Newsgroup sci.physics 207133

Directory

In article <32756FDD.5D63@cam.org>, achim@cam.org (Achim Recktenwald ) 
says...
>
>
>But frequency is a characterisitc of a wave. How do you distinguish
>photons, not waves, of different energy ?
>
>Achim
By their frequency!!!
What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the question "Is a 
photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon (electron/neutrino/etc) 
sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency is a 
property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental particles.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article  moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>Hardy Hulley  wrote:
>
>> > The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
>> > physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could adopt the
>> > stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then have to contend
>> > with the fact that it does make incredibly good *testable* predictions,
>> > in contradistinction to Derrida, who makes no testable claims at all.
>
>Anton Hutticher :
>
>> And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to 
>> distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are not,
>> from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception are fields
>> which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis without recourse
>> to verbal handwaving. 
>
>     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>positivism is dead.
Either that or they're simply oversimplifying in their analysis.  
There are at least three different "statuses" that a theory can
have, typified by the (apocryphal) complaint of a scientist on
reading a particularly bad paper "It isn't right.  It isn't even
WRONG!"  It's doesn't require that one be a logical positivist
to make the unidirectional inference that a statement that makes
predictions is meaningful.
	Patrick

moggin@nando.net (moggin):
> >     Remember, too, that a hill is _never_ flat, by definition --
> >a flat hill is a contradiction in terms.  So _if_ you have a hill
> >(that is, if the existence of a hill is given), it can't be flat, 
> >even if it's so short that the finest instruments can't measure
> >its height; while if you decide that it _is_ flat, then you don't
> >have a hill anymore.
Mati:
> That's not physical thinking.
     Does that mean "the thinking of physicists"?  I never said it
was -- it's mine.
> To make it simple, I'll pick a one 
> dimensional example.  Lets think about a stable element versus an 
> unstable one.  A stable, by definition, remains as is, for ever.  An 
> unstable one decays.  We can observe that it is unstable by 
> surrounding it with detectors and observing the decays.
> The average number of decays per unit time, is given by the number of 
> atoms present, divided by the lifetime of the element.  So, if we pick 
> a big chunk, containing, say, 10^30 atoms, and the lifetime is 10^16 
> seconds (that's few billion years), we're still going to observe 10^13 
> decays per second.
> Fine, lets assume that we've an element with a lifetime of 10^40 
> seconds.  This will give us 10^(-10) decays per second.  You'll have 
> to wait few hundred years to observe one.  Lets assume a lifetime of 
> 10^50 seconds.  Now even if you wait over a time span equal to the age 
> of the universe, there is still a negligible chance to observe a 
> decay.  So, also this element is in principle unstable, you cannot 
> distinguish it from a stable one (which has an infinite lifetime).
> "But", you may say, "I know it is unstable."  Well, how do you know.  
> Its instability is not a mathematical definition, it can only be 
> established experimentally.  There is no outside source of information 
> here, no direct line from God.  So, stability is the limit of 
> instability here. 
     Sorry, I can't agree.  I know it's unstable because you told
me.  (You're the physicist here, right?)  Presumably you have some
way to know it's unstable that you didn't bother to fill me in on
(which is fine -- please spare me the details).  Or maybe you were
just making an assumption, as you said.  In that case, it's given
for purposes of this example.  But it's unstable either way.  If
experiment _was_ the only way to know, and its instability wasn't
observable, then you wouldn't have had any reason to say that it
was unstable, in the first place.
> Similarly no change is the limit of change in any 
> case.  And a flat is the limit of the hill. 
     Exactly -- the limit is the point that it never arrives at,
as far as it's a hill.  And no change is the condition change is
never in, so far as it's change.
> If the finest instrumants 
> cannot measure the difference between the assumed hill and the flat, 
> how do you know there is a hill over there?  By definition?  Whose 
> definition?  We do not define differences, we find them through 
> measurement.  And if no measurement can distinguish between two 
> situations then, physically, they are identical. [...]
     You know it's a hill because I told you.  That's the premise
I began with, just as you assumed that some element was unstable.
Notice that I underlined "if," just to make that clear.  And if it
_is_ a hill, then it can't be flat (by definition).  But I made a
place for your perspective.  If you decide that it must be flat,
since your measurements don't detect any height, then it can't be
a hill.  Simple.
-- moggin

Hardy Hulley  wrote:
> >> > The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
> >> > physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could adopt the
> >> > stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then have to contend
> >> > with the fact that it does make incredibly good *testable* predictions,
> >> > in contradistinction to Derrida, who makes no testable claims at all.
Anton Hutticher :
> >> And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to 
> >> distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are not,
> >> from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception are fields
> >> which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis without recourse
> >> to verbal handwaving. 
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
> >positivism is dead.
patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
> Either that or they're simply oversimplifying in their analysis.  
> There are at least three different "statuses" that a theory can
> have, typified by the (apocryphal) complaint of a scientist on
> reading a particularly bad paper "It isn't right.  It isn't even
> WRONG!"  It's doesn't require that one be a logical positivist
> to make the unidirectional inference that a statement that makes
> predictions is meaningful.
     Agreed.  (How 'bout that?)
-- moggin

>Richard Mentock  wrote:
>>
>>Hell (and I use the word advisedly), let's just dispense with the word 
>>"omnipotent"!  The other classical argument:  If X is omnipotent, then 
>>can X "create a rock so big that A can't lift it?"  Nope.  So, X is not 
>>omnipotent.
"A rock so big that an omnipotent being can't lift it" is LOGICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE.
According to St. Augustine, God can't do impossible things, but that
is not a limitation of God's omnipotence.
Mario Franco Carbone
md1412@mclink.it
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4284

Edward F. Zotti wrote:
> I don't understand why there would be a 183-day solar tide, since the
> assumption is that the same side of the earth would always face the sun.
If the earth stopped rotating, it would be illuminated on one side in
January and on the other side in July.  Only if it kept rotating at such
a rate that its period of rotation matched its orbital period would it
keep the same face towards the sun.
PETE

In article <55odak$4c6@onramp.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@viking.arc.nasa.gov 
(Hugh LaMaster) says...
>
>
>Since this is posted in sci.physics for some mysterious 
>reason, is it some law of the universe that all letter 
>paper has to be one size?  What difference does it make?
>
It makes a huge difference for us. We are a transatlantic department and any 
documents we produce have to be formatted so that they'll print out on USian 
paper. This means that they all look really crap when printed on proper 
sized (A4) stuff.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

