HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:04:50 GMT

In article <1a4kgmINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.122308.29346@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>Plus the snow in the north?
>>
>>Yes for two reasons. First, photovoltaic panels of today's design impose
>>a roof loading of around 4 lb/sqft. That's well within the loadings 
>>anticipated by the Code. Second, in the north, panels must be inclined
>>at a steeper angle than in the south. That means that not much snow will
>>*accumulate* on them.
>
>Well, that's true.  Now, where exactly does the snow that falls on the roof
>above the panels end up? What about the snow that slides off any but the lowest
>row of panels, assuming you have more than one row?

You should have a minumum of 1' clearance between the roof and the
closest portion of the panels, this is primarily to provide for
circulation underneath for the summertime.

> The Code requires 40 lb/sqft in the north to 
>>accomodate snow loading on a *flat* roof. Since the collectors will be
>>inclined at an angle of more than 40 degrees, the problem doesn't arise
>>unless the panels are mounted to a flat roof where the snow that slides
>>off of them still stays on the roof. Note that that's still the same
>>amount of snow that would have fallen on the flat roof, only the excess
>>4 lb of the collectors has to be carried.
>
>But the loading's no longer even.

But we're not worrying about it because it's not a problem, and has
not presented itself as a problem.
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:43:38 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct6.002300.18806@hsv3.lsil.com> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <54279@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Typical. You state something which is false, then you post a series of
>>loud complaints about the stupidity, ignorance, and scientific illiteracy
>>of someone who points out that you are wrong, then when confronted with 
>>evidence you offer to look it up, and finally you make some plea for
>>mercy on the grounds of what a long trip it is to the library. 
>
>Typical lack of reading comprehension.  I *DID* go to the library,
>and said so.  Several libraries.  They did not have the journals.
>Libraries having the journals are those I do not have access to,
>not being a student at Stanford or UC Berkely or whatnot. 

Deeply sorry. Let's see: you state something false,
you flame me for pointing out the factual innacuracy of your post, 
when confronted with the evidence you offer to look it up, and finally you
make some plea for mercy on the grounds of the inadequacy of
 the libraries available to you. Is that better?  I don't want to 
misrepresent your position. 


>Doubtless your reading comprehension of these journals is of a 
>similar quality to your comprehension of my previous posting.
>I.e., you skim for something you can wrench out of context and
>rewrite to fit your prejudices.

And here you go again. You have not looked up the articles I cite, you
have not found counter references in other scientific literature, yet you
have no qualms about suggesting that I have "wrenched" quotes "out of
context" and even rewritten quotes. you apparently believe that accusation
is a reasonable substitute for research. Feeble.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 05:30:37 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Nuclear Health!!
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct2.202330.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> adf1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

>I just took a tour of a Nuclear Power Plant, it was very interesting.
>But I have a few questions and I was wondering if anyone could help
>me out. 
>1.What does the operator of the plant do for the basic health protection
>of its employees.

Pretty much industrial safety standard, with the additional monitoring
of radiation exposure by dosimetry, whole-body counts, etc. 
jgd@dixie.com might be able to provide practical information.

>2.Is O.S.H.A. the watch dog for there safety or if not who is.
>And what role or rules do they set.

OSHA, yes
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, yes
EPA, general environmental and waste standards, yes
State regulations where they exist, yes.

All of these are certainly imperfect at times, but in general, the
health and safety of workers in nuclear facilities is probably monitored
more closely than in other industry.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: YackYackYackYackYackadam yack again!! (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:40:55 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>In article <1a2nqqINNfto@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>Yackadam, the eternal bleater of "let's base our analysis on worst-case
>>scenarios" doesn't think there's a good excuse for overstating claims.  Well,
>>at least he seems to have a sense of humor.

>Your content free, sophmoric postings are really out of place in a sci
>newsgroup. If you wish to base your arguments on witty transformations
>of my name, you would be better off in one of the alt groups.

Damn, damn, yackadam.  You made my day.  I've never seed a better case
of the pot calling the kettle black than YOU, of all people, accusing 
Carl of making content-free, sophmoric postings.

