Subject: Re: Water on Mars
From: coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 16:23:25 -0500
In article <32D54813.631D@xtra.co.nz>,
Grant Holdom wrote:
>Why does the water on Mars congregate at the poles?
Mostly the same reason the Earth's polar caps are where they are.
The polar regions recieve less direct sunlight and are colder. On
Earth, this means the liquid water that covers most of the planet
freezes in these regions. On Mars, water vapor and CO2 in the
atmosphere solidify in the polar regions. (An interesting tidbit, the
Martian polar caps, particularly the southern one, experience
significant sublimation during the summer and fluctuation considerably
in size)
Another note, I believe that planetary scientist think that most of
the water on Mars is frozen in the regolith, not in the polar caps.
>And since there are no other bodies of water on Mars, does this mean
>there was never any salt water on Mars?
I don't see the connection here. Could you elaborate on your line of
thinking?
--
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"
Subject: Combination of H and O - Need Help
From: "Bruce C. Fielder"
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 19:28:57 -0600
My work has led me to a serious safety problem; I am helping design an
autoclave into which oxygen will be introduced, and from the ore in
which hydrogen will be released.
I don't have, and cannot find, (from the Chemical Engineers Handbook or
the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) information on:
1) What is the explosion level of hydrogen and oxygen at 30 psig,
assuming normal atmospheric concentrations - and, of course, a source of
ignition?
2) If (when) ignition does occur, can the maximum pressure observed be
approximated by assuming that the heat release will increase the
pressure observed according to the gas law? In other words, can the
"blast front" be assumed to be merely the increase in pressure caused by
the increase in temperature resulting from the combustion of the
hydrogen and oxygen?
These are my two major concerns, and of course we are taking other
measures to prevent any explosion from taking place.
If it helps, I am talking about a volume of 2 cubic metres, at a
temperature of 55 celcius, into which is being fed pressurized air at 30
psig with very little consumption of the oxygen in the original
pressurized air. The hydrogen source is, for all intents and purposes,
unlimited.
I would greatly appreciate any resposes, either by email or posting. We
are designing a metal mill, and any help that you can give will make the
mill safer for those people that will be working alongside the
autoclaves.
Subject: Re: Another defender of science arises
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 21:18:40 -0500
wrote:
> ... And if you're trying to convince me that lots of people (the
>vast majority possibly) lack the mental equipment or knowledge which a
>citizen of a democracy should've in order to carry his
>responsibilities, then you're preaching to the converted. But, what
>are we to do? Reserve the right to vote to a selected group only?
>And who will decide who belongs in this selected group? How would we
>prevent such system from turning into an oligarchy?
At this point I suppose someone should point out that the ancient
Greek "democracy", rule of the people, which was presumably taken as
an ideal by the 18th century idealists who hatched our modern idea of
democracy, had just such a feature: A very limited franchise. Male
heads of estates in fact, I think. Not slaves, not women, and not
the poor hopolites. Like the magna carta, what was to celebrate was
that the nobility could govern their own affairs out from under the
yoke of a tyrant.
And in US history of course the franchise has been expanding... until
we now have almost universal adult suffrage. And an elitist, as we
would label someone who had certain sorts of taboo opinions, might
say: "And look at the result". And we do have oligarchy anyway,
you must admit; only since the popular vote is so widely extended,
it takes other forms... like campaign contributions, and PAC's
(Political Action Committees, Lorenz, a way of circumventing
campaign finance and bribery laws... er, excuse me... of expressing
the will of the people to the elected representatives).
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: depreej@lincoln.ac.nz (Depree, Jonathan A)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:09:25
In article <32D4D130.2FED@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> Alexander Borghgraef writes:
>From: Alexander Borghgraef
>Subject: Re: FTL Comm
>Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 12:06:24 +0100
>Owen Whtehouse wrote:
>> > The argument that one would recieve information sent FTL prior to > it's sending is, as far as I can see, nonsense.
>> Too many concepts in this idea are flawed, the primary being > causality. We spend too much time assuming that FTL effects obey our > limited 'theories'. I can see no reason that a
>> FTL message could not outrun light and be recieved without any wierd > side effects.
> Ever heard of special relativity? It's a theory, not a 'theory', you
>know!( I've been cramming on it all week!) If you fill in the Lorentz
>equations , you'll see that FTL communication does cause causality
>problems, dependent of the relative speed of your 2 observers. If they
>are at rest regarding to each other, FTL comm. would cause no problems,
>at least when we assume FTL particles exist. However, when relative
>speed goes up, the speed of your FTL particles meets a barrier which it
>can't exceed without the answer arriving before the first transmission.
>Of course this is all futile exercise since no proof of FTL particles
>has ever been found.
>> The fact that it was recieved faster than it's photonic
>> counterpart doesn't particularly bother me(although it does stand the
>> conventional idea of space-time on it's ear....).
>>
>> Here's food for thought.
>> Say you got into your FTL capsule and transmitted yourself to the edge of
>> the (admittedly ridiculous) Big Bang universe. Now, according to
>> conventional wisdom, you have now put yourself at the beginning of
>> space-time...... or have you?
I've never understood this. I can accept that neither energy nor matter can
travel faster than light but information?
Here's a thought experiment:
I have an FTL communicator which I use to communicate with a ship orbiting
proxima centauri (how does it work? Generally it works pretty well). Instead
of taking four and a mumble years the message takes four minutes (its a long
way). After I send my message I must wait at least eight minutes for a reply
since it also takes four minutes for a reply to come back. If the ship leaves
proxima centauri and heads for Earth, there may be some blueshifting of the
message as the distance decreases, whereas if it moves away there might be a
redshift. If the ship accelerates to lightspeed, their messages to me may
appear to slow down as they approach lightspeed, my messages may seem to
speed up, but in no case could their reply to my message arrive before I send
the original message.