The international science community ought to be bracing itself for the
third and greatest revolution in astronomy and physics-- the detection of
gravitational waves and the "mapping" of spacetime. The first two
revolutions I am referring to are the Optical and Radio Wave Astronomical
Revolutions, not Copernicus and Kepler, although the two sets are
comparable. The possibilities for answers from data taken from a
resonant-mass (pioneered by Joseph Weber), laser interferometer (CIT&MIT;),
or truncated icosahedral (LSU) detector are endless, yet gravitational
wave detection techniques are not quite refined at this time - more
research needs to be done. We must discover and utilize technology to
detect gravity waves, which can only help because of their central role in
this drama; as gravity, mass(which=e/csquared, approximately), and time
are the keys to unlock the doors  to the  answers of such questions as: 
1. What happens to matter and timeflow at the quantum scale?
2. What efficient energy extraction processes are we missing?
3. "The cosmological constant, Hubble's constant, and the age of the
universe"
4. What are the exact properties of:
1. the dark matter 2. black holes or singularities 3. QSOs, quasars 4.
more
5. WHAT DOES THE SPACETIME AROUND US LOOK LIKE?
this fifth question is the most important one, mostly because it is of my
opinion that we have no constructive observational data to give us any
idea what our very own "spacetime quantum fluctuation and subsequent
expansion" (read "The Universe") looks like other than where light comes
from stars and galaxies. The dark matter, whether "hot" (neutrinos, etc)
or "cold" (planets, brown dwarfs, etc) doesn't get detected by sight or by
radio astronomy (excluding certain data like COBE's map and particle
detectors-- I'm talking about the real massive bodies like QSOs, and the
black holes and turbulent cores associated with them, and the "halos"
(like the one around our galaxy) around nearby or especially significant
galaxies, protogalaxies, or young galaxies like those seen by Hubble last
December.
As you can see, I might have overextended the reach that this revolution
could possibly have - It is probably the opinion of most who even consider
this matter that more could be done in other fields (no pun intended)
besides Einstein's Gravitational ones. Fields like condensed matter/low
temperature physics, statistical, fluid mechanics, or even elementary
particle physics are in my opinion underneath Gravitation Physics/General
Relativity/"Experimental" Quantum Gravity
in the hierarchy of importance, using an Einsteinian "top-down" problem
solving method. Therefore, we, the scientific community, ought to show
interest and suppport for the detection of gravitational waves by calling
for (can we do that?) a space-bound, Earth orbiting, or Moon or Mars-based
(there's a real fantasy) G.W.D., preferably a Long Baseline Interferometer
(LBI?). 
who thinks gravitational waves are a mirage, not the goldmines I think
they could be?
have you heard this all before? because I think you'll hear it again soon.

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, sdef! wrote:
> 
> >
> > Precisely my point. There is no land that isn't 'owned' You and your sick
> > civilisation owns it all. As I said there is no alternative.
> 
> Get an education, get a bath, then get off your lazy arse, earn some
> money, and buy some land. There are massive tracts available in places
> like Scotland if you would only earn your way to them.
> 
> Perhaps if you had studied a bit harder at school, you would have enough
> money for a place of your own.
> 
> > the world. The system you defend causes death, sickness and starvation > > > all over the planet. You are sick.
> Not for me it doesn't. The system has provided me with a motorbike, nice
> clothes, and a roof over my head,
Bully for you! Screw the poor eh! its their own fault! Wow what a philosophy.
> because I was not a lazy tramp.
They are called travellers now, politically correct etc. Still persecuted 
though.
> Your web page is very humorous. All the normal anarchistic rubbish we
> would expect.
> 
> Grow up, eh, get a life.
> 
> Anthony Potts
So, I've heard this line many times before, from the ignorant who don't even 
know the first thing about the lives and hygeine of the people they are 
talking about. I hear it when families are being thrown off the land with 
nowhere else to go, while the pompous spouters of this fascist line sit snug 
in their houses. Some people don't want to live as you do. But they are not 
allowed to live in any other way. 
As things stand, I could not get up and walk out of the city and survive. 
this is because all the land "belongs" to someone. Some brave people do try 
to live like this. They are called travellers and sent to prison. The reason 
they are travellers is that they aren't allowed to stay anywhere. Wherever 
they go the locals, in their smug suburban self - satisfaction, won't 
tolerate them and have the nerve to call them dirty, while their own sewage 
kills the rivers and their rubbish festers in giant landfills or burns in 
incinerators, poisoning the ground water and the air... But their gardens are 
nice and tidy aren't they?
Their neat, anal-retentive backyards reflect their neurosis, that same 
neurosis that is destroying the very fabric of life we depend on. You cannot 
tolerate anyone actually LIVING the way they talk, because then you wouldn't 
be able to sneer "you're all talk" would you? You would be faced with the 
incontrovertible proof that people can live quite happily outside of your 
sick system whre dancing isn't allowed without a 'license'. Where fun must be 
regulated and channeled into the greed system oyu and your ilk depend on like 
vampires on blood.
You get a bloody bath your self, I can't afford one, i use the shower.
Andy
-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
"I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. 
Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
	- William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Brian Pickrell wrote:
> Renaissance man.  Plus, he's going to have a Ph. D. degree that will make
> him oh so smart, and he's even told us about the neat car he's thinking
> about getting.  How can ya not like the guy? 
I will explain this one for you, since you seem to have some comprehension
troubles.
A Ph.D. does not increase one's intelligence, intelligence is pretty much
settled before one gets to the Ph.D. stage of life.
I don't care what people think about me very much, except for those that
matter. I don't count the opinions of anyone on this group.
Those that matter are my fiancee, my family, my friends, and anyone who is
able to decide whether to employ me or not. 
So, call me an arsehole, a wanker, or whatever you like. I am doing
exactly what I want to.
I don't feel the need to attempt to shout down other countries in the
meanwhile, unlike some other folks here. Let's face it, no matter how big
an opinion Iceland has of itself, I feel no need to attempt to disabuse
its natives of their ideas.
Perhaps some big mouthed yanks on this group ought to employ a similar
philosophy.
Anyway, they can all tell me about it when I'm in New York, if they really
want to.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri (coolhand@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <55scd5$hoc@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
: Hauke Reddmann  wrote:
: >"True" cross products only exists in dim 3+7.
: 
: Could you explain why 7-d also works?  (Also what exactly do you mean
: by "true" cross product?)
: 
Ask on sci.math, I'm only a "trivia" expert ;-)
(Somehow this is connected to Stokes theorem. Another
trivia I remember...I believe in a recent back-issue
of Am.Math.Monthly something appeared)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