Only thing I want to know, yackadam, and that is how you do it.  I mean, I'm 
semi-retired and I don't have time to create half the noise you do.  Even 
allowing for your firing out your ass instead of researching your posts,
I don't see how you enter that much text.  My fingers would be aching at 
half the daily volume.

Oh... I see... You are really several people working for EPRI or GPU or
someone who is trying to make the anti-nook-kooks look like, well, kooks.
Damn if you ain't doin' a FINE job, whomever you are.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebutt
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:09:46 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany

In article <3269.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>GC>Solar
>GC>and indirect solar are significantly higher cost sources of electricity
>GC>than coal or nuclear. 

That's true, but electricity is often used for purposes for which it
isn't necessary. Why using it for AC and heating? The total efficiency
is very low, because the efficiency of generating power is very low.
Especially for AC and heating it's better to use power sources which
produce heat directly. Solar thermal is one of the choices, but even
burning natural gas directly is better than using it to generating 
electricity first and than using the electrity to generate heat.

So the aim must be to use high quality (and expensive) energy like
electrical energy only were it's absolutely necessary.

>
>hhs
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
>                                                                        

I know this is the wrong reference, but it seems to be that I received
this article only by accident, because the distribution was na.
You should use distribution world, because we here in europe are very
interested in the opinion of north american people about alternative
energy technologies. The americans have the world largest energy use,
and 1 % of energy you can save or at least replace with alternative
energy is more than 6 % of energy use in germany. So be nice and
add us to your distribution.

Emil


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Lise Meitner (was: Rosalind Franklin (was: Meitner and Hahn))
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:30:42 GMT

Lise Meitner has been immortalized by the naming of element 109:
meitnerium. That beats a Nobel Prize!

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jarleb@helena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Reply-To: jarleb@helena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:29:27 GMT


In article <29SEP199213190360@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|>From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
|>Newsgroups: sci.physics
|>Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
|>
|>In article <1992Sep28.222259.18699@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
|>>In article <28SEP199211153430@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|>>>


< Some text deleted >

|>>I think you are being rather optimistic here.  For example, QED, or the
|>>standard model, is not known to be consistent.  Nor are they known to be
|>>inconsistent.
|>
|>Perhaps.  My tendency to be "optimistic" in this sense is well known 
|>to all.  I would prefer to say that QED is not *proven* to be consistent,
|>though it is known(*) to be so.  Certainly it is widely believed to be so.
|>
|>(*) According to the Oracle at Berkeley.
|>
|>-Scott

Now, that's an interesting way to put it. The usual thought about our way of
developing physics is that a theory is not yet been falsified. Not that it
really matters, but isn't your attitude more or less the same as physicist
around 1900 had. When they prefered to say that aether is not proven to exist
though it is known to :-).



      ---------------------------------------
       Internet: jarleb@medusa.uio.no         
       or        Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
      ---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:52:03 GMT


In article <30SEP199210455043@csa1.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
(SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.232349.3991@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes...
>>
>>small language hint:
>>
>>"Mads so," "Mads," and "Wises" are not english words or phrases.
>
> If he ever wises up, he'll be a better man for it.
>
> -Scott
> --------------------
> Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
> SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
> 				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
> 				had been definitely settled, I think I would
> 				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver


 You mr. Scott seem to be a hopeless case at my point of view.

        Hannu.

 "Thrown to ignorance Scott gives himself to work and employment and
  keeping himself sensible and learned he stagger without goal like blind
  lead by blinds."


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Can Information Have Physical Units?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:08:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.153852.12046@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
)I write:
)> ... Your arguments about information remind me of an argument I read a
)> while back, but haven't seen on the net.  I am not sure I can do it
)> justice, though.  And I've misplaced the reference (it was a semi-popular
)> type book though, not rigorous or quantitative) and I don't recall it's
)> title, either!
)
)I'd be curious to know the title if you or anyone else happens to recall it.

Sorry, I'm drawing a complete blank on it.  It had the word 'Quantum' in
the title - big help, eh? :-)


Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: trr@dlogics.com (Tim Ringwood)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Datalogics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 13:04:13 GMT


Two views on these wonderful post that are feeled with such love. NOT!