If they had a huge telecope they might be able to watch what I was doing four
or so years ago, but they couldn't influence it any more than you or I can
influence what we see on a delayed telecast, it's already happened.
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him. (school history howler)
Subject: Re: I need help right away...
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Jan 1997 02:03:10 GMT
"Ryan Vacca" wrote:
>I'm sorry about the short notice, but if you are reading this post, and
>know anything at all about the subject please e-mail me right away.
>I need to know how and/or why an electromagnet works. I have made one with
>2-C batteries, about 3 feet of copper wire, and a 2 inch nail. It works
>but I have to write a report about why and how it works.
>So if you know anything about this, please e-mail me right away.
>
>Thanks a lot,
>Ryan Vacca
>daves@ccinet.net
And while you are at it, you might look up field intensity, gradient,
divergence, and curl. You get a more attracting magnet if the end is
pointed than if it is nicely rounded.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES, 2.62
Find anything at the top of the list, everything at the bottom.
Big Boppers
http://www.search.com/
http://pacific.discover.net/~dansyr/engines.html
http://albany.net/allinone/
http://www.webcom.com/webscout/
http://www.probe.net/~niles/
http://www.smartalex.com/
http://www.ARTECH.com/post.html
http://www.tstimpreso.com/hotsheet/
http://www.cnet.com/
http://home.netscape.com/home/internet-search.html
Research It!
http://www.cam.org/~psarena/it.html
http://www.w3.org/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/Overview.html
240,000+ indexed and documented shareware packages
http://www.jumbo.com/
http://shareware.com/
http://www.tucows.com/ (especially winsock)
http://129.241.190.13/ftpsearch/
http://www.intbc.com/sleuth/
http://www.snoopie.com/
UU-decoding/viewing USENET binary posts
http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~ijh/
Newsgroups
http://www.dejanews.com/ (Usenet search engine)
http://sift.stanford.edu/
http://gagme.wwa.com/~boba/groups/
http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Edbrick/newspage/root.html
http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenet-i/hier-s/0top-1.html
Medline (8 million medical references)
http://www.healthgate.com/
More search engines:
http://www.hotbot.com/
http://www.opentext.com/
http://www.excite.com
http://www.webcrawler.com/
http://www.inktomi.berkeley.edu/query.html
http://pointcom.com/
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/wwww/
http://www.earthlink.net/free/bigbee/webdocs/links.html
http://www.pond.com/~justice/engine.html
http://rama.poly.edu:1800/WWW.html
http://www.lycos.com/
http://magellan.mckinley.com/
http://www.nearnet.gnn.com/wic/
http://cuiwww.unige.ch/meta-index.html
http://pubweb.nexor.co.uk/
Internet Directories
http://apollo.co.uk
http://www.linkstar.com
http://galaxy.einet.net/
http://www.stpt.com/
http://www.midinet/NET/
http://www.lsu.edu/~poli/newexcit.thml
The Phone Book
http://www.yellowpages.com/
http://theyellowpages.com/
http://www.yellow.com/
http://www.bigbook.com/
http://www.bigyellow.com/
http://www.four11.com/
http://www.lookup.com/lookup/search.html
http://www.whowhere.com/
http://www.pointcom.com/
http://www.vyp.com/
http://www.niyp.com
http://wyp.net/
http://www.iaf.com/
http://www.switchboard.com/
http://www.telephonebook.com/
US Snail Mail ZIP codes
http://www.usps.gov/
Thomas Register (all North American manufacture)
http://www.thomasregister.com/
Archieplex (ARCHIE search front end)
http://web.nexor.co.uk/archie.html
Patent Search
http://patent.cnidr.org/access/text-search-simp.html
Chemistry
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/chemdex/index.html
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~chem/web-elements/
http://pubs.acs.org/96/ac/lgpage.html
http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/rasmol
http://www.chemconnect.com/home.htm
http://www.chemexper.be/
http://www.chem.com/
http://www.chemon.com/chemon.htm
http://www.chemnet.com/
http://www.che.ufl.edu/WWW-CHE/topics/chemicals.html
The List (3500 Internet Providers by area code)
http://www.thelist.com/
Link hubs are homepages which provide hundreds of hypertext links to
other Web sites. Here are some of Uncle Al's haunts:
But first... something completely different
http://www.pythonline.com/
http://www.cheesesofnazareth.com/
http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/butcher.html
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/mad.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~pemayer/ScienceJokes.html
http://www.us.mensa.org/
http://users.aol.com/rpollanen/ (massive and indexed)
http://www.bigeye.com/ (1000+ URLs)
http://cool.infi.net/ (Cool Site of the Day)
http://www.hotwired.com/ (join, it's free!)
http://www.netlynews.com/ (truth free of Official truth)
http://www.suck.com/ (kewl)
http://www.firstsite.com/ (aggressive info)
http://www.iguide.com/ (indexed guide to the net)
http://www.msnbc.com/ (Microsoft + NBC = something)
http://www.cnn.com/ (folks you might trust)
http://www.cyberzine.com/seeress/vision.html
http://kzsu.stanford.edu/uwi/reviews-l.html
http://www.vpm.com/tti/stick1-5.html#SURFSITES
http://gagme.wwa.com/~boba/spider1.html
http://www.oslonett.no/home/frodeni/odin/
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html
http://www.ziff.com/~pcmag/websites.htm
http://www.bekkoame.or.jp/Users/user.home.page.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Everything is everywhere. Magic is loose in the world!
Subject: Re: Would a kinetic energy weapon leave residual radiation?
From: "Bruce C. Fielder"
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:00:50 -0600
I've read some of those books, and they scared the hell out of me to.