A RADIO? Well, you post a lot of static :-)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Tom Beam (metalbag@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <32827655.2411982@news.ind.mh.se> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis
: Savain) writes: 
: >
: >Dans l'article <328217DF.23B30DDC@mit.edu>, Joseph Edward Nemec
: > ecrit:
: >
: >>Ca va sans dire. Mais quant a l'accent ... moi je doute que tu parles
: 
: 
:     Nemec!!!  You fuck!
: -- 
You DON'T? Well, some just get no girls...
A real "Nemec" (hehe, don't get multilingual puns? Neener,Neener!)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Hello all you good people north of the border!
I thought you may be interested in Anthony Potts opinions re: the third 
(?)colonisation of Scotland:
sdef! wrote:
> 
> Anthony Potts wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, sdef! wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Precisely my point. There is no land that isn't 'owned' You and your sick
> > > civilisation owns it all. As I said there is no alternative.
> >
> > Get an education, get a bath, then get off your lazy arse, earn some
> > money, and buy some land. There are massive tracts available in places
> > like Scotland if you would only earn your way to them.
> >
> > Perhaps if you had studied a bit harder at school, you would have enough
> > money for a place of your own.
> >
> > > the world. The system you defend causes death, sickness and starvation > > > all over the planet. You are sick.
> 
> > Not for me it doesn't. The system has provided me with a motorbike, nice
> > clothes, and a roof over my head,
> 
> Bully for you! Screw the poor eh! its their own fault! Wow what a philosophy.
> 
> > because I was not a lazy tramp.
> 
> They are called travellers now, politically correct etc. Still persecuted
> though.
> 
-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
"I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. 
Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
	- William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".

Simon Read wrote:
> 
> browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote:
> >At the start, E is clearly the energy of a photon. Later, E is
> >associated with a mass, m. Since photons are massless, m = 0, solving
> >for r as h*c/mc^2 is an undefined operation. This is dividing by zero.
> >
> >OTOH, if m isn't zero in this last expression, it follows E = mc^2
> >isn't the energy of a photon. In this case the equating this to the
> >original expression, hc/l, for the energy of a photon isn't valid.
> >
> 
> There is such a thing as "rest mass", ie the mass when not moving, and
> that is definitely zero for a photon. HOWEVER, a photon is not
> stationary. A photon DOES have mass because it's moving. in this case,
> the mass is given by  E=mc^2 .
Sorry, but the mass defined by m = E/c^2 is different when viewed 
from different directions ... so it is hard to call it "the mass".
Try looking up "longitudinal mass" and "Transverse mass" in any
relativity text.  
The relativistic mass you speak of is sometimes useful, but it is
obtuse to call it "the mass" ... meanwhile the rest mass is the
same for every observer, and thus is an invariant scalar. It deserves
the "the" in "the mass" ... and it is what is used in the formulas
of modern physics.
Best Regards, Peter

David K. Davis wrote:
> Science is possible because of the replicability of experiments.  
> ...
> BTW, the replicability of experiments also leads to SR and GR. If the
> speed of light were not constant one would have experiments that weren't
> replicable in different inertial frames. Likewise with experiments in
> gravitational fields.
Please note my submissions to http://nike.phy.bris.ac.uk (Q1483 and Q1121) 
which have been sent for publication (in significantly improved, corrected 
and extended form, of course) and derive consequences for the interpretation
of QM-experiments;
as well as
my postings to "sci.physics.relativity" (in particular 2424), describing my
attempt to derive consequences for the Physics of Relativity.
Best regards,                                              Frank  W ~@) R

I have a 16-element array of photodiodes.
Each diode has its own output.
I have to select each of the outputs individualy and put them through a
current to voltage converter.
So what I need to know : Is there a chip that has 16 analog inputs,one
ouput, and also four digital inputs (which will be used to select each
of the analog inputs?
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Please E-mail me at 
donnaug@server311b.rtc-galway.ie
Thanks.

ngkong,soc.c:
Followup-To: rec.woodworking,sci.astro.amateur,sci.military.naval,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.argentina,soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.china,soc.culture.cuba,soc.culture.french,soc.culture.h
ongkong,soc.c:
References: <556inb$kc4@wormer.fn.net> <32774C23.167EB0E7@mlswc.mlm.lucent.com> <3277EA0B.3292@epix.net> <01bbcb21$f2208f40$6b0574cb@vicvic> <55q5il$980@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Distribution: 
James Corley (jdcorley@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <01bbcb21$f2208f40$6b0574cb@vicvic> "IBAN" 
: writes: 
: >ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
: Dammit! That does it! I AM DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO AUSTRALIA THIS
: YEAR!!!!
Dammit! That does it! This thread does not belong in sci.astro.amateur!
Please remove it from your newsgroup spamming!
-- 
==============================================================================
 Rob Robinson   Bonner Spgs KS USA   http://www.sky.net/~robinson/iotandx.htm
       WebSpinner for the International Occultation Timing Association
          Vice-President of the Astronomical Society of Kansas City
     (have a program you would like to present to the ASKC? - email me!)
             94.8932 West      39.0579 North       249.7 Meters 
==============================================================================

patter@cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) wrote:
+Of course, it's much less pyrophoric than magnesium, grease, oil, jet-A,
This pretty much sez it all.  Less pyrophoric that magnesium.  Titanium,
which is used extensively will burn just like magnesium.  It is a little
harder to get started but burns in the same manner and with a temp that is
close to about 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.  It gets real interesting when you
have a titanium fire internal to a engine and it hasn't breached the engine
casing, yet.
Nick

In article <3280d36b.0@news.softronics.com>, guru@top.o.de.mountain.top (Vishnu Verheer) writes:
>Well, remember, this also works the other way around.  The Earth cannot
>be a sphere!  The people at the bottom would all fall off!  There
>were many scientists who regarded the "sphere" theory as mental
>masturbation as well.  With much more education, we learned to discount
>-Vishnu Verheer (destroyer of ozone!)
I'd personally like to see you, or anyone else, name a scienctist
who didn't believe the earth was a sphere.
Jason

MonsteraviTruck  wrote in article
<327E9264.41C67EA6@chem.columbia.edu>...
> This is a question thats been bothering me for a while and
> I was wondering if someone could clear this up for me. Basically
> I dont see what people mean when they say entropy is one of the
> "arrows" of time, and that since newtons laws hold in either
> direction it is as likely to go in either direction, because
> of microscopic reversibility.
> 
> 	For a concrete example lets take, a system of classical non interacting
> particles. Since here is a greater volume of higher entropic states than
> there are less entropic states so during a time evolution of the system
> the most likely thing to happen is it to hang out in these high entropic
> states by definition of how we partitioned out the volume into different
> entropies. Microscopic
> reversibility  addresses changes from a particular point in
> phase space to another particular point in phase space, while 
> entropy increases because we've defined the large volume of
> spread out states as being equivelent (ie having the same "entropy")
>  Or am I missing something?
> 
> 	-avi
> 
I've always been in the group that says that starting with a specified
state, entropy increases in both directions of time.
I've never cared for the analogy about the film of a glass breaking being
played backwards as proof that there is an obvious difference between the
directions of time.  Start the filming before the glass is created and you
will see that the setup has not been allowed to occur naturally - it is a
prepared experiment.  When you take a naturally occurring system and film
it before and after, I challenge the view that entropy occurs in one
direction of time only.
Comments?
-David 

moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  (Cf. the above.)
I give up.  Is this supposed to be a joke?
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

