppose you could think of it
as a lens with the center blacked out. When the moon passes into the earth's
shadow, it also passes through this refracted light. 

What I would like to know is why the volcanic dust in the atmosphere was supposed
to REDUCE this effect. Is it simply a matter of absorption?

judith
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Subject: Re: Non-Relflecting object
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:40:01 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks

Dave Warner (dwarner@milo.ub.com) wrote:

>Okay, so suppose the existance of an object that does not emit or reflect 
>anything in the visual spectrum.  The object is not transparent or 
>translucent.  Let the object assume the mass and dimensions of a 4 x 8
sheet 
>of marine plywood.

>What does it look like?

1 x 4 x 9 looks much nicer... 8-)

--
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?"
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Long hair causes boldness???
Keywords: hair, long, gravitypull, boldness
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:27:27 GMT

[alt.folklore.science]
In article <wsbusr3.723916695@rw6.urc.tue.nl> wsbusr3@urc.tue.nl writes:
>  Boldness.
>  Don't we all hate it? 
>  Apart from rubbing hair-oil in, combing neckhair over your shiny head, 
>  nailing carpet on it, and referring to the braintale time&time again :
>  Best thing would be to hope your genes are allright and don't do
>  anything foolish with it. 
>  Rumour has it amongst these would be:
> 
>  * Wearing a hat (too) often, and
>  * Growing it (too) long.
>  
>  At least, that's what my family wants me to believe.
>  Their defense: 
>  A hat: Your hair will suffocate and finally die.
>         Proof: Uncles that were in the army, obscure nephews who wore them, etc                etera.
>  Long: The hairs get heavier and gravity sort of pulls them out.
>        Also your hair will turn thin, as longer hair needs more nourishment
>        but doesn't get more. (I thought they were as dead as nails...)
>  
>  Personally, I think it's all a bunch of trick-arguments to make me
>  get rid off my long hair, crowned with a stainy hat :).

No, it's all true.  The following speech is from the film "Glen or
Glenda", an incredibly scientific documentary movie made by Edward Wood, Jr.,
who also created "Plan 9 From Outer Space".

"Men's hats are so tight they cut off the blood flow to the head, thus
cutting off the growth of hair.  Seven out of ten men wear hats, so the
advertisements say.  Seven out of ten men are bald!  But what about the
ladies?  Yes, modern woman is a hardworking individual also.  But when a
modern woman's day of work is done, that which is designed for her home
comfort, is comfort.  Hates that give no obstruction to the blood flow.
Hats that do not crush the hair.  Interesting thought, isn't it?"

Incidentally, the movie is about a man who decides to get a sex change
after he develops a fetish for his wife's angora sweater.  The movie was
written and directed by Ed Wood, who also plays Glen and/or Glenda--a
true cinematic legend.
						-- K.
						But why don't neckties make
						your hair AND beard go
						bald?
						And what about jockey shorts 
						and pubic hair?
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: szielins@oracle.com (Stephan Zielinski)
Subject: Re: They used to think...
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:00:21 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <8694.21037@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> jane@soave.swdc.stratus.com (Jane Beckman) writes:
>I just thought of a new "retroactive UL" over the weekend.  I
>was discussing archeology with someone.  And they said...
>
>"You know, they say early man didn't understand about sex.
>You know, babies just came.  They didn't make the connection
>that sex had anything to do with it, because babies came so
>much later.  Sex was one thing, and having babies was another.
>That's why there was a mother goddess, but no father goddess.
>They didn't realize babies had fathers, too."
>
>And I realized I'd heard this one a couple times.  Sounds a
>lot like "In Columbus' time, everyone thought the world was
>flat."  
>
>--
>  Jilara   [jane@swdc.stratus.com]
>

	There are two primary sources for this belief (that come to
mind): Malinowski and Gimbutas.

	Malinowski (cultural anthopologist) claimed that the Trobriand
islanders did not know about the connection between sex and
childbirth.  However, there are indications that the islanders in
question were laughing up their sleeves when they told him this.  (I
don't remember who said this, but I recall a quote along the lines of
"If an ernest, peculiarly dressed foreigner came to me and asked in
all seriousness about where babies come from, I'd be awfully tempted
to tell him about the cabbage patch and the stork...")

	Gimbutas (archaeologist) has reconstructed preagricultural
society from a variety of evidence scattered across Europe.  (Warning:
the following is IMHO, since my sympathy is with the cultural side of
anthropology.)
	There are statuettes all over Europe (dated ~20,000 BC?)
depicting a faceless woman with exaggerated gentalia, buttocks, and
breasts.  Gimbutas infers:
	1.  The connection between sex and childbirth was unknown.
	2.  Thus, in the world-view of the European preagricultural
society, women were magical creatures that somehow produced children.
	3.  These statuettes are depictions of the central figure of
the extant faith of the time, the Goddess.
	4.  The society was a matriarchy.  (Not matrilocal, not
matrifocal, and not a cryptomatriarchy {all of which have been found
and described in actual, extant cultures,} but real, live, matriarchy.
No matriarchy has ever been found and described by a cultural
anthropologist.  Please don't bring up Margret Mead's work; she issued
a retraction of {other people's overenthusiatic misinterpretation of}
her earlier claims.)

	(I note in passing that modern hard pornography also depicts
faceless females with exaggerated sexual characteristics.)

_________________
Stephan Zielinski                                       szielins@us.oracle.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Crazy as a $2 bill
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:54:55 GMT

thealien@nevada.edu (Minstrel Alien) writes:

: 	Okay, here's what *I* have heard.
: 
: 		Our dollar is value-wise descended from spanish pieces of eight
: 
: 	The two dollar note would then be from pieces of 13, which were
: thought unlucky(13, ya know)
: 
: That's just what I've heard.

Hm. Are you fishing, or just poor at math?   8 + 8 = 13?

Bill