As I understand it, the form of the release of energy largely depends
upon how much energy there is to be released.
Given your assumed particle traveling at 0.86c, a small particle will be
encounter enough particles in the upper atmospher to aborb its momenutn,
albiet with the resulting release of high energy radiation with each
collision (energy has to go someplace). This high energy radiation is
in the area of the energy spectrum which we would call gamma radiation.
If your "dime" hit the earth, the same amount of energy would be
released (weight for weight).
Your main question is why momentum should be transferred into
radioactive particles. "Normally", it isn't. But, with energies high
enough to approximate the formation of "particles", the kinetic energy
relesed is enough (first) form new paricles, and (second) add mass to
existing particles (energy is only mass in a spread out form).
As most of the particles formed will be unstable (I'm referring here to
subatomic particles), we can expect a lot of radiation while they decay.
The worry (and believe me, I've thought about it to) caused by our
reading of those terrifying science fiction books may be helped by this
thought: the best quarantine is TIME - and this galaxy is not only
Big, but Old.
Subject: Re: Water on Mars
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 9 Jan 1997 23:47:07 GMT
Grant Holdom wrote:
>Why does the water on Mars congregate at the poles?
>And since there are no other bodies of water on Mars, does this mean
>there was never any salt water on Mars?
>
>Curious,
>Grant.
Water vapor diffuses and convects through the atmosphere. Sunlight
photolyzes it, progressively drying Mars out as the hydrogen escapes (low
gravity means an extended atmosphere). As the poles are the chronically
coldest part of Mrs, the remaining vapor tends to feeze out there, along
with carbon dioxide. The poles are big cold traps.
Mar's could have been knee-deep is water in past ages. If the salt
content of an ocean is accrued by mass leaching of land, then one
presumes a young planet will not yet have strongly saline bulk seas. A
little evaporation of an isolated inlet can change that locally.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 16:57:20 -0700
Simon Read wrote:
>"John D. Gwinner" wrote:
>>No, I disagree. Most planetary formation scientists think that Bode's Law
>>has something to do with orbital harmonics, specifically, the elimination
>>of same.
I thought Bode's Law was considered a serendipitous mnemonic, not a law.
>Basically, if there's a simple rational which is the ratio of orbit
>periods of two planets, there is effectively a resonance, so that
>they disturb each other and the disturbance to the orbits grows and
>grows and grows and grows until the orbits are disturbed a lot.
>Bode's law eliminates most simple rational relationships
>between planets' orbital periods.
So, then, are the resonant inner moons of Jupiter (i.e.,
the Galilean moons, Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto)
in unstable orbits? Their periods occur in the ratios
1/1, 2/1, 4/1, and 8/1, roughly. Resonance didn't
disturb the relationships between these orbits, it created
them. Now that it has, will it send one of these moons
shooting off into space?
>On the other hand, perhaps the Neptune-Pluto pair are just as good
>at avoiding gravitational resonances as a single body would be.
Galileo might be surprised at this...
--Blair
"I know I was."
Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 23:48:02 GMT
In article <32D58D08.5955@bestweb.net>, ca314159 writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > So the question is how much of the asymetry is just an "operational
> > asymetry" in the sense that in specific regions of the parameter space
> > one or the other may be easier to measure. Moreover, the "easier" is
> > a purely temporary label. Hundred years ago we had primary standards
> > for length and time and the speed of light was expressed in terms of
> > these two, since it was easier to measure length and time. Nowadays
> > the it became easier to measure the speed of light to high accuracy so
> > it becamme a primary standard, while the meter became a secondary one.
>
> It's interesting how the spaces get mapped onto each other.
> Peter Diehr pointed out some of the pairs. Its easy to see
> how frequency-time get mapped onto energy-time from E=hf
> as well as the others. Then the frequency-time pair is more
> fundemental ?
I think that "fundamental" is in the eye of the beholder in this case.
What then are the fundemental pairs ?
I think that Peter mentioned them. Linear coordinate - linear
momentum, angle - angular momentum, time - energy, this are the common
ones. Beyond these there is all sorts of exotica
> Are E and B also conjugate in the same sense ?
No, not in this sense. They are rather pieces of a single larger
whole, an electromagnetic field tensor.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Why do stars collapse?
From: kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu ()
Date: 9 Jan 1997 23:49:19 GMT
In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: Small quibble, Bill. Solar mass sized stars don't supernova, they blow off
>: their outer layers in a "planetary nebula" and expand to red giant stage,
>: then just fairly quietly collapse to white dwarfs. Although the galaxy is
>: filled with planetary nebulae (looking like smoke rings), there is no evi-
>: dence of highly energetic SN events corresponding to them.
>: Jim
>
> Is there some estimate of the mass blown outward in
>a supernova? I ask this in relation to what mass would a
>nominal neutron star have had at formation.
> An article in Air&Space; Smithsonian stated that
>a very large percentage of stars have no more than 5 times
>the mass of the Sun when they form.
> If this is true, it would seem to set parameters
>for the proportion of stars that will eventually be white
>dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. (maybe even black holes). :-)
> It looks to me like some supernova pictures show
>debris that could maybe exceed the mass of many suns.
>
>Ken Fischer
Tough question, Ken. An old reference shows densities of stars in the
galactic plane (which is the only place you find massive, short-lived
stars) versus magnitude. It looks like about one star in 10,000 has
an intrinsic magnitude greater than 0, which corresponds to a mass
greater than 2 solar masses. As an example, SN87A is thought to have
started as a blue giant of 20 solar masses, but I can't find a handy
figure for the mass loss. I would guess one to several solar masses.
It's too soon to see if this SN left a pulsar or a black hole.