Stephen Baynes wrote:
> 
> Like the time I went into RadioShack/Tandy and saw they were selling
> Mfd (sic) capacitors!
> 
How much were they, M$? :-)
-- 
========================================================================
Martin Schoon                          
                                     "Problems worthy of attack
                                      prove their worth by hitting back"
                                                              Piet Hein
========================================================================

See article Time Will Tell" at  http://www.acute.com/craig

Im Artikel <55t1kp$8im@News.Dal.Ca>, jayadams@is.dal.ca (Jason Elliot
Adams) schreibt:
>If something is attached to the engine crank it will use some of that
>crank's power to overcome internal friction and whatnot thus subtracting
>some of the power gains.  Whereas a turbo has no direct connection to the
>crank so it doesn't rob any of the power gain generated.
> --
Sorry, but that's not quite right. Suppose the engine being driven, valves
opening, closing etc., but NO ignition, no fuel used. Then still the
turbocharger would start spinning just by the pump function of the engine,
sucking air in, pumping air out. The energy needed to move the air through
the outlet valves is taken from the crank. But of course, that's just a
small amount. So in praxis, you're quite right, the turbo doesn't add very
much to what is taken away from the crank. But what it really lives on is,
that when the outlet valves open, there is still some pressure left from
the combustion - which then expands and drives the turbo.
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
: 
: 
: >     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
: >you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
: >a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  (Cf. the above.)
: 
: I give up.  Is this supposed to be a joke?

tejas@infi.net
           "Eat some blackeyed peas and fried banana,
            smoke me a seegar from Havana,
            I'll be the King of Louisiana"   
                             (It's gonna be) PAYDAY  Porter Wagoner

Ronald Kunne wrote:
> 
> Now that this thread has turned into a spelling and grammar correcting
> shouting match, maybe we could change the subject?
> 
> And get back to physics.
Hear hear. And while you're about it, get back to sci.physics.

In article <327BC354.5D7B@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, "Edward F. Zotti"  writes:
> We were recently asked: if the earth stopped spinning, would we fall off? 
> My initial reaction was: naah, we'd be glued to the planet more firmly 
> than ever (i.e., we'd weigh more), because centrifugal force would no 
> longer be operative. However, I thought it prudent to place the question 
> before the house. So:
> 
> (1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the 
> same? If more or less, what would we weigh?
More.  But not much more. I figured it out once; if I remember right it
was a few tenths of one percent effect.
> If in fact spinning causes us  to weigh less, how fast would the 
> earth have to spin before we were weightless?
If you think about it, you'll realize that (essentially) if you are
going around the earth fast enough that centrifugal force counters the
effect of gravity, you are in orbit (by definition).  Now, the speed
required for that is 14 km/sec.  So the surface of the earth would
have to be moving that fast.  That and the radius of the earth (6400 km)
should give you the rotation rate (too busy to figure it out now).
> (2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and 
> sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter 
> what hemisphere you were in?
I suspect the effects on the weather would be quite dramatic.  BTW, the
bathtub thing is a myth; check the alt.folklore.urban FAQ for details.
Of course, the reason storms spin the way they do *is* due to the coriolis
effect, so hurricanes et al would stop spinning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

In article <55r873$j7j@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, jrhodes@pupgg.princeton.edu 
(jrhodes@pupgg.princeton.edu) says...
>
>In article <3280d36b.0@news.softronics.com>, guru@top.o.de.mountain.top 
(Vishnu 
>Verheer) writes:
>
>>Well, remember, this also works the other way around.  The Earth cannot
>>be a sphere!  The people at the bottom would all fall off!  There
>>were many scientists who regarded the "sphere" theory as mental
>>masturbation as well.  With much more education, we learned to discount
>>-Vishnu Verheer (destroyer of ozone!)
>
>
>I'd personally like to see you, or anyone else, name a scienctist
>who didn't believe the earth was a sphere.
My mate Barry is a pharmacokineticist and he says that the Earth isn't a 
sphere but an oblate spheroid. (Did I mention he's a pain-in-the-bum pedant 
as well as being a pharmacokineticist?).
Yes, we all know that the Greeks knew the Earth to be a sphere. 
According to them verything moved naturally to it's set place. So fire rose 
into the sky and stones fell to Earth. One of these Greeks (havn't got books 
here, so can't remember name) even said that the Earth must be spherical 
because it's the shape that you would expect given these properties.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In talk.origins weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck)
: wrote:
: >Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
: >
: >[...]
: >: So, in your view, condemning someone for membership in an ethnic
: >: group, does not, in and of itself, constitute an ethnic attack? Then
: >: we disagree about the meaning of the word racism.
: >
: >Careful; a) Kagalenko has no idea what ethnic group I belong to; "German" 
: >is neither an ethnic nor a racial category; he's mostly guilty of vast 
: >stupidity and run-of-the-mill bigotry.
: >
: I was using "ethnic" in the more modern American usage, i.e. member of
: some recognizable group, rather than the anthropological sense which I
: think you mean.
Nonetheless there are German Jews and German gypsies.
: >: > And so I was, which seem justified given her infatuation with 
: >: > odious figures like Heidegger and LeMan.
: >
: >: But you did not attack her views, or her support for other people. You
: >: attacked her because of her place of birth and native culture.
: >
: You are welcome, but I am not really supporting you, I am supporting
: "everyone".
That's what I'm appreciating.
But you have to excuse Kagalenko; as far as I know, he comes from a 
country that has a superior record when it comes to human rights; 
centuries of flawless democracy, a long tradition of treating minorities 
with the greatest respect, the most cordial relationships with  
neighboring states (remember the parties Budapest and Prague threw in 56 
and 68), and to date, no corruption, no violence; even Sweden blushes in 
envy at such a history, and it is no wonder that Kagalenko is harsh on 
other nations.
Silke
: Matt Silberstein
: ===========================
: Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
: Ovid