1. One who feel they must spout of their belief in a place where it
   does not belong, (this is MATH not RELIGION) is either arrogant or
   a fool.

2.  I strongly feel that those who belive in God due so because of 
    their own insecurity to deal with life as it is.  (Kind of link
    a lonley kid's pretend friend. ) If you need help with your insecurities 
    go to a shrink, and stop cluttering up this news group.

3.  I am not sure what TIME and MATH has to do with each other, i.e I 
    can't see out MATH can help define the structure of time.  If somebody
    out there has a REAL idea about this, please post.
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Can you figure this joke out?
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:08:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

In article <1992Oct5.144625.22281@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, 
isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton) writes:
> 
> The integral of 'e' to the 'x' is a function of both 'u' and 'n'.
> 
> If no one can get it I'll post the answer later.
> 
> ps. all credit goes to my linear algebra prof (first year college)
> 
> -todd.

Todd, or Wayne, whoever you are your e-mail address doesn't work.

I can't imagine that too many people subscribing to this newsgroup
wouldn't get the joke.  Come on ...
                         x
	[Integral sign] e   dx      is        F (u,n)

of course the joke looses something when you show the integral properly
by including the "dx".
From: RING,.DAVID.WAYNE@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Date: 25 Sep 92 04:45:00 GMT

Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes...
>>>is there any observational evidence for a "unbelievably close to flat" 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  (You don't touch this part of my argument)

It would be futile since we just disagree about the definition of
"unbelievably close to flat". We agree about the data.

>>A typical closed universe exists for a plank time.
> 
>Ok, one Plank time after Big Bang the standard universe had a density (etc.)
>that was "unbelivably close to" that of the "flat" model, in this sense the
>universe was THEN nearly flat (of course there might have been a chaotic
>configuration...). But as it gets elder, this may change, and observation
>(dynamics of galaxies and clusters of galaxies) seems to show that its 
>density now has only 10--40 % of the critical value needed to close it.
>(Still about 90 % of this density is "dark matter")

Of course such a special universe as ours must eventually expand until you
can claim rho/rho0 to be only 10%. The question is whether a _typical_ universe
will do that.

>>The cosmological constant is finely tuned to one part in 10^120. Hardly an
>>improvement.
> 
>According to some papers of Priester and co-workers [1, 2] the expansion 
>*today* may well be dominated by the cosmological constant (expressable
>as a density: rho_Lambda ~ 10..100 rho_matter), i.e. similar to inflation 
>(exponentially..).

I'm not familiar with this work, but it is widely known that observational 
bounds on Lambda are 10^120 lower than the naive 'typical' value.

>                   On the other hand, if you look at the very early 
>universe, you may still call this a fine tuning, depending on your point of 
>view. As the CC enters the theory as a parameter fittable to the experiment 
>(the additive constant), I do not see any basic problem (but one may ask 
>why..; 

That's the whole point of fine tuning, why is some number so small when
we would expect it in general to be large.

>       but look, e.g., to the wide variety of masses in the particle spectrum
>from electron over top quark and W/Z gauge bosons to Higgs and possibly
>X/Y mass -- the params in our particle physics have quite different orders
>of magnitude, but to my knowledge nobody claimed that the electron mass is 
>fine tuned because it's small compared to t-quark or X/Y boson). 

The electron and top masses are determined by the electroweak breaking,
which is governed by the higgs potential. This scale is MUCH smaller
than the mass of the X/Y bosons. This is the most severe and famous fine
tuning problem in particle physics. It's called the hierarchy problem.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spin
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:13:47
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Sep29.065640.18839@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<STEINLY.92Sep29105205@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<MATT.92Sep29114552@physics.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu's message of 29 Sep 92 11:45:52

In article <MATT.92Sep29114552@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Sep29105205@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   > Figured I might as well interject at this point.
   > Tom? You lurking there waiting to pounce??? ;-)
   > The "gravity" from each component in a binary star does
   > not arrive delayed, see for example LPPT 12.4 and MTW 18.4 and 39.9,
   > especially eqn 39.64

   I know I've said this before, but I may as well say it again: I think
   we're begin confused over semantics; we have to be careful over what
   it means to talk about the speed of propagation of gravity.