Jim
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: Dennis Nelson
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 07:24:02 -0800
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> Jim Carr wrote:
> |
> | It was refined, and of course it was not *in* a critical mass or it would
> | no longer be there. Forming it into the proper shape, and assembling
> | same, is the only 'problem' one must solve. But the main issue has to
> | do with the cavalier way this stuff was handled at Rocky Flats.
>
> Mike Pelletier wrote:
> }
> } I was under the impression that plutonium at its normal density could not
> } be assembled into a critical mass, which is why they used the implosion
> } design to increase the density of the plutonium core to force it to a
> } higher, supercritical density.
> }
> } Is this incorrect?
>
Yes this is incorrect! Have you heard the story of Louis Slotin at Los Alamos?
The "geniuses" at Los Alamos often performed experiments called "tickling the
dragon's tail" wherein they created momentary critical masses of U-235 and
Pu-239 by dropping a smaller piece of fissionable material on a wire or pendulum
through a larger piece of the same material. During the instant that the two
pieces were together a critical mass was achieved and the growth of the chain
reaction was monitored using neutron detectors placed geometrically around the
apparatus. After a few times when they were successful in not blowing themselves
up they got a little careless; that's where Slotin came in. They found that in
addition to assembling critical masses on wires, they could also make a
subcritical mass go critical using neutron reflectors. Slotin had a subcritial
spherical mass of substance 39 (code for element 9(3), atomic weight 23(9)) around
which he had placed a Be reflector in the form of a hollow shpere. As
Slotin attempted to lower the upper half of the sphere over the lower half
containing the Pu the screwdriver blade, which he was using to hold the two
halves apart, slipped. The two reflector hemispheres fell together. In that
instant Slotin and the other 7 people in the room saw a blinding purple flash.
Slotin and I think one other had been lethally irradiated, although it took
him two weeks to die. Slotin disassembled the reflectors by hand, and although
there had been no explosion there had been a criticallity event and a chain
reaction. Alvin Grimes was in the room with Slotin and survived because
Slotin's body shielded him from the highest radiation fluxes. Grimes
subsequently became the manager of the Nevada Test Site and thought himself
immune to radiation. Perhaps this accounts for the cavalier manner in which
the bomb testers treated radiaoactive fallout episodes from their "gadgets."
> hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> >
> >No.
>
> Did you miss the double negatives?
>
> The answer below is correct, and correctly contradicts the statement
> that you cannot form a critical mass of plutonium at normal density.
>
> >Implosion is used precisely because plutonium can easily go critical.
>
> That is, as reiterated below, the objective is not just to get a
> critical mass, but to hold it together long enough that it goes
> through the 80 or so chains and explodes. You can make a mass
> that is subcritical react just by getting close enough that your
> body helps reflect and moderate the neutrons.
>
> >Bits of the core are arranged in a sphere and imploded to a single mass
> >to allow criticality to occur. They must be violently assembled because
> >if gently done the mass will go critical before tightly assembled, and
> >a low grade nuclear explosion will occur, scattering most of the
> >plutonium uselessly around.
>
> Or you could arrange it in a reactor and control it, if you wanted
> that chain reaction to continue at a low rate for a long time.
>
The idea of using Pu in a reactor core has been around for a long time but
it has had numerous problems. The use of mixed oxides fuels of Pu, U and
perhaps Th has been tried with limited success. Because of the different
neutron dynamics, these mixed oxide reactors must use liquid metals not
water for coolants. The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast
breeder reactor at Chalk River. Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted
down outside Detroit barely averting a catastrophe. The fuel fabrication
plant where Karen Silkwood worked in Oklahoma made mixed oxide fuel elements.
It was her exposure of quality control problems in these fuel bundles which
got her first contaminated with Pu and then murdered.
Dennis Nelson
Subject: Re: Color of light bent in gravitation lens?
From: "Peter Diehr"
Date: 10 Jan 1997 00:39:34 GMT
Kevin Sterner wrote in article
<5b3cgr$bu5@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
> A light beam of any color or intensity will follow the same
trajectory
> around a gravitational lens.
>
While I used to think that this was true, and I don't recall any
reason why
it shouldn't be true, I am still bothered by this statement.
Wasn't there a long discussion about this last year, where John Baez
showed that under GR, gravity is not dispersion free?
Or am I confused?
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: Gregory Greenman
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 17:22:29 -0800
Dennis Nelson wrote:
>
[snip]
> The idea of using Pu in a reactor core has been around for a long time but
> it has had numerous problems. The use of mixed oxides fuels of Pu, U and
> perhaps Th has been tried with limited success. Because of the different
> neutron dynamics, these mixed oxide reactors must use liquid metals not
> water for coolants.
WRONG! You don't need to use liquid metals to cool a mixed oxide
reactor. Commercial Light Water Reactors burn Plutonium all the
time - the Plutonium formed by neutron bombardment of the U-238
in the reactor core. (Recall that reactor fuel typically is of
an enrichment of 3% - 3% fissile U-235 and 97% fertile U-238 that
is transmuted to Pu-239 upon absorption of a neutron). In fact,
during the 3 years that the average fuel assembly spends in the
reactor, 40% of the energy you get from that assembly comes from
fissioning Pu-239 that was created in the core.
You only need to use a liquid metal if you want a fast neutron
spectrum for breeding, i.e. converting more U-238 into Pu-239 than
the you consume in U-235.
In 1978, upon completion of the GESMO (Generic Environmental
Statement for Mixed Oxide fuel), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
was prepared to license utilities to burn mixed oxide fuel in their
LWRs (Light Water Reactors). However, reprocessing of spent fuel to
obtain the Plutonium was outlawed that same year.
> The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast breeder reactor
> at Chalk River.