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <55uibp$12v@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >-Mammel,L.H. (lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com) wrote:
: >: In article <55q9p3$gjd@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>,
: >: Russell Turpin  wrote:
: >: >
: >: >GR can extend CM only *because* they share common, operational
: >: >notions of time, space, and many other common concepts.
: >
: >: I'm just wondering how you react to the melodramatics of
: >: e.g. Minkowski, Born, and Weyl in their discussions of 
: >: relativity. In 1922 Weyl wrote that "A cataclysm has been
: >: unloosed which has wept away space, time, and matter".
: >
: >: Maybe now that those concepts have been swept away, they are no
: >: longer missed very much by those that never knew them as
: >: "pillars of understanding".
: >
: >Which might explain, just as a footnote, why French philosophers who 
: >might read the original contributors rather than self-declared Usenet 
: >experts think of certain developments in 20th century physics as 
: >de-centering rather than stabilizing.
: >
: Possible.  If so, said philosophers should make the effort to acquint 
: themself with all that happened in physics since the 20s, as well as 
: not to put too much weigh in the words of the original contributors.  
: The legacy of said contibutors is in the formalisms they left behind 
: them, their thoughts on the subject are just this, thoughts.
Quite. However, Derrida is in the business of thoughts, even though he 
just might omit the just. Different priorities, so to speak.
The talk, btw, took place in the 60s.
Silke
: Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <55q9p3$gjd@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
> GR can extend CM only *because* they share common, operational
> notions of time, space, and many other common concepts.  For both
> Einstein and Newton, time is measured by regular physical
> processes, i.e., clocks.  If Newton were to pop forward to the
> 20th century, he would NOT say of GR: What a strange concept of
> time!  It uses the same operational concept he used, indeed, the
> same operational concept used by every chef in boiling an egg.
> Rather, he would say: so a clock accelerated away and back
> *really* runs at a different rate from the one that stayed in
> place?  The amazing thing is NOT the "metaphysical underpinning,"
> which hasn't changed one bit, but a surprising fact about how
> time works across great distances and changes in speed.
> 
But Turpin elsewhere says:
 "...Science does NOT assume that reality is consistent...."
As usual, I'm confused. If science does not assume that reality is
consistent, how can there be any surprises about anything, much less how
time works across great distances and changes in speed? Surely, the very
notion of "surprise" springs from a perception of disruption, and
"disruption" begs the question of underlying order/consistency. Thus, a
"surprise" in a fact about time can only mean that time has failed to
"behave" in a way that the regnant underlying assumption of order had led
physicists to expect. (Whether or not such notions of order can exhaust
the universe seems a different--but related--question.)
And how would we distinguish between the metaphysical and non-metaphysical
in notions of order in the universe?...Gene

Doug Craigen wrote:
> 
> Stephen La Joie wrote:
> > Every text I've ever seen, and every reference, described a solid
> > as having long range order and low entropy. Under your definition,
> > cold molasses is a solid.
> 
> I guess you missed:
> 
> *P. M. Goldbart and A. Zippelius. Amorphous solid state of vulcanized
> *                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> *macromolecules: a variational approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2256-2259
> *(1993).
> 
> What's this, amorphous solid???  Those referees at Phys Rev Lett must
> have been sleeping, since every text and every other reference defines a
> solid as having long range order!
No, they weren't sleeping. I even pointed out that one of my references 
called glass an amorphous solid. 
> So how about the keynote address at the HUME-ROTHERY AWARD SYMPOSIUM FOR
> WILLIAM L.JOHNSON: Thermodynamic And Kinetic Issues In The Synthesis Of
> Metastable Materials I:
> *THERMODYNAMIC AND KINETIC ASPECTS OF GLASSY PHASE FORMATION IN
> *NON-EQUILIBRIUM METALLIC SYSTEMS: William L. Johnson, California
> *Institute of Technology, 138-78, Pasadena, CA 91125
> *A glass or amorphous solid is a condensed phase, which like the related
> *           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> *liquid phase, lacks long range periodicity in the arrangement of atoms.
> *Amorphous solids can be formed when the liquid phase is deeply ...
> *^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Perhaps you should write to William Johnson and let him know about his
> inappropriate terminology!
It is a bad choice of words, "amorphous solid", but your sarcasm backfires 
when your own quotes say that amorphous solids are related to the liquid 
phase and lack long range order.
Clearly, solid has two definitions, as does "work". There's the common
usage, which is inexact and unsuitable for scientific work, and
the scientific definition. Here they are using the inexact definition
to mean glass.
> *Synthesis of Lithium Chromium Oxide from a Hydroxide Precursor
> *J. L. Allen and K. R. Poeppelmeier,
> *Polyhedron, Symposium-in-Print on Chemical Aspects of Advanced
> *Materials,Ed. M. J. Hampden-Smith, 13, 1301, 1994.
> *The room temperature reaction of Cr(OH)3*3(H2O) with LiOH*H2O results in
> *an X-ray amorphous solid that appears to ...
> *         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> There's that non-existent phrase again!
Yes, yes. If you go back through the usenet post, you will see
where I clearly gave references to amorphous solid and threatened
anyone who made such sophistic arguments like. I forget what the
threat was. I guess I'll have to go and find out what I have
to do to you now. :-)
You clearly don't know the difference between a glass and
a solid. Tho' I do admit that glass is a special case
of "amorphous solid". Amorphous solid is an oxymoron, however.
I bet you think that quarks really do have color and
charm, too.

Bill Oertell wrote:
> 
> Anthony Mark Swinbank wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone help me with this question.
> >
> > Does anyone know what the internal resistance of a lead acid car battery
> > is, and why this type of wet battery is used in a car?
> >
> > thanks in advance
> >
> > Mark
> >
> 
>     I don't know of any other battery type that can deliver the current
> necessary for turning over a cold engine.  Lead acid batteries can
> deliver over 500 amps.
>     Internal resistance depends on the condition of the battery's
> plates.  If the voltage falls below 9 volts while cranking, the battery
> should be replaced.  If I knew what normal cranking current was, the
> internal resistance would be easily computed.  Unfortunately, I don't.
> 
>                                   Bill
Humm. If you know the open circuit voltage to be 12 volts, and the voltage 
falls to 9 Volts at 500 Amps, why can't you calculate the Theivenin 
resistance?

In article , Anthony
Potts  wrote:
> I don't care what people think about me very much, except for those that
> matter. I don't count the opinions of anyone on this group.
Ahh, so that's why you respond in such excruciatingly humorless detail to
every perceived slight.  
Texas Tom

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> Christopher R Volpe wrote:
> 
> > Anthony Potts wrote:
> >
> > > Neutrinos, not neutrinoes.
> >
> > '"Neutrinos", not "neutrinoes"', not 'Neutrinos, not neutrinoes'.
> 
> At least if you're going to nitpick and correct people, you could do it
> correctly.  
	At least if you're going to nitpick and correct people, you could do it
correctly.  
> Grammatically speaking, these two words should be
> italicized/underlined, not put in quotes.
	There's no such requirement in any grammar I know. (At first I
thought you were going to complain about the "waywad"; he should
indeed spell correctly if he's going to complain about spelling.)
-- 
David Ullrich
?his ?s ?avid ?llrich's ?ig ?ile
(Someone undeleted it for me...)

