Newsgroup sci.physics 213777

Directory

If you use d'Alembert's Principle you can derive the Lagrangian
equations with external forces:
d/dt(@T/@qdot) - @T/@q = Qe
where Qe is the externally applied generalized forces.
You can also derive the equations for force-free motion using the
calculus of variations.  Is there any way to derive the equations with
the Qe term using the calculus of variations?
Chris

In article <5acn5t$pk4@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) writes:
>Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote:
>: One effect has not been excluded by epidemiological studies,
>: namely a slight increase in rates of leukemia among children 
>: living near power lines. But this may have nothing to do with EM
>: fields: for example, it may be caused by the use of herbicides 
>: in the "scorched earth" right-of-way typically maintained under
>: power lines.
>
>What is the evidence for that?
>
>I thought that power line workers were at risk of leukemia, too.
>
Based on what?
>Though I admit that the magnetic fields from those high voltage lines in 
>the studies are less than that from the low tension close proximity 
>lines. The distances from the lines taken in the studies allow for fields 
>down to much lower than the 2 milli-Gauss very common but often exceeded 
>in domestic situations. So I suspected just a country city variation, in 
>the study, that is, with its farm chemicals.
>
>But how can a study which uses a normal 2 milli-Gauss background as a control
>for something much lower be a real study? Is there an effect other than 
>magnetic - HV lines do make noise on car radios.
Yes, there is another effect.  It is the well recognized fact that you 
can scare people into funding you.  Nothing new about it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

On 1 Jan 1997 03:29:10 GMT, clarkm2@nevada.edu (MARK A CLARK) wrote:
>wf3h@enter.net wrote:
>:ONLY biblical literalists are creationist and NO scientist
>: is. 
>
>if i may jump in, you didn't answer his question.
how does one answer a propaganda question? it is merely the fruit of a
creationist lie. since creationism IS religion, they must first
establish objectivity. since they lie it is useless to argue science
with them
>
>: creationist have a motive to lie; they wish to prove the bible is
>: true. but why would astronomers, geologists and biologists ALL accept
>: evolution?
>
>to be accepted by their peers, and to disprove god.
so scientists are liars? does your computer exist? prove your
statement...why would scientists all over the world lie? where is your
proof? did elvis have a role? this conspiracy crap is more evidence of
the lie that creationism truly is.
>
>>once again, a clever dodge.  the speed of light has been measured by 
>scientists (we could call them "your side") and has been shown to be 
>slowing down. 
well since creationism is a lie, and creationists will say whatever is
necessary to support their religion, this little lie gets a lot of
play. of course it is false
taking science lessons from creationists is like taking economics
lessons from communists

::>I chose 2.32 Terrawatts per square Kilometer per year, this equates to
::>214,000 watts per sq. ft per year.
::No.  The caption of the map says "terawatt hours per square kilometer per
::year" which would be units of power (terawatt hours per year) per unit of
::area (square kilometers of earth's surface).
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mitch: YES!!! (not NO.)  I used a conversion program for the results.
You do not need to tell me how to do what I correctly already did..
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
::To convert to units of watts and feet, use these factors: 10**12 watts /
::terawatt and 1.0765 x 10**(7) square feet / square kilometer and 8760 hours /
::year.  The rate/area you chose would convert to 24.6 watts per sq. ft.
Your "8760" hours per year is ridiculously fallicious. The sun DOES
NOT SHINE "24" hours a day!!!!!
That's the whole *POINT* of my question. WHAT is the yearly hours
(watts) of actually VISIBLE presence of the sun in the solargraphic
region I chose????
You are tampering in the solar thermal field, and you know not what
you are talking about -at all...
The conclusion -24.6 watts per sq. ft.- a year though NUMERICALLY
correct accounts for NIGHTTIME, also. In the solar/PV industry
"ENERGY MEASUREMENTS" are not taken in pitch blackness..
Nighttime has little to do with this discussion at all..
::>Q: What would be the effective Terawatts per sq. ft per hour gathered
::>by the solar dish over the course of "one day", disregarding the
::>"obvious" delitereous effects of atmospheric envolvement?
::The map values are for area of rotating earth, which would be the value for
::an area directly facing the sun divided by the square root of two (the area
::under a sine curve - sans mumbo jumbo).  So the dish would gather 34.8 watts
::per sq. ft., disregarding atmospheric effects.  I would guess this to be an
::average over the course of an average day.  If you want to go back to
::terawatts, do the division yourself.
"the course of an average day."  RIGHT- NOT NIGHT TIME TOO!!!!!!
I would go back to school, with this mentallity. No one in their right
mind would say that "DAILY" insolation amounts to "AT BEST"
34.8 Watts a square foot...  You are completely uneducated in the 
field that you are discusssing..
d.
::Mitch