The prototype IFR (integral fast reactor) is at the Argonne-West area
of the Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL) west of Idaho Falls, ID.
(Before I came to LLNL, I worked on the IFR design at Argonne-Illinois)
Chalk River is the Canadian Nuclear Lab in Ontario, CANADA
> Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted
> down outside Detroit barely averting a catastrophe.
My hometown is a Detroit suburb where I was living in 1967 when
there was a partial meltdown of Fermi I, not Fermi II. Fermi II is
a General Electric designed BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) still in
service which is fueled by Uranium not Plutonium.
The partial melting in Fermi I was confined to 4 fuel assemblies.
(Far less damage to the core than the meltdown at Three Mile Island
Unit II) All radioactive material was completely contained within
the Fermi I plant.
This is another incident which the popular press has hyped completely
out of proportion - it was not a barely averted catastrophe.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: gherbert@crl.com (George Herbert)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 16:57:38 -0800
Blair P Houghton wrote:
>Simon Read wrote:
>>"John D. Gwinner" wrote:
>>>No, I disagree. Most planetary formation scientists think that Bode's Law
>>>has something to do with orbital harmonics, specifically, the elimination
>>>of same.
>
>I thought Bode's Law was considered a serendipitous mnemonic, not a law.
Bode's Law currently resides in a scary nether-world; it's a mathematical
expression for something in the real world which has no physical explanation
at the current time.
Whether the lack of physical explanation for why that is turns out to
be that it's just happenstance or whether it's that we don't understand
something fundamental about accretion / planetary formation yet but will,
that is the $64k question.
-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Re: Why No Math and Science TV Station?
From: Mark Bondurant
Date: 9 Jan 1997 18:00:08 -0700
Jim Carr wrote:
: davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman) writes:
: >
: > Should We Have A National Math And Science TV Network?
: We already have one. Public TV was created as "educational TV"
NASA used to have a station here in LA. They may still have it, but not
on my cable station. LA Unified School District has had a station for a
very long time (UHF 58) which offers college credit courses. In the late
afternoon they have a call in show for students doing math homework.
: > If we are serious about a world class education for our
: >k-12 students in math and science, shouldn't we have a national
: >TV station with K-18 math and science programs?
: This assumes, without proof, that watching math and science lectures
: on TV will make students better at math and science. Is this what
To quote "Buccaroo Bonzai" - "Mr. Science is a top level scientist!"
: > Why not have our best teachers on TV, showing how to teach all
: >grade levels in math and science?
: Why not have them in the classroom, actually doing it and serving as
When it comes to math, students need access to as much help, in as many
ways, as they can get it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mbondr@bongo.net
www.bongo.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: gall@umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:33:53 -0600
Tim Harwood wrote:
> That message was posted by someone who scored in the top 2% of the
> population in his school finals ( we call them A-levels in England ) and
> is now looking towards obtaining a 2/1 degree.
>
> I stand by everything I said.
Then I suggest you trot right out and take a course in informal logic.
See below.
> >It was revelaed in the Sunday Times over Christamas, those with a PH.D.
> >in economics are 40 % worse at economic forecasting that those without.
> >Confirmed what I've always thought, academics with lots of with initials
> >after their names can't see the wood for the trees. Lost in irrelevant
> >detail, they lose all track of reality.
So what you are saying is that because of one instance of PhD's
performing at a lower level at one particular skill that is arguably a
minor component of the competance that that person is supposed to have,
academics with a lot of initials after their names can't see the wood
for the trees'?
Good God man. This is a classic case of 'hasty conclusion.'
But then this is consistent with my own suspicions - that argumentation
is a skill that has to be taught.
Norm Gall
--
"No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it."
- Winston Churchill, Their Finest Hour, p 484
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Leonard Timmons
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:46:44 -0500
Michael Edelman wrote:
> : > By most any measure the science of psychology
> : > when used to describe and predict the behavior of human beings is
> : > not very good.
> And Psychology is not a one-dimensional field with a single theory. What
> we call Psychology encompasses a lot of areas and a lot of theoretical
> models. Some theories of psychology have excellent predictive power. Some
> are speculative. It's a big field, and there are probably 1000 or more
> times as many people working under the rubric "Psychologist" as "Astronomer"
Your points are well taken, but you are speaking past the statement above.
It is my belief that astronomy is one of the softer of the physical sciences,
so comparing it with psychology makes no point. The ability to predict
the positions of planets in a stable solar system is extremely good. The
ability to solve an arbitray n-body system where gravitation is a factor
is impossible. (n large)
> Even so, most criticisms of The Bell Curve are way
> off, and miss the real faults of argument, apparantly as most critics haven't
> read the book!
I have read about 4 detailed reviews of the book. I will not read
the book and at least one of the reviews (in _Scientific American_,
I think) indicated that I should not read the book. I don't have
the expertise in statistics (if their statistical arguments are
truly complex) or the time to find the errors in their arguments.
The reviewers have done this for me and I believe them.
Let me recommend that others read the reviews.
-leonard
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: chris@xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:40:25 GMT
Followups trimmed to alt.sci.planetary, since that's about the only place
I can think of where this thread/subthread is relevant.
In article <5aucdf$ch4@gazette.wv.tek.com>, kendalla@pogo.wv.tek.com (Kendall P Auel) writes:
>sealion2@ix.netcom.com(Stephen L. Johnson) writes:
>
>> Seems to me this line requires a lot to swallow. If an object got
>> caught in the Mars gravity web and spiralled in to impact, it means in
^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the first place that the object did not have enough velocity to escapw
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the Mars gravity. To think that it could impart such velocity to a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> rock, or to several, is stretching it, or so it seems to me. After
>> all, the object would have lost some energy due to friction, making it
>> even more unlikely to have retained the energy required.