Matt Austern  writes:
   Again, I'd like to point out that Newton apparently did not believe
   that it was necessary to understand calculus in order to understand
   Newtonian mechanics: I'm told (I've never read Principia myself) that
   there is no calculus in Principia.
Not in the formal sense, but the concepts are certainly there.  For
example, right near the beginning he derives the law of equal areas
for a central force law.  He decomposes the force into an infinite
number of infinitesimal impulses, and the trajectory into a polygon
with an infinite number of sides of infinitesimal length.
If this isn't calculus very thinly disguised, I don't know what is.
The famous astrophysicist Chandrasekhar has written a book giving a
detailed gloss on Principia.  In fact, I think there's another one by
someone else.

: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: We do not have absolute time at our disposal, but it does of course exist. 
Exist exschmist.  That's not the point.
The point is, it is not at our disposal, as even bjon agrees.
If it's not at our disposal, it has no consequences.
If it has no consequences, it's superfluous in describing things.
SR is a model of things AT our disposal.
: But it does have a very real existence as shown by the actual beat of
: each atomic clock. 
But the "actual beat of each atomic clock" is proper time,
equal to the spacetime interval.  That in no way establishes that
there must be an absolute time.
Further, if "a very real existence [were] shown by [atomic clocks]",
then it would be at our disposal.  But bjon says it is not.
As so often the case, bjon contradicts himself (but refuses
to realize it).
: Observer A finds two events to be 1 LY and .0583 Yr apart.
: Observer B finds the event to be 1.4364 LY & 1.0328 Yrs apart.
Oooooh, bjon has chosen  two events where the proper time is imaginary.
Kids, do your very best Could Floyd impressions... ready?  All together now:
"Oooooooooooh, scarey!"
Bjon, of course, is totally innocent of the fact that there is in
spacetime a distinction between "spacelike" and "timelike".
Ooooooooh, complicated.
: A's II² = (1 LY)² - (.0583 Yr)² = .9966
: B's II² = (1.4364 LY)² - (1.0328 Yrs) = .9966
: 
: What physical meaning is there to the .9966 result?  It is a 
: combination of distance and time, each squared.  What meaning can
: a time squared have? And what about subtracting this time squared 
: from the distance squared?
Oooooooh, kids.  Watch out now.  This is really logical... stuff... there, boy.
And as usual, to demonstrate how silly bjon's "logic" is, this is equivalent
to having an delta-x of 3 and a delta-y of 4, and then objecting
     What physical meaning is there to the 25 result?  It is a
     combination of x and y, each squared.  What meaning can an x
     squared have?  And what about adding this x sequred
     to the y squared?
Of course, bjon might well bluster and puff and say, "harumpf harumpf, but
theres an obvious physical meaning of a distance squared; it's an area,
and the distance you get is therefore a diagonal across an area...
that's completely different, nothing like the point I'm making
harumpf harumpf".
But that's the point; it IS alike.  Real physical processes have time extents
that correspond to the "diagonal" across a tract of "spacetime", and not
(as had been thought) extents that correspond to a single time dimension.
The only difference between this and area on a plane is that people
are more familiar with the area bit, and less familiar with
the space-time bit.
Bjon always says there just MUST be some absolute behind the rates
of clocks and the lengths of rods.  OK, find.  But he has NOT provided
any support for the notion that this absolute is not spacetime, 
instead of a separate absolute for space, and another for time.
He merely insists that it MUST be so, in effect onaccounta he SAYS so,
he's comfortable and familiar with it, and he's not comfortable and
familiar with the notion of spacetime, and so THERE.
: the proper time for the two events is the time recorded by a single
: clock that happened to be at each event (by moving between them). 
: This value depends on how fast the clock had to go, which in turn
: depends upon how far apart the events were in space, and upon the true
: time between them. 
Right.  Exactly the same as, the distance between two points is the
measure recorded by a ruler that extends between them (by being laid
straight with each point located on the ruler).  This value depends
on the angle at which you had to lay the ruler, which in turn depends
on how large the delta-y , and upon the true delta-x between them.
           velocity -> direction
           space    -> y
           time     -> x
           rotation -> lorentz transform
           trig     -> hyperbolic trig
: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
: the events.  This is the case above. 
Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
Thus, the interval is spacelike.
Oooooooo, scarey.  Ooooooh.   I dunno about you, kids, 
but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you.  Oooooh.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

::: The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def. 
::: of absolute time. 
:: You have given a definition, but not an OPERATIONAL definition. 
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: It is operational in the sense that it could be carried out by simple
: trial and error if by no other means. 
You can only have "trial and error" as an operational definition if you
can tell when you err.  For example, it is clear that bjon has erred
here.  He now knows he needs to make another try at his operational
definition. 
So, keep on trying, bjon.  Everybody needs a hobby, I guess.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