In article <32ca56c8.11803132@aklobs.org.nz>, Ray Tomes wrote :
[snip]
>If the planetary distances are assumed to be essentially random then the
>four periods derived are also random and the probability of the two
>solar oscillations matching as well as they each do to one of the
>periods is about p=.029 which is a modest degree of significance.
>
[snip]
Ray,
Would you entertain the possibility that the Solar oscillations are
resonating with the planetary motion, due to tidal forces, rather than
being the cause of the planetary distribution?
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk 
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on 
temperature.
"....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Let's get this staight. First saying that evolutionism or creationism are based 
on unprovable statements is true, but TRIVIAL. It is well known that a higher level of 
truth exists than linguistic or other axiomatic systems, and yes this is proveable. 
Science is a natural extension of the learing process, and other religon, if 
scrutinized, is not. To see this try a thought experiment: I have a stapler on my desk 
right now. If I pick it up, about a foot off the ground, and then release it from my 
hand what happens? Well I tried this, and, guess what, it fell. The time is now 3:52 am. 
If I had tried this experiment ten minutes ago, what would have happened? The stapler 
would also have fallen, right? WRONG, maybe. When asked why you predicted what you did 
you will probably say a force, "Gravitee", acts on all earthbound objects in such a way 
as to produce an acceleration of about 32 feet per second squared, per unit mass and 
neglecting air resistance. However, what is actually occuring is that "gravitee" acts on 
all objects EXCEPT 5.25 inch long Swingline staplers whithin the Baltimore city limits, 
which are acted upon by a different force, "stapler phlogiston repulsivity", or SPR for 
short. (Historicly phlogiston is the substance that escapes into the air on combustion, 
in metals (which grow heavvier when burnt) phlogiston has negative mass, hence the "R" 
in SPR; phlogiston ins entirely undetectable in air.) SPR's formulation is similar to 
Columb's law, but with the important difference that SPR's force is zero between 3:51 
and 3:53 on January 1, 1997. Therefore, if I had dropped the stapler, according to SPR, 
it would have hovered in midair. Why do we accept the first hypothesis and not the 
second? There is no evidence disproving either one. It is because we base learning on 
certain *unprovable* assumptions. Whithout further 
	1. Absolute truth is constant. That is, independent of so called environment.
	2. Sort of an extension of 1, absolute truth is as simple as possible (Occam's 
             razor, sort of).
	3. All experience can be explained by absolute truth.
Note: this is not meant to be mathematicly rigorous, although it canbe made so. These 
postulates are the unprovable basis for all sense of reality.
	This being said, we can now apply it to evolution. Evolution, if acceptable as 
science, must pass all these criteria. It is a natural consequence of the laws of 
physics, and those laws apply everywhere, all the time. The laws of physics, and an 
early state of the universe, can be described rather compactly and plausibly. There 
exist no observed phenomenon whithin th domain of evolution that can't be explained by 
evolution. On this last point I have read reams of literature, and am quite sure, if you 
disagree, e-mail me (adrianby@erols.com).
	As for specific issues: The Arguement by Design is clearly invalid. It was best 
argued by Paley, which, incedentally, is a tiny fragment in the reams of creationist 
literature (contrary to what some have said, it does exist, and in unhealthy 
quantities). In this disscussion, many have made the same points. The classic exaple is 
the human eye. How, one may ask, can this not be intentionally designed? The structure 
is certainly well adapted to its task, and is very complex and precice. I can, of 
course, detail an evolutionary pathway from eyeless blob to human eye, but I won't here. 
Instead examine the structure more closely. Carefully remove one of your eyes (or a 
suitable assistant's), being careful not to damage anything important. Slice it in half 
an examine the structure, look at the cornea, lens, muscles and retina. Perfectly 
designed for seeing, right? Wrong. Place one half of the eye in a microtome and pick a 
good section. Examine the retina under a microscope (if you couldn't find an assistant, 
I advize against binocular viewing arrangments :-) ). You will notice that the nerves 
run OVER the sensitive cells. Not only does this decrease brightness and clarity, but it 
nessecitates a blind spot. Hardly a thing an intellegent designer would do. And it can 
be done the logical way. Squid, whose eyes are similar in structure to our but evolved 
independently, get it right. I would like any creationist to explain this to me (again, 
feel free to e-mail me). The only explainations I can think of are that either God is 
cruel or God is stupid.
	The past and present misunderstanding of evolutionary theory are not indicators 
of the theory's truth value. The moral implications of the theory are likewise 
irrevalent.
	Evolution is not in violation of the second law of thermadynamics. The evolution 
of life represents an increase in the amount of information needed to describe the state 
of life on earth; obviously, it takes more to describe both a man and a chimp than it 
does to describe either one. Since this is a rigorous definition of randomness and 
entopy, the second law is not violated.
	The fossil record does show intermediate forms, but not a whole bunch of them. 
This is due to the facts that most dead things don't fossilize, and that evolution 
occurs in bursts. The most famous demonstration of intermediate forms is the evolution 
of horses.
	Species can undergo natural selection and become different species. This is well 
documented.
	Life has redundency. For example, Oilbirds and bats, or marsupial wolve and 
placental ones. Or, look at the human genome. Not something an intelligent designer 
would do, unless It were thinking of evolution.
	Many scientists do not support evolution. The percentage depends on the field 
(sorry, I dont have hard numbers).
	The distinction between science and religon is arbitrary (hence really should 
not be discussued), but well defined. Religon is a belief system that is not science in 
a form resembling that today.
	In short, by our basic modes of truth evaluation, evolutionism appears to be 
better than all current alternatives. If an example that can't be explained by evolution 
comes up (I have yet to see one, despite claims to the contrary), the theory is dead and 
needs a replacement.
	Evolve
	  Adrian Brunyate (adrianby@erols.com).