>
>The energy of the impact is the product of mass and velocity. If
>a massive object collides with Mars, even at a relatively slow
>velocity, it can easily accelerate less massive bodies to velocities
>much greater than the escape velocity. You can buy a toy at most
>science museums that demonstrate this effect very nicely. It consists
>of a large, medium, and small rubber ball. When you drop it, the
>little rubber ball goes flying high in the air.
Additionally, the part of Stephen's post that I've underlined above
presumes that the object's initial velocity WRT Mars was 0 or negative
(that is, it was stationary or moving away from Mars). In reality,
the object could have had a quite high postive (moving towards Mars)
initial velocity, possibly well in excess of the Martian escape velocity.
Chris
--
Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
For Ed Conrad: I am >NOT< a full-fledged professor of earth
sciences at Michigan Technological University
- - - - - - - - -
"You are lying, Ted!"
Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
"Liar,
liar!
LIAR!
You are a liar, Ted!
You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: Bill Oertell
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:28:16 -0800
> Two factors, the current (though one-off) is Much larger.
> Secondly, any protruding thing on a flat plain (eg big lake) has
> a greater chance of getting hit.
> Thirdly, if you'r hit in the water, you'r better grounded, and may recieve
> a worse shock.
>
Once while fishing on a lake in Oregon, I saw the clouds start piling
up into what looked like developing thunderclouds. I've seen this sort
of convection activity in the Oregon mountains before, so I really
didn't feel like taking any chances. I mean...here I am the only thing
for a couple of hundred meters in a large lake and in an aluminum boat.
Am I a lightning rod or what?
Anyway, it took about awhile to get back to the resort and check in
my rent-a-boat. As I was driving back to Ashland (that's where I was
staying), the thunder and lightning started, and boy was it a show!
What really amazes me is that I've related this story to some friends
and nearly all of them have asked me why I was so concerned with getting
off of that lake.
--
Bill
------------------------------------
| If everything is possible, |
| nothing is knowable. Be skeptical.|
------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution *
From: Trish
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 04:13:27 -0500
Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> In article <32D14A81.5850@earthlink.net>, dsepkosk@earthlink.net says...
> > Trish wrote:
> >
> > > Just the idea, that man alone, is created in God's image .. that man is
> > > the center of God's ideals .. that man is "special" ... is enough to
> > > destroy the world.
> > >
> > > Look around, it already is. We're in the middle of the 6th great
> > > extinction .. thanks to the idea that man is special, and the world was
> > > created for us.
> > >
> Odd. Did the other 5 great extinctions, which life survived rather
> nicely, also get caused by man thinking he was special?
Of course not. But do you deny that man is cause in this one? Life
will survive, as always, but will man? Wake up.
Subject: Re: Why do stars collapse?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:08:52 GMT
kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
: In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
: > An article in Air&Space; Smithsonian stated that
: >a very large percentage of stars have no more than 5 times
: >the mass of the Sun when they form.
: > If this is true, it would seem to set parameters
: >for the proportion of stars that will eventually be white
: >dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. (maybe even black holes). :-)
: > It looks to me like some supernova pictures show
: >debris that could maybe exceed the mass of many suns.
: >Ken Fischer
: Tough question, Ken. An old reference shows densities of stars in the
: galactic plane (which is the only place you find massive, short-lived
: stars) versus magnitude. It looks like about one star in 10,000 has
: an intrinsic magnitude greater than 0, which corresponds to a mass
: greater than 2 solar masses. As an example, SN87A is thought to have
: started as a blue giant of 20 solar masses, but I can't find a handy
: figure for the mass loss. I would guess one to several solar masses.
: It's too soon to see if this SN left a pulsar or a black hole.
: Jim
How will you be able to tell if it is a black hole? :-)
Only one star in 10,000 has greater than two solar masses,
do I read that right? Does that mean by the time they
burn all available fuel, they may be close to the mass of
the Sun, and then a supernova would leave essentially
not enough to make a black hole?
Ken Fischer
Subject: Einstein 6
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:47:13 -0800
This is also a test of the Bcc system to prevent unwanted abuse of the
list. Quotes are from Einstein.
On Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field
“The incorporation of optics into the theory of electromagnetism, with
its relation of the speed of light to the electric and magnetic absolute
system of units as well as the relation of the index of refraction to
the dielectric constant, the qualitative relation between the reflection
coefficient of a body and its metallic conductivity - it was like a
revelation ... Maxwell needed only one single hypothetical step -- the
intoduction of the electrical displacement current in the vacuum and in
the dielectrica and its magnetic effect, an innovation that was almost
preordained by the formal properties of the differential equations.”
The fly in the oinment was the “ether” i.e., “empty space as a special
instance of a dielectric body. Matter appeared as the bearer of the
field not space. ... It was the great merit of H. A. Lorentz that he
brought about a change here in a convincing fashion. In principle a
[classical local] field exists, according to him, only in empty [3D]
space. Matter [i.e., Bohmian beables in my post-quantum mechanics]--
considered to exist of atoms-- is only the seat of electric charges;
between the material particles there is empty space, the seat of the
electromagnetic field, which is produced by the position and velocity
[also time derivative of the acceleration for radiation reaction] of the
point charges located on the material particles.”
What changes in this classical picture when we add quantum effects? If
we have a system of particles, these particles form a single “system
point” or “beable” in a classical higher-dimensional configuration
space. There is a new kind of form-dependent quantum field at each
possible position of the system point in configuration space. The
effect of this quantum field on its attache material system point, or
beable, does not depend on its intensity only on its form. The intensity
does give the probability to observe a definite property or “eigenvalue”
under special statistical conditions of preparation of an “ensemble” of
identical non interacting systems. The new quantum form field organizes
the energy of the matter that is already there. This new form-field is
nonlocal in the 3D space of the Maxwell field. It connects separated
points in space at the same time in a preferred frame of reference. It
even connects points in space at different times.