*************************************************************************
GRADUATE TRAINING IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE AND NEURAL SYSTEMS (CNS) 
AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY
*************************************************************************
The Boston University Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems
offers comprehensive graduate training in the neural and computational
principles, mechanisms, and architectures that underlie human and
animal behavior, and the application of neural network architectures
to the solution of technological problems.
Applications for Fall, 1997, admission and financial aid are now being
accepted for both the MA and PhD degree programs.
To obtain a brochure describing the CNS Program and a set of
application materials, write, telephone, or fax:
DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE AND NEURAL SYSTEMS 
Boston University
677 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02215
617/353-9481 (phone) 
617/353-7755 (fax)
or send via email your full name and mailing address to:
inquiries@cns.bu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Applications for admission and financial aid should be received by the
Graduate School Admissions Office no later than January 15.  Late
applications will be considered until May 1; after that date 
applications will be considered only as special cases.
Applicants are required to submit undergraduate (and, if applicable,
graduate) transcripts, three letters of recommendation, and Graduate
Record Examination (GRE) scores. The Advanced Test should be in the
candidate's area of departmental specialization. GRE scores may be
waived for MA candidates and, in exceptional cases, for PhD
candidates, but absence of these scores may decrease an applicant's
chances for admission and financial aid.
Non-degree students may also enroll in CNS courses on a part-time
basis.
Stephen Grossberg, Chairman 
Gail A. Carpenter, Director of Graduate Studies
Description of the CNS Department:
The Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems (CNS) provides advanced
training and research experience for graduate students interested in
the neural and computational principles, mechanisms, and architectures
that underlie human and animal behavior, and the application of neural
network architectures to the solution of outstanding technological
problems.  Students are trained in a broad range of areas concerning
cognitive and neural systems, including vision and image processing;
speech and language understanding; adaptive pattern recognition;
cognitive information processing; self-organization; associative
learning and long-term memory; cooperative and competitive network
dynamics and short-term memory; reinforcement, motivation, and
attention; adaptive sensory-motor control and robotics; and biological
rhythms; as well as the mathematical and computational methods needed
to support advanced modeling research and applications. The CNS
Department awards MA, PhD, and BA/MA degrees.
The CNS Department embodies a number of unique features. It has
developed a curriculum that consists of interdisciplinary graduate
courses, each of which integrates the psychological, neurobiological,
mathematical, and computational information needed to theoretically
investigate fundamental issues concerning mind and brain processes and
the applications of neural networks to technology. Additional advanced
courses, including research seminars, are also offered. Each course is
typically taught once a week in the afternoon or evening to make the
program available to qualified students, including working
professionals, throughout the Boston area.  Students develop a
coherent area of expertise by designing a program that includes
courses in areas such as biology, computer science, engineering,
mathematics, and psychology, in addition to courses in the CNS
curriculum.
The CNS Department prepares students for thesis research with
scientists in one of several Boston University research centers or
groups, and with Boston-area scientists collaborating with these
centers. The unit most closely linked to the department is the Center
for Adaptive Systems.  Students interested in neural network hardware
work with researchers in CNS, at the College of Engineering, and at
MIT Lincoln Laboratory.  Other research resources include
distinguished research groups in neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, and
neuropharmacology at the Medical School and the Charles River Campus;
in sensory robotics, biomedical engineering, computer and systems
engineering, and neuromuscular research within the Engineering School;
in dynamical systems within the Mathematics Department; in theoretical
computer science within the Computer Science Department; and in
biophysics and computational physics within the Physics Department.
In addition to its basic research and training program, the department
conducts a seminar series, as well as conferences and symposia, which
bring together distinguished scientists from both experimental and
theoretical disciplines.
The department is housed in its own new four story building which
includes ample space for faculty and student offices and laboratories,
as well as an auditorium, classroom and seminar rooms, library, and
faculty-student lounge.
LABORATORY AND COMPUTER FACILITIES
The department is funded by grants and contracts from federal agencies
which support research in life sciences, mathematics, artificial
intelligence, and engineering. Facilities include laboratories for
experimental research and computational modeling in visual perception,
speech and language processing, and sensory-motor control. Data
analysis and numerical simulations are carried out on a state-of-
the-art computer network comprised of Sun workstations, Silicon
Graphics workstations, Macintoshes and PCs.  All students have access
to X terminals or UNIX workstation consoles, a selection of color
systems and PCs, the Boston University connection machine and network
of SGI machines, and standard modeling and mathematical simulation
packages such as Mathematica, VisSim, Khoros, and Matlab.
The department maintains a core collection of books and journals, and
has access both to the Boston University Libraries and to the many
other collections of the Boston Library Consortium.
In addition, several specialized facilities and software are available
for use. These include:
Computer Vision/Computational Neuroscience Laboratory:
The Computer Vision/Computational Neuroscience Lab is comprised of an
electronics workshop, including surface mount workstation, PCD
fabrication tools, and Alterra EPLD design system; a light machine
shop; an active vision lab including actuators and video hardware; and
systems for computer aided neuroanatomy and application of computer
graphics and image processing to brain sections and MRI images.
Neurobotics Laboratory:
The Neurobotics Lab utilizes wheeled mobile robots to study potential
applications of neural networks in several areas, including adaptive
dynamics and kinematics, obstacle avoidance, path planning and
navigation, visual object recognition, and conditioning and
motivation. The robot currently has three Pioneer robots equipped with
sonar and visual sensors, one B-14 robot with a moveable camera,
sonars, infrared, and bump sensors, and two Khepera miniature robots
with infrared proximity detectors. Other platforms may be investigated
in the future.
Psychoacoustics Laboratory:
The Psychoacoustics Lab houses a newly installed, 8' x 8' sound-proof
booth.  The laboratory is extensively equipped to perform both
traditional psychoacoustic experiments as well as experiments using
interactive auditory virtual-reality stimuli.  The major equipment
dedicated to the psychoacoustics laboratory will include a Sun
mini-computer (networked with other computing facilities in the CNS
Department); two Pentium-based personal computers; two Power-PC-based
Macintosh computers; a 50-MHz array processor capable of generating
auditory stimuli in real time; programmable attenuators;
analog-to-digital converters; digital-to-analog converters; a
real-time head tracking system; a special-purpose signal-processing
hardware system capable of generating "spatialized" stereo auditory
signals in real time; a two-channel oscilloscope; a two-channel
spectrum analyzer; various cables, headphones, and other miscellaneous
electronics equipment; and software for signal generation,
experimental control, data analysis, and word processing. Speech and
Language Laboratory
Sensory-Motor Control Laboratory:
The Sensory-Motor Control Lab is networked with the CNS Department's
many state-of-the-art computational/graphics workstations for
numerical simulations and display. The lab is also equipped to allow
experimental studies of motor kinematics.  An infrared WatSmart system
allows measurement of large scale movements, and a pressure-sensitive
graphics tablet allows studies of handwriting and other fine-scale
movements.  An optical system capable of non-invasive measurements of
smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements is being added in Fall of
1996.
Speech and Language Laboratory:
The Speech and Language Lab includes facilities for analog to digital
and digital to analog software.  The Ariel equipment allows reliable
synthesis and playback of speech waveforms.  An Entropic signal
processing package provides facilities for detailed analysis,
filtering, spectral construction, and formant tracking of the speech
waveform.  Various large databases such as TIMIT and TIdigits are
available for testing algorithms of speech recognition.  For high