renewable (soltherm@chatlink.com) wrote:
: ::>I chose 2.32 Terrawatts per square Kilometer per year, this equates to
: ::>214,000 watts per sq. ft per year.
: ::No.  The caption of the map says "terawatt hours per square kilometer per
: ::year" which would be units of power (terawatt hours per year) per unit of
: ::area (square kilometers of earth's surface).
: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
: Mitch: YES!!! (not NO.)  I used a conversion program for the results.
: You do not need to tell me how to do what I correctly already did..
: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       Well, you either made a typo above, or did the conversion
wrong, watts is a rate, watthours is a quantity.
       That is the biggest problem with conversion tables.
       You can't say "watts per year", you have to say "watthours
per year".    
       He was just telling you that you were using a rate of
power term as a quanity of energy term.
       The rest of your reply is not civil enough to respond to. :-)
Ken Fischer 

cwzeth@nis.net wrote in article ...
> Hey All,
> 
> Does someonw have an FAQ for this group that they wish to share?? My
question 
> about th enature of the leap year and exactly what causes it I would
asume is 
> in there.
> 
> If not, can anyone elaborate on the leap year thing? What causes this?
The 
> Earth's rotation? The Sun's orbit? Does leap year mean we are losing
(x)time 
> every second of our lives?
> 
> Thanks all!!
> 
> Chris
> cwzeth@nis.net
> 
We are not losing anything. (I could lose some weight.) 
The year is not 365 days in length. It's a little less than 365.25 days. So
every year we gain about a quarter of a day. Over the course of a few
hundred years the seasons start to drift and we have snow in July (in the
northern hemisphere)
So, every four years ( year divisible by 4) we toss in an extra day to keep
summer in July. But that puts us off by a little bit each year so every
century we have a year which should be a leap year but is not.
This and a bit of time tossed in every once in a while keeps our artificial
year in line with our real year. 