Unlike the Maxwell field, the quantum form-field has no charges. This
new form-field is the seat of the mind in post-quantum mechanics. Mind
thus appears as a fundamental physical part of the universe. Mind is
non-material, but it is physical. The quantum mind does not awake to
post-quantum sentience, subconscious, conscious, and superconscious
until it gets charged up by back-action. Like a battery, the sentience
of inner immediate felt experience requires the vital jolt of
back-action. The ancients called back-action “the breath of God”, the
“inspiration” etc. :-)
Subject: Re: atmospheric phenomenon...
From: "Brian Tozer."
Date: 10 Jan 1997 01:46:01 GMT
> I don't see this at all. Any craft you're going to be taking off in
> will have the same initial velocity relative to the ground, and if we
> assume the air at the equator moves with the earth, then that craft has
> some value that is its maximum airspeed. Doesn't matter if it's
> traveling east or west. Air speed is still the same, and the speed of
> the air is zero relative to the ground, so either way the craft has the
> same maximum velocity to the ground in both directions.
> Now, if the earth somehow rotated underneath a stationary atmosphere,
> then sure, flying in a direction opposite the earth's rotation would get
> you there faster. You'd gain better than 1,000 mph going in the right
> direction.
> --
>
I follow the above argument, but have a question regarding the current
balloon circumnavigation of the earth attempts. Why can't they just rise
above the atmosphere and then wait for the earth to rotate under them?
Can someone explain the fallacy.
Brian Tozer
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: mroeder@macromedia.com (Michael Roeder)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:42:16 -0800
In article <5b308e$o60@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
Sandle) wrote:
> Now we have the conjecture by you and John that the whole process should
> all be done by one researcher.
I didn't say that you need to do the research yourself. I said that since you
proposed the hypothesis you need to present the facts to back it up. I don't
much care how you get your data (as long as it's real data).
> Factors: pattern, theory, synergy. I have
> tried to give a little of each. Lack of co-ordinated action has stopped
> the light for so many years in the Gulf War Syndrome example. Now you are
> trying to jump on me for trying to get co-ordinated action going in this
> case.
Don't confuse scientific skepticism with politically motivated coverups. It
would be wonderful if you came up with a way to reliably predict earthquakes.
But how can I tell that your research is sound and that your results are valid?
> : The data need to include all three of the categories John Harper mentioned,
> : and you need to account for whale migration patterns. In other words,
> : how much of the time does a whale beaching predict an earthquake?
>
> I explained why (b) is not to be included.
I explained why it is. Whales move. You need to document when they move.
You need to show that if an earthquake happened without whale beachings,
there were no whales present to beach themselves. You can't just ignore data
that don't fit your theory; you have to expand your theory to explain them.
> You use the word `time' when another word would be more rigorous. Or are
> you trying to suggest time windows when the effect might be more likely
> to show up? A mechanism which might might show synergy between certain tides
> and the magnetic anomaly, say? That beaching will not occur if the tides
> work against it, even though the anomalies predict a quake?
>
> How
> : much of the time was an earthquake *not* preceded by whale beachings, even
> : though there were whales present?
Perhaps I should have said "how many earthquakes were not preceded by whale
beachings?" I'm not suggesting any mechanisms to correlate tides, magnetic
anomalies, whale beachings, and earthquakes. That's your job. (Actually, I
seriously doubt that such connections exist. You're making a fairly
extraordinary
claim. You need to come up with some fairly extraordinary evidence for it.)
> Present where? On the planet? Not where the earthquake is. I said on the
> first article how I thought I was noticing a correlation between New
> Zealand strandings and Japanese quakes a few days later. So perhaps you
> are being rigorous and want me to find out if the whales were near the
> magnetic anomalies and did not beach, if it is magnetic anomalies which
> are involved. Where the whales are is going to be hard to know. Perhaps I
> should also have asked if there is a sightings file being kept.
Absolutely. I'm asking you to be rigorous! You want the scientific
community should accept sloppy work?
> How far away from an earthquake can
> : "predictive" whale beachings occur?
>
> Is the implication in that that if it is far away then any cause should
> be looked on with suspicion?
Yes. Common phenomena of transmitted energy operate on an
inverse-square law*. Things farther away get weaker signals. How come
whales in New Zealand beach themselves before Japanese earthquakes
and whales near the Philippines don't? Who's telling the whales in the
Gulf of Mexico to beach themselves?
By the way, what biological advantage is there for New Zealand whales to
beach themselves before earthquakes in Japan?
*Certain nuclear forces don't, but that doesn't matter in this discussion.
> We had one person saying that any magnetic pulse should be all round the
> earth - questioning the dawn pulse idea. Now you are suggesting that
> things should be only local?
I'm questioning the dawn pulse idea because you haven't explained it and
I've never heard of it elsewhere. And you haven't explained what it has to
do with tides, whale beachings, and earthquakes.
> : Here's a question I'd like to see an answer from you on, in your next post:
> : What would you make of the statement, "Any whale beaching anywhere
> : in the world is guaranteed to be followed by a M6.0 or greater earthquake
> : somewhere in the world within a week"?
> :
> : --timberwoof@themall.net
>
> I feel that some import of your statement, I'm not sure if you intended
> it, is `What happens when someone spreads unnecessary alarm - what does
> the public do?' But to use that to quell interest in noticing patterns
> and chatting about theories is somewhat wrong?
Wrong answer. What I was hoping you say is "It's meaningless. Earthquakes
of that magnitude happen about once a week anyway, whether there are
whale beachings or not."