speed processing, the department provides supercomputer facilities to
speed filtering and data analysis.
Visual Psychophysics Laboratory:
The Visual Psychophysics Lab occupies an 800 square foot suite,
including three dedicated rooms for data collection, and houses a
variety of computer controlled display platforms, including Silicon
Graphics, Inc.  (SGI) Onyx RE2, SGI Indigo2 High Impact, SGI Indigo2
Extreme, Power Computing (Macintosh compatible) PowerTower Pro 225,
and Macintosh 7100/66 workstations. Ancillary resources for visual
psychophysics include computer-controlled video camera, stereo viewing
glasses, prisms, and a photometer, and a variety of display
generation, data collection, and data analysis software.
1996-97 CAS MEMBERS and CNS FACULTY:
Jelle Atema
Professor of Biology
Director, Boston University Marine Program (BUMP)
PhD, University of Michigan
Sensory physiology and behavior.
Aijaz Baloch 
Research Associate of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Electrical Engineering, Boston University 
Neural modeling of role of visual attention in recognition, learning &
motor control, computational vision, adaptive control systems,
reinforcement learning.
Helen Barbas
Associate Professor of Health Sciences, Sargent College 
PhD, Physiology/Neurophysiology, McGill University 
Organization of the prefrontal cortex, evolution of the neocortex.
Jacob Beck 
Research Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Psychology, Cornell University 
Visual perception, psychophysics, computational models.
Daniel H. Bullock 
Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems and Psychology 
PhD, Psychology, Stanford University 
Real-time neural systems, sensory-motor learning and control,
evolution of intelligence, cognitive development.
Gail A. Carpenter 
Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems and Mathematics 
Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison 
Pattern recognition, categorization, machine learning, differential
equations.
Laird Cermak
Director, Memory Disorders Research Center
Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Professor of Neuropsychology, School of Medicine 
Professor of Occupational Therapy, Sargent College 
PhD, Ohio State University 
Memory disorders.
Michael A. Cohen 
Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems and Computer Science 
Director, CAS/CNS Computation Labs 
PhD, Psychology, Harvard University 
Speech and language processing, measurement theory, neural modeling,
dynamical systems.
H. Steven Colburn 
Professor of Biomedical Engineering 
PhD, Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Audition, binaural interaction, signal processing models of hearing.
Howard Eichenbaum
Professor of Psychology
PhD, Psychology, University of Michigan
Neurophysiological studies of how the hippocampal system is involved
in reinforcement learning, spatial orientation, and declarative
memory.
William D. Eldred III 
Associate Professor of Biology 
PhD, University of Colorado, Health Science Center 
Visual neural biology. 
Paolo Gaudiano 
Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University 
Computational and neural models of robotics, vision, adaptive
sensory-motor control, and behavioral neurobiology.
Jean Berko Gleason 
Professor of Psychology 
PhD, Harvard University 
Psycholinguistics. 
Doug Greve 
Research Associate of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University 
Active vision.
Stephen Grossberg 
Wang Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Professor of Mathematics, Psychology, and Biomedical Engineering 
Director, Center for Adaptive Systems 
Chairman, Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Mathematics, Rockefeller University 
Theoretical biology, theoretical psychology, dynamical systems,
applied mathematics.
Frank Guenther 
Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University 
Biological sensory-motor control, spatial representation, speech
production.
J. Pieter Jacobs 
Visiting Scholar, Cognitive and Neural Systems 
MMA, MM, Music, Yale University 
MMus, Music, University of Pretoria 
MEng, Electromagnetism, University of Pretoria 
Aspects of motor control in piano playing; the interface between
psychophysical and cognitive phenomena in music perception.
Thomas G. Kincaid
Professor of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering, 
College of Engineering 
PhD, Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Signal and image processing, neural networks, non-destructive testing.
Nancy Kopell 
Professor of Mathematics 
PhD, Mathematics, University of California at Berkeley 
Dynamical systems, mathematical physiology, pattern formation in
biological/physical systems.
Ennio Mingolla 
Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems and Psychology 
PhD, Psychology, University of Connecticut 
Visual perception, mathematical modeling of visual processes.
Alan Peters 
Chairman and Professor of Anatomy and Neurobiology, School of Medicine 
PhD, Zoology, Bristol University, United Kingdom 
Organization of neurons in the cerebral cortex, effects of aging on
the primate brain, fine structure of the nervous system.
Andrzej Przybyszewski 
Senior Research Associate of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Warsaw Medical Academy 
Retinal physiology, mathematical and computer modeling of dynamical
properties of neurons in the visual system.
Adam Reeves
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Professor of Psychology, Northeastern University 
PhD, Psychology, City University of New York 
Psychophysics, cognitive psychology, vision.
Mark Rubin 
Research Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Research Physicist, Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA (on leave) 
PhD, Physics, University of Chicago 
Neural networks for vision, pattern recognition, and motor control.
Elliot Saltzman
Associate Professor of Physical Therapy, Sargent College
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology and Center for the 
Ecological Study of Perception and Action
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Research Scientist, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT
PhD, Developmental Psychology, University of Minnesota
Modeling and experimental studies of human speech production.
Robert Savoy
Adjunct Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Scientist, Rowland Institute for Science 
PhD, Experimental Psychology, Harvard University 
Computational neuroscience; visual psychophysics of color, form, and
motion perception.
Eric Schwartz
Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems; Electrical, Computer and 
Systems Engineering; and Anatomy and Neurobiology 
PhD, High Energy Physics, Columbia University 
Computational neuroscience, machine vision, neuroanatomy, neural
modeling.
Robert Sekuler 
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Research Professor of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, 
BioMolecular Engineering Research Center 
Jesse and Louis Salvage Professor of Psychology, Brandeis University 
PhD, Psychology, Brown University 
Visual motion, visual adaptation, relation of visual perception,
memory, and movement.
Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems
PhD, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Psychoacoustics, audition, auditory localization, binaural hearing,
sensorimotor adaptation, mathematical models of human performance.
Gary Shyi 
Visiting Scholar, Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Experimental Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook 
Spatial attention, visual object recognition, 3-D mental objects of
objects.
Louis Tassinary 
Visiting Scholar, Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Psychology, Dartmouth College 
Dynamics of affective states as they relate to instigated and ongoing
cognitive processes.
Malvin Teich
Professor of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering and Biomedical
Engineering
PhD, Cornell University
Quantum optics, photonics, fractal stochastic processes, information
transmission in biological sensory systems.
Takeo Watanabe 
Assistant Professor of Psychology 
PhD, Behavioral Sciences, University of Tokyo 
Perception of objects and motion and effects of attention on
perception using psychophysics and brain imaging (f-MRI).
Allen Waxman 
Adjunct Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Senior Staff Scientist, MIT Lincoln Laboratory 
PhD, Astrophysics, University of Chicago 
Visual system modeling, mobile robotic systems, parallel computing,
optoelectronic hybrid architectures.
James Williamson
Research Associate of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
PhD, Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston University 
Image processing and object recognition. Particular interests are: dynamic
binding, self-organization, shape representation, and classification.
Jeremy Wolfe 
Adjunct Associate Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems 
Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School 
Psychophysicist, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Surgery Dept. 
Director of Psychophysical Studies, Center for Clinical Cataract Research 
PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Visual attention, preattentive and attentive object representation.
*************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE AND NEURAL SYSTEMS GRADUATE TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENT
Boston University
677 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02215
Phone: 617/353-9481 
Fax:   617/353-7755 
Email: inquiries@cns.bu.edu 
Web: http://cns-web.bu.edu/
*************************************************************************