Jim Rogers <"jfr"@fc[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail].hp.com> wrote in article
<5ablig$4km@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> ...
> > 36 children have been killed by automotive airbags - protected to
death.
> > To the best of my knowledge, the total number of deaths attributable to
> > marijuana use over the past 35 years is *zero*.  A gram is better than
a
> >  damn.
> 
> Well let's be a bit more forthright, here. I don't know what the stats
> are, but there have been instances of avoidable nasty trainwrecks and
> such in which the responsible party was smoking dope. Do you attribute
> such tragedies to marijuana? Pot is dangerous mostly in its capacity to
> reduce a person's concern and attentiveness about things they really
> ought to be attentive to; it can impair judgement. There are lots of
> situations where that's totally harmless, but in the wrong situation it
> can be tragic. 
> 
> But a lot of medically-precribed drugs are like that; there's no reason
> pot shouldn't be listed in every doctor's pharmacopoeia, and studied
> just like every other drug. 
> 
> Jim
That's true, and I'm sure some deaths have resulted. I would still rather
deal with someone using marijuana than alcohol. Scare the metabolic residue
out of a drunk and they tend to still be drunk and inattentive. That's not
been my experience with pot heads. If you get a second chance you are more
likely to survive with pot. 
Dunk a drunk and he's liable to inhale enough water to kill him, no gag
reflex. About half of all adult drownings are alcohol related.  I'd put the
number higher based on my personal experience.

> > lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> > >I feel, that if Ray can answer those questions sufficiently, the mere fact
> > >of a pattern (planetary distances) fitting another pattern (solar
> > >oscillations recalculated into EM wave nodes) at a certain preciseness and
> > >with a high improbability of being a random fact, would be crying for an
> > >explanation.
     An outline of Ray's original post concerning the observation
     of this 'pattern' which is tabulated above may now be found
     on the web, in my usenet archive, at the following address:
     http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_p.html
In this document, the questions referred to above, which were
answered in a separate post, have been appended to the original.
Is there any intelligent layman (layperson) or scientist out there 
who might like to hazard a guess as to WHY there exists 
such a pattern in the data?
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        
    The human MIND is designed for 
    -it has for its Purpose most certainly -
    the Intellectual Process. 
    This can only be nourished and enlivened 
    by Thought and Contemplation.
    There lies, I say, in every human creature 
    what is beautifully expressed by the word enthusiasm - 
    which is from the Greek 'en theos' 
    and it means 'a god within', 'possessed by the gods'. 
    It is this Spirit which we all possess 
    but which few ever awaken.
    Once awakened it grows with unbounded fever 
    and it can drive a boy or a girl 
    or a man or a woman to wondrous things. 
    I have seen it. 
    A tiny spark can set the world aflame 
    and the light of a single candle 
    can pierce the darkness.
    ------    Professor Julius Sumner Miller (November 1965)
    Refer:    http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/wyisitso.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Samuels wrote:
> 
> Paul M. Koloc mentioned a "BL" that was apparently created by his group.
>  What is a BL and how was it created.  It sounds very interesting.
BL is short for Ball Lightning.  We have formed artificial ball
lightning in atmospheric air with energies from 20joules to 
4kj.   Topologically they are Spheromaks with an atmospheric pressure
confined conducting shell or Mantle.  Conductivity is unusually
higher than expected from thermal electron currents.  This seems
to be acheived by runaway or energetic currents.   Formation
is provided by fast input electrical energy which excites a
helical (M-1) instability. They are most definitely fun. Guess,
its the magic of Vortex power.      :-) 
They live for a large number of times beyond the current impulse
time that forms them, and with vigor. Our next goal is to produce
them more simply, and with a couple of orders more input energy.

Hi
Links to the Future has moved to a new location 
http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm It is devoted to linking
students, educators and professionals to research facilities and
data bases on the WWW. Below are some of the new links mixed
in with the old that are on this page .  If you would like to
suggests site please email jeff at jeffocal@mail.idt.net
PLEASE REMEMBER TO UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS 
Thanks in advance
Jeff
=========================================
PHYSICS
The Fermilab
   physics library is an excellent starting point for information
   relating to high energy physics,   astrophysics and engineering.
The Internet Pilot
   to Physics has links to research institutes indexed by
   country and fields of research.  Also has links to educational
   resources.
The Napoli
   physics library has an extensive search able data base.
PhysicsEd
   contains links to educational resources including curriculum
   development, education projects, software and e-mail 
   discussion groups.
MATHEMATICS
The Math Forum 
   is an excellent place to find information and resources on
   math related topics. 
Selected Math Resources 
   by subject is where you should go if you know what topic
   you are interested in. 
LEARNING LINKS 
Amateur Science
   is awesome, stupendous, marvelous.  I really like this
   place. If you decide to visit please bring  your children with you.
Doing Science
   brings together resources to help students learn the art
   of scientific investigation. A good place to begin a career. 
Netspedition 
   is an interactive scientific expedition to the  Amazon Rain
   forest.  It exposes both students and educators to the potential
   the Internet has for research.
The Yuckiest site on the Web,
   a creation of the Liberty Science Center, is devoted to introducing
   the introducing the world of insect to the general public.
THE FACULTY ROOM
Great Web Links for Educators
    by Al Bodzin is one of the better sites on the web for 
    k-12 educators. Contains links to Classroom Connect, 
    EdWeb Home Page and the Macintosh Educators Page. 
National Science Teachers Association
    web site contains information about this national organization
    including legislative updates publications of Nsta programs
    projects and on-line resources.
The School Page 
    is devoted to helping teachers and administrators in curriculum
    development, science teaching,  developing student study skills,
    and staff improvement. 
The Science Teachers Lounge
    is a resource for secondary science instructors. It contains
    links  to educational sites, children's  software and Internet 
    utilities. This site is still under construction. 
The Science WEB LINKS
    is another page authored by Al Bodzin which contains links to
   The Science Fair Homepage, Discover Magazine Web Portfolio
    Eisenhower National Clearinghouse and many more.
The Wentworth Classroom Connect
    is an ftp site that contain hundreds science lesson plans in all 
    areas and all grades.
NASA AND OTHER SPACE LINKS 
The Canadian Space Resource Center
   contains links to Canadian and European space agencies
   with excellent data base
The Hubble Space Telescope Public Pictures
   contains breathtaking images of our universe taken from the
   Hubble Space Telescope. NOTE If you experience any
   difficulty connecting with this site during peak usage hours 
   please try at another time.  You will be glad you did.
The National High School Space Settlement Design Contest
   is NOT directly associated with NASA but provides
   information on design of space related technologies.  Good site
   to visit if you are interested in participating in the future of 
   space.
The Spacelink Public Electronic Library
   links you to NASA's Public Electronic Library and keyword
   search Spacelink Library.  If you can't find it look here.
LINKS TO THE PLANETS 
Views of the solar system
   Be patient if you click on this link.  The over 220 pages and
   880 megabytes of data takes time to load and search.  Some 
   of the pages are being convert to Spanish
01/01/97
IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
          http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm

Adrian Brunyate wrote:
> 
>         The distinction between science and religon is arbitrary (hence really should
> not be discussued), but well defined. Religon is a belief system that is not science in
> a form resembling that today.
I disagree that science and religion are arbitrarily distinguished. An 
arbitrary distinction is one that is entirely subjective - that is, it 
does not correspond to a 'natural' reality independent of interests of 
the person doing the distinguishing.
There are some quite non-arbitrary distinctions between (western, 
theistic or deistic) religion and science. One is that science is an 
iterative and experimental process, refining explanations on the basis 
of common experience. Religion is based on unrefinable basic beliefs. To 
illiustrate: science can be (and has been) revised such that there is 
nothing left of the starting assumptions of a field or theory. In 
religion this is by definition not possible (which is not to say that 
religions do not evolve; just that religions are doctrinal 'essences' 
that cannot be totally revised and still 'be' the same religion).
> 
>         In short, by our basic modes of truth evaluation, evolutionism appears to be
> better than all current alternatives. If an example that can't be explained by evolution
> comes up (I have yet to see one, despite claims to the contrary), the theory is dead and
> needs a replacement.
While I appreciate your viewpoint, I think it is wrong. A theory is not 
abandoned on the basis of a single anomaly, something that has been 
appreciated since Kuhn, but was noted by Pierre Duhem in 1915. As 
Dennett said, Darwinian evolution theory routinely takes the challenge 
to explain things that its opponents say cannot be explained, but the 
explanation may be some time coming.

jeffocal@mail.idt.net (Jeffrey O'Callaghan) enunciated:
>LINKS TO THE PLANETS 
>Views of the solar system
>   Be patient if you click on this link.  The over 220 pages and
>   880 megabytes of data takes time to load and search.  Some 
>   of the pages are being convert to Spanish
Has there ever been answer? I thought the Crab Nebula looked like a
giant taco.
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

eli27@earthlink.net enunciated:
>"Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."  wrote:
>>What Am I Talking About Any Way?
>>
>>God did not role dice with the universe in classical physics.
>>God does roll dice with the universe in quantum mechanics.
>>However, God loads the dice with consciousness in post-quantum
>>mechanics.
Hey Dr. Jack;
What IF, God DID roll dice?
We consider rolling dice to be chance.
What if every possible potential was known?
Same answer as you're driving at?
Possibly.
>So WHAT are the *dimensions* of the dice?
>This will determine whether they needed to be loaded in the first
>place.
>I DOUBT that God would do anything UNNCECESSARILY.
>>That’s what I am talking about. That’s what I am ranting and raving
>>about.
>So should this be ranted and raved about?
A person who is confident in their knowledge tends to need to rant and
rave when others won't listen.
>>Copyright 1997, Jack Sarfatti, Internet Science Education Project.
>These words are COYPRIGHTED?
>Sorry for quoting you without permission.
COPYRIGHT= If you're gonna copy it, copy it right.
>Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)
>No copyright. Copy and publish at your own risk.
Does that mean it is wrong?
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Stan Bischof wrote:
> 
> Duane C. Johnson (redrok@pclink.com) wrote:
> : Hi dsg;
> 
> : renewable wrote:
> : >
> : > Solar radiation  falling on a HORIZONTAL? surface. (site..)
> : >
> : > I have taken the data found on
> : > http://www.chatlink.com/~soltherm/insol.htm
> : >
> : > -map of world annual solar radiation  falling on a 
> : > HORIZONTAL surface.
> : >
> : > I chose 2.32 Terrawatts per square Kilometer per year, this 
> : > equates to 214,000 watts per sq. ft per year.
Lets give dsg the benefit of the doubt.  What he stated in the 
form of a sentence is not meant to be directly translated into a 
mathematical form. The reader should make this translation. The use
of per is not always used properly in these technical sentences.
Let me translate for you:
2.32TerraWatts years / (sq. km)
214000 Watt * years / (sq. ft) 
When written this way you get your:
power * time = energy
and this energy applied over an area.
power * time / area = distributed energy
> 
> Before you proceed any further you might want to read a very basic
> physics text. The watt is a unit of _power_ not a unit of energy.
> "Terrawatts per square Kilometer per year" makes no sense at all.
> 
> With a basic understanding of the units you'll have a good chance
> of coming up with some good estimates.
> 
> For rule of thumb you could consider 1kW/sq m as an upper bound.
> This is one GW/sq km. Multiply this by 365 days and about 6 hours
> equivalent per day and you end up with about 2 TW-hours per sq
> km per year, which fairly closely agrees with your data after
> applying correct units.
> Now of course you aren't at the equator, and the atmosphere isn't
> perfectly clear, etc., so you'll never really see this much, but
> it at least gives you a starting point.
> 
> good luck!
> 
> Stan Bischof
> stanb@sr.hp.com
-- 
CUL8ER
Stupid is Forever.
Ignorance can be Fixed.
Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
Solar Heliostats
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
(612)635-5065 w
(612)426-4766 h
redrok@pclink.com
dcj2@PO8.RV.unisys.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/

This post refers to the 2 sets of DATA posted recently 
by Ray Tomes concerning:          ^^^^
(1) The measurement of planetary distances from the sun 
(2) The measurement of the period of fluctuations in solar output.
For interested parties the details of this post, 
and the raw data sets are available on the web at  
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/usenet96_p.html
In the analysis provided of the data, it is evident that there 
exists more than a random relationship between the two sets of data.  
To explain this relationship, an hypothesis has been put forward that
the data may indicate that the fluctuations in solar output result in
the formation of approximately spherical (?) standing EM waves which
are concentric to the sun, and that the planets are formed at the
nodes of these standing EM waves.
Would anyone care to make comment upon this hypothesis,
or the nature of the correspondence between the 2 data sets?
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/beenthar.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "Been There Before" - Banjo Patterson (1888)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This post refers to the 2 sets of DATA posted recently
 by Ray Tomes concerning:          ^^^^
 (and now corrects the URL supplied below:)
 (1) The measurement of planetary distances from the sun
 (2) The measurement of the period of fluctuations in solar output.
 For interested parties the details of this post,
 and the raw data sets are available on the web at
 http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_p.html    <<<====== correct URL
 In the analysis provided of the data, it is evident that there
 exists more than a random relationship between the two sets of data.
 To explain this relationship, an hypothesis has been put forward that
 the data may indicate that the fluctuations in solar output result in
 the formation of approximately spherical (?) standing EM waves which
 are concentric to the sun, and that the planets are formed at the
 nodes of these standing EM waves.
 Would anyone care to make comment upon this hypothesis,
 or the nature of the correspondence between the 2 data sets?
 Pete Brown
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
  Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
  Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/beenthar.html
  QuoteForTheDay:        "Been There Before" - Banjo Patterson (1888)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> An understanding of the process of
>handling units, dimensional analysis, is so important to mathematical
>reasoning and a respect for process so important to scienctific studies
>that I have now adopted the phrase, "numbered word" as an intimate part
>of my science-teaching vocabulary.
Absolutely!  Teachers that give full credit to students who do not
include the right or any dimension are doing a disservice to the
student!
AP Math and Music Instruction
From Arithmetic to College Level Mathematics
See My Homepage:
http://www.radix.net/~mathtutor

Hello i'am very interested in the following.
I destilate alcohol at my home but i don't know if alcoholvapour is heavier
than air, this i want to know for explosion or fire safety.
I'am doing this on the ceiling and wanders where is the explosion danger,
on the ceiling or downstairs.
Thanks and bye bye
hansjmtv@dds.nl

crjclark (crjclark@Prodigy.Net) wrote:
[...]
: 
: More astute composers will strive for resonance, for all music of
: quality is based on this phenomenon.  Oscillations produce further
: oscillations, and the strength of any music is usually determined by
: harmonic partials and overtones.  For three centuries, composers have
: used harmonic series to order their tones into resonant scales and
: chords.  Resonance can also occur in mechanical systems and
: electrical circuits.  Furthermore, resonance occurs in subatomic and
: astronomical processes.
[...]
It is interesting when two tones arrive at a non-linear receiver. The ear
drum will move further one way than the other. So two loud enough tones
driving the ear drum produce a beat in it. c & e beat at c two octaves
below. d & f give b flat, below the c. And since the violin body is 
non-linear in response to the string, a double note played on the 
instrument will sound one of these beat or Tartini notes even to the ear 
not driven to a non-linear condition.
The result of thirds beating to make a member of the scale only happens 
if the notes are members of the true scale. The third sounds rather flat 
compared to the piano third - the tempered scale which itself sounds flat 
thrid to the singing scale or Pythagorean.
Vibrato has effects, too.
But to myself the wonderful feelings from music come from minute 
and not so minute variations of the timing of notes from regular, as well 
as of loudness and length of the various notes in a chord. The expression 
of a face as in a still painting compared to the reality of movement 
gives a hint at it.
And there will always be a fault or compromise.
Brian Sandle

bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) writes:
> welshwytch (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
> : Brian Sandle wrote:
> : > 
> : > Patricia Schwarz (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
> : > : The cannabinoid system also effects centers of the brain controlling
> : > : fear, panic, muscle spasms
> : > 
> : > And possibly reduce breathing response in muscles.
> : > 
> : >  and nausea, in addition to being
> : > : found in the hippocampus, where the infamous "short term memory
> : > : interference" effect of marijuana no doubt takes place.
> : > 
> : > The hippocampus is particularly susceptible to hypoxia since the blood
> : > vessels in it are blind alleys. I speculate that if it becomes broken
> : > then the personality can be divided into the smaller areas.
> : 
> : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
> : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
> : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
> : hypoxia by up to 50%
> 
> No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to 
> tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
> 
> `After this Violette you are only going to be two personalites, not in 
> fact three, because of the kind nature of the drug'
> 
> : 
> : 
> : > : that is in fact what happens to people with PTSD, many also
> : > : have accompanying physics problems of that nature.
> : > 
> : > Not sure what you mean by physics problems. 
> : 
> : I meant physical problems but I was not trained as a typist.
> : 
> : >How do you know it is not
> : > working like electroshock treatment, reducing blood flow to the areas
> : > which have been overactive producing the depression. 
> : 
> : It is called "research", try checking Medline under "cannabinoid"
> 
> Perhaps you could be a little more explanatory. There will be many entries.
> 
> You are probably telling me no more than once drugs have damaged a brain 
> through hypoxia then they may have to continue to be taken.
> 
> 
> : > 
> : -- 
> : Naked is a state of mind
> : 		Luscious Jackson
> 
> Is it under control?
> 
> Brian Sandle
---------------------------------------------------------
I inhalded, still like the taste, just a cig. smoker know, 
but still like pipes.
Make a BON fire (sit around and play).
remember to write 97 instead of 96
Laymen Bill

In article <5ablig$4km@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Jim Rogers  <"jfr"@fc[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail].hp.com> wrote:
>Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
...
>> 36 children have been killed by automotive airbags - protected to death.
>> To the best of my knowledge, the total number of deaths attributable to
>> marijuana use over the past 35 years is *zero*.  A gram is better than a
>>  damn.
>Well let's be a bit more forthright, here. I don't know what the stats
>are, but there have been instances of avoidable nasty trainwrecks and
>such in which the responsible party was smoking dope. Do you attribute
>such tragedies to marijuana?
Who knows?  Without studying it, it is hard to say.
A far more dangerous suspect is boredom, not directly but its hypnotic
effect.  Paradoxically, the more safety features are put in, the less
likely it is that a human being in charge can spot a serious rare event.
There is an optimal rate of surprise events to be treated.
Pot is dangerous mostly in its capacity to
>reduce a person's concern and attentiveness about things they really
>ought to be attentive to; it can impair judgement. There are lots of
>situations where that's totally harmless, but in the wrong situation it
>can be tragic. 
And we are far less than intelligent if we put it into a single number
like the current blood alcohol level.  Those studies were done too long
ago, anyhow.  BTW, cigarette smoking is a possible hazard, partly because
of the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels.  This can happen in
driving even without drugs.
>But a lot of medically-precribed drugs are like that; there's no reason
>pot shouldn't be listed in every doctor's pharmacopoeia, and studied
>just like every other drug. 
And people's reactions are different.  I get no sedative reaction from
the common antihistamines and related cmopounds, while others can be
almost knocked out.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (317)494-6054   FAX: (317)494-0558

W B Jones  writes:
> bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) writes:
> > welshwytch (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
> > : Brian Sandle wrote:
> > : > 
> > : > Patricia Schwarz (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
> > : > : The cannabinoid system also effects centers of the brain controlling
> > : > : fear, panic, muscle spasms
> > : > 
> > : > And possibly reduce breathing response in muscles.
> > : > 
> > : >  and nausea, in addition to being
> > : > : found in the hippocampus, where the infamous "short term memory
> > : > : interference" effect of marijuana no doubt takes place.
> > : > 
> > : > The hippocampus is particularly susceptible to hypoxia since the blood
> > : > vessels in it are blind alleys. I speculate that if it becomes broken
> > : > then the personality can be divided into the smaller areas.
> > : 
> > : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
> > : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
> > : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
> > : hypoxia by up to 50%
> > 
> > No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to 
> > tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
> > 
> > `After this Violette you are only going to be two personalites, not in 
> > fact three, because of the kind nature of the drug'
> > 
> > : 
> > : 
> > : > : that is in fact what happens to people with PTSD, many also
> > : > : have accompanying physics problems of that nature.
> > : > 
> > : > Not sure what you mean by physics problems. 
> > : 
> > : I meant physical problems but I was not trained as a typist.
> > : 
> > : >How do you know it is not
> > : > working like electroshock treatment, reducing blood flow to the areas
> > : > which have been overactive producing the depression. 
> > : 
> > : It is called "research", try checking Medline under "cannabinoid"
> > 
> > Perhaps you could be a little more explanatory. There will be many entries.
> > 
> > You are probably telling me no more than once drugs have damaged a brain 
> > through hypoxia then they may have to continue to be taken.
> > 
> > 
> > : > 
> > : -- 
> > : Naked is a state of mind
> > : 		Luscious Jackson
> > 
> > Is it under control?
> > 
> > Brian Sandle
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> I inhalded, still like the taste, just a cig. smoker now, 
> but still like pipes.
> Make a BON fire (sit around and play).
> remember to write 97 instead of 96
> Laymen Bill
-------------------------spell check