> I don't want to rule out the sort of beehive co-ordination of life
> forms knowing how other parts of the life net are to be affected.
Got any evidence for it?
> Will John jump on me if I ask if anyone knows if any work has been done
> on world wide manetic readings and quakes?
I won't jump on you for asking. Do you have any ideas about the sorts of
correlations you expect to find?
--
Michael Roeder
Here's the Deal: You send me junk mail and you pay me $1500. Okay?
Subject: Re: Question about Quantum Non-interactive Measurement
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 20:58:49 -0500
Klaus Kassner wrote:
>Edward Green wrote:
>>
>> This is wonderful. How one experiment can demolish all our
>> philosophy. The wave function? Real? How naive. Reification!!
>>
>> It is certainly a healthy attitude to distance oneself from the
>> reality of any intermediate of theory, but not to the extent of
>> scoffing at accepting their reality as a working hypothesis. The
>> situation seems analogous to experiments that suggest we consider the
>> "reality" of the vector potential.
>Well, if you are willing to accept the property of
>nonuniqueness as an attribute of reality, no problem.
>
>Both the vector potential and the wave function are
>not unique, i.e. the same physical situation is
>described by several different vector potentials
>or wave functions, respectively.
>
>This is usually taken as an indication that they
>are only intermediates, not having themselves
>reality but nonetheless being connected to real
>quantities.
Okey doke. No problem. This suggest we try to understand how to
abstract the "invariant" part of them. As soon as some of my spare
neurons get back from where ever they are taking a vacation I will get
right on it. :-)
I am trying to remember the name of the effect suggestive of a "real"
vector potential, that is the.... ?
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 02:48:00 GMT
In article <5arpo7$p23@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Brett Carver wrote:
)Kyler Laird (laird@puritan.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
)> Over lunch, the topic of bathtub electrocution came
)> up (from a scene in a movie). I've thought about it
)> a few times, but I've never gotten a good grasp of
)> the circuit involved.
)
)That's because Hollywood doesn't have a clue. They do whatever LOOKS good.
True.
)> It seems to me that in order to get a fatal
)> outcome we need to get current to flow through the
)> person's heart. Providing lots of low-resistance
)> paths to ground which *don't* go through the heart
)> is not going to cut it.
)
)That's correct. A TV/Radio/whatever thrown/falling into a tub isn't
)going to kill the person (just don't pick it up!!). On the other hand,
)setting in a tub and reaching out to touch the item will make you a
)direct path to ground, be prepared for a 'shocking' experience.
Near where I live, in DeSoto Texas (a suburb of Dallas) a woman was
convicted of 1st degree murder with an electric shaver. Her husband
(paralyzed in the legs) was in the bathtub, and she plugged it in and
threw it in. She eventually admitted to the crime, and said that she
just got tired of being married to a handicapper.
Mike
--
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: jmccarty@sun1307.spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 02:51:50 GMT
In article <5aunuh$h2r@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter wrote:
)In <19970107.144326.61@crok.demon.co.uk> crok@crok.demon.co.uk (Stephen
)Crocker) writes:
)>
)>Before being shot for writing article <5arhiv$o0b@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
)Kyler
)>Laird wrote:
)
)>> It seems to me that in order to get a fatal
)>> outcome we need to get current to flow through the
)>> person's heart. Providing lots of low-resistance
)>> paths to ground which *don't* go through the heart
)>> is not going to cut it.
)>>
)>> Any insight? Pointers to on-line references or
)>> more appropriate forums will also be appreciated.
)>
)>ROTFL! Are you planning to try this out? Actually, it doesn't have
)to be the
)>heart. If there's enough of a current flowing through any vital
)organ, it will damage it.
)
)The most dangerous electrical current
)is about 60 to 200 milliamps through the heart.
)
)This amount of current causes ventricular fibrillation
)which usually results in death.
60 MICROamps through the heart is WAY more than enough to do it, though
it might take more like 60 milliamps or so through the arms to get that
much current through the heart. It takes very little current through the
brain to stop breathing permanently. That usually results in death,
though some people have been restarted via mouth-to-mouth.
Mike
--
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for DSC. <- They make me say that.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: clarkm2@nevada.edu (MARK A CLARK)
Date: 10 Jan 1997 05:30:06 GMT
: > i would not doubt that animals have an innate understanding of the cycle
: > of life far greater than most people on the face of the planet. and i
: > don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
:
: Do you imply that humans have the ability of an "afterlife" because we
: have fully developed speech? The differences I discuss are non culture
: related and non physical. Hell .. we can probably toss out self
: awareness as well. Chimps have self awareness.
no... i was only pointing out other genetic differences that you failed
to mention. i mentioned nothing, as you can read above, having anything
to do with afterlives or whatnot. physical and cultural differences are
very important, i believe, in learning about the differences between
humankind and other animals because they are part of the things that we
have that they do not, or that we have in ways different from the ways in
which they have them.
and may i have some references on the self-awareness thing? i am
ignorant about any of the latest information on chimp studies at all.
Subject: Re: how do gyroscopes work??
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:29:44 -0500
Russell Blackadar wrote:
> The whole question here is why
> do torques behave as they do, on *rotating* bodies.
I'm not sure what your question is here. Here's a shot at an
answer, though. g (That's the way it usually goes, right?)
Imagine an axis connected to a rotating torus. Divide, mentally,
the torus into many segments. When you tilt the axis, some of those
segments will be spinning perpendicular to the plane of the tilt
motion. Those segments will just be translated, not accelerated.
Segments at 90 degrees further along the torus however will find
themselves headed in a different direction--accelerated, in other
words. In between, the segments experience varying degrees of
translation and acceleration. There is a force opposing the sum
of all those accelerations. That's the restoring torque.
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