   I contend that in a static situation (i.e., one where there is no
   gravitational radiation), it is meaningless to talk about the speed of
   propagation of gravity, since nothing is propagating.  I contend,
   then, that detecting a finite speed of gravitation is equivalent to
   detecting the effects of gravitational radiation.

I agree absolutely, there is however a point that - as Tom van
Flandern is happy to note - is often glossed over, namely that
if you do the calculation in a retarded potential formalism
the first two (1/2) order terms in (r - v/c) cancel - there is
no aberration, and hence the L-W formalism is not very useful.
You can look at it as either a very neat and not unexpected
feature of GR or as a Profound Mystery indicating something very
basic ;-)

   And, as is well known, this has been done in the case of binary
   neutron star systems.  The effects of radiation show up in (if I'm
   remembering right) the post-post-post-Newtonian approximation, and
   they have been observed.
 
Ooh! Yes indeed, both PSR1913+16 and 1534+12 show period derivatives
consistent with GR, depending on your religion either confirms GR
or is exactly consistent with GR...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:06 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct6.183626.24921@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom) writes...
> 
> I have never read this group so I have no idea if it has been sloshed
>around before, butI would like to know, in a nutshell, just what
>Spontaneous SymmetryBreaking is. I read an article in a quantum chemistry
>journal that discussed SSB in the visual cortex in relationship to viual
>hallucinations. (I can provide a reference if it would be handy. I have
>studied verylitlle quantum mechanics, but feel free to use technical
>terms...) This would put an interesting perspective on my study of
>neurology.

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB) occurs whenever the underlying equations
have a certain symmetry, but the ground states of the physical system which
they govern do not.  The most familiar example is the ferromagnet.
You probably know that if you heat a common household magnet above its
"Curie" Temperature, that its magnetism disappears.  When the magnet
cools, it will regain its magnetism as it passes the Curie temperature. 
But how does the magnet which pole should be North and which should be South?
There is nothing in the equations which describe the magnetism to tell
it which way its North should point.  And yet it must point one way or
the other.  This "ground state" does not have the symmetry of the underlying
Lagrangian.

At some point during the cooling of this lump of metal, SSB occurs, and the
magnet "chooses" a direction, and the original directional symmetry is broken
by the newly formed magnetic field of the bar.  The same magnetic, heated
and cooled over and over again, will, in principle, end up with the North
pole at either end of the bar with equal probability.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Quantum Zeno Effect, Part 1.
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 02:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.123002.13912@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.134653.20562@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>
>[a neat article on the quantum zeno effect - thanks, Daryl]
>
>Just one minor point: I don't think this effect can be used to slow
>down radioactive decay.  That's an exponential process, ie if the
>atom is undecayed at time 0, then the probability it is still
>undecayed at time t is
>
>	P(t) = exp(-kt)
>
>where k = log2/halflife.

Oh-oh, not this again.  The point, as I have argued earlier, is that no
physically reasonable process can give EXACTLY exponential decay; very
general arguments show that there is a short "plateau" before the curve
approximates an exponential.  If you checked out the nucleus carefully with
a sufficiently high frequency you could "nip it in the bud" and use Zeno
to keep it from decaying.  However, even for the very slowest nuclear
decays you would have to check it out every 10^{-23} seconds or so.
(Someone may still have the references I posted on this, which I think I have
discarded.)  In real Zeno experiments one doesn't use nuclear decays,
one uses electronic transitions.  

In my posts on interpretation of QM I noted the subtleties associated
with repeated measurements and suggested how I thought one should get
the right answers for this sort of problem without postulating
"collapse," but Daryl is right in emphasizing this sort of problem as a
hurdle any successful approach to QM must overcome.
From: eric@reed.edu (eric)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Online literature reference databases
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:13:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR

I'm looking for online science periodical research databases and publications.
Where's a good place to start looking for such things? 
-- 

_______________
Eric Hennings / eric@reed.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics