subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

If you put 4 kg at one time, you will cause a large explosion, and blow
yourself to pieces.

No they do not. You are extremely confused. The flow of gas or liquid has to
be regulated to prevent an explosion. The catalyst is not used to regulate
or slow down the reaction. A catalyst always speeds up a reaction. A hydride
might be used to store hydrogen and regulate the flow. Pd can be a hydride,
as well as a catalyst.

You point is invalid. You are confused.

What other kind of water bath is there?

Yes.

years
not

Actually, some obese people can live longer than 30 days without food, with
water and vitamins. After death it takes a while to consume the fuel in the
body, which might give off significant heat in decay. (I wouldn't know.) 20
years at 100 watts would go way beyond the limits of chemistry, in "heat
after death" (literally).

Clarke
heat?

It can only mean one thing, given the mass of the reactants and the amount
of energy released by cold fusion. It means the reaction is not chemical.
There are no ifs, ands or buts. It is not difficult to measure, not subtle,
and not debatable.

You admit you have not read them. Therefore you know nothing, and can say
nothing. You are making a fool of yourself yapping about research which you
yourself readily and repeatedly admit you have not seen.

This is nonsense.

- Jed


author: Tom Kunich

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
"Jed Rothwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9psi8j$sup$[email]...
blow

Rothwell, why do you write such drivel when you don't understand the
very slightest bit of chemistry?


author: Tom Clarke

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Of course, silly.  If you drop a match into the gas tank of your car
you get a similar result.

Yes.  If you mix up O and H/D then the mixture can be explosive.
Lots of things could set it off.

But regulation could, in effect, be provided by diffusion through the
electrolyte

It speeds the reaction.  That could be viewed as a species of regulation, but
that a nit pick.

Yes.  And your point is?

I think not, you think so.  That is why I think there is not
further use in discussing this, but if you respond I will.

Was the experiment repeated or not?

That is an absolute positive assertion that
nuclear heat after death can be produced at will?

If yes, then my next question is why doesn't someone
publish in the "mainstream" press and go after a Nobel?

A human being with a fever can be said to be palpably hot.
To prove the reaction is not chemical more than a verbal description
is needed.

Very debatable as this newsgroup shows.

And you won't give the citations.  So what am I to do?

Prove it.  Give the citations.  Better yet put descriptions
of the experiments on the web.

Tom Clarke


author: Richard Tobin

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
In article <9psi8j$sup$[email]>,
Jed Rothwell <[email]> wrote:

If you mix hydrogen and oxygen at room temperature they don't react at
all (or not noticeably).  Is it possible to use a catalyst to make
them combine without producing so much heat that they react
explosively?

(This is a serious question; I don't know the answer.)

-- Richard


author: Jed Rothwell

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Kunich writes:

You can't talk! You live in a glass house, so you should stop throwing
stones. You do not even understand what the heat of vaporization is. You
apparently believe that a hot body submerged in water does not make the
water evaporate, and that a bucket of water left by itself in a room may
lose a liter every few hours for no reason. I had to explain to you a dozen
times that the mass of water in cell cannot affect heat after death, and you
*still* don't get it! No matter how many mistakes I make, I will never rival
you.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

but

It is also what I said, and it is the reverse of what you claimed
previously, that catalysts are used to slow down reactions. I am glad we now
agree that does not happen.

I know so. I have catalyzed recombination with Pd and Pt. It is
instantaneous, not slow.

bath?

Yes, several times.

Of course! This has been common knowledge for years. It works best in gas
loaded experiments. It cannot be produced at will with 100 grams of bulk Pd,
the way Mizuno did it.

Because the mainstream press refuses to publish information about CF, and
you would not Nobel for producing heat after death when Pons and Fleischmann
and dozens of others demonstrated it six years ago. In most institutions you
get fired for talking about it.

amount
chemical.

All you have to do is measure the total energy output and the mass of
reactant (total bodyweight).

subtle,

It cannot be debated rationally. A person who understands that 100 grams of
material cannot produce 85 MJ of chemical heat will not debate the issue.
This is like debating whether a man can jump over the Empire State Building.

I have given them dozens of times. I will not repeat myself every time you
hold up a hoop and demand I jump through it. I understand your tactic: you
ask the same question again and again, until I grow tired of answering, then
you claim I never answered the first 20 times you asked it. Anyone who reads
the archives will see through this stupid trick, but you are hoping that
everyone else is as lazy as you are, and they will not look.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Richard Tobin writes:

to
regulate

Yes, this is exactly why all closed CF cells must have a catalyst in the
head space, usually made of Pt or Pd mesh. As D is absorbed by the cathode,
the head space is filled with extra O, which raises the pressure. Some of
the D is not absorbed. It bubbles up to the head space, where the recombiner
converts it back into water. You could accomplish the same thing with a
spark plug or a glowing metal rod, but that would add heat to the cell and
complicate the calorimetry.

The trick is to recombine quickly, before a significant amount of free D
builds up. For various reasons, recombiners fail to work sometimes, usually
for a few minutes at a time. When this happens closed cells make a small
popping noise, and transient waves of pressure are recorded. Or the
emergency valve pops off, contamination gets in, and the experiment is over.
In a tragic accident in 1992, a recombiner failed for a long time, and the
emergency pressure valve also failed. When the recombiner began to work
again, it heated up and ignited the rest of gas. The cell exploded, the
bottom ruptured, and the cell took off like a rocket, killing a researcher.

A perfectly good question, but the answer is described in the CF literature
in much more detail than I just related, so for more information . . . have
a look at the literature!

- Jed


author: Dieter Britz

subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Richard Tobin wrote:

The key to this is why the explosion occurs. It is a runaway reaction.
O2 and H2 react at the Pd surface, producing heat. The surface gets
hot, and the gas fires up at some point. So, look for a setup where
the surface reaction goes more slowly, so that the surface does not
get that hot. This could be another metal - one that also catalyses
the reaction but not so well - or inhibit the Pd by covering it to a
large extent with something. Maybe a layer of water would do it, as I
believe sometimes happens in those recommbiners.

The bottom line is that I think it is indeed possible, in principle.

-- Dieter Britz                          http://www.chem.au.dk/~db


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Please quote me writing that catalysts slow down reactions.
I'm sure I did not say that.

If the Pd is under the surface of the electolyte and the D/H+O is
above the surface?

Exactly the same experiment?  I thought you said it
was too expensive to repeat.

Perhaps a similiar experiment?

Has anyone tried to publish the 100% at will heat after death
experiments in the "mainstream" press?

And how did Mizuno measure the total energy output?
It seems to me the best you can say is that he inferred an energy
output.

[regarding my not reading the latest CF literature]

I have searched and only found a reference to McKubre in electrochemistry
back in the mid 1990's but I don't think this is the one you think is
definitive.
The one inf Fusion Technology is only cited as being in the Sep 2001 issue
and that is not enough for interlibrary loan.

Tom Clarke


author: James P. Salsman

subject: Re: Palladium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Dieter Britz wrote:

When Szpak et al. were looking for tritium, they used a large surface
area of catalyst, in the form of an inverted convex-curved cone, to
condense water from the escaped gases, and drip off at the tip to a
collector, with a valve, where they could extract the condensed water,
as it was easier to check for tritium than the gas.

I think a Pt wire is likely to cause more localized heat, and thus
support ignition, to a greater extent than a surface.

As a practical matter, I would suggest using a piece of platinum leaf
foil instead of a wire, unless you want to defenestrate bystanders.

Cheers,
James


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Dieter Britz writes:

I do not know if there are other metals or not. Pd and Pt will not make the
reaction go slowly.

This does not work. If there is enough surface to cause a measurable level
of heat (a useful reaction), that surface will grow intensely hot, and
trigger an explosion.

A layer of water will inhibit recombination completely, until a small amount
of water evaporates or shake off. As soon as that happens, and a small
amount of metal surface is uncovered, a runaway process begins, the cell
explodes. That is what happened at SRI, and Mizuno thinks it causes some of
his cells to undergo small, periodic explosions, causing popping noises and
waves of high pressure.

It is not possible in principle as far as I know. The only way to keep the
reaction level low is to regulate the flow of fuel.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

Here: "That is my point.  Palladium acting as if it were a fuel cell
catalyst could provide a means to _slowly_, _not explosively_ release
the chemical energy in D/H and O."

It never acts slowly.

It does not work underwater. The recombiner is in the head space, above the
surface.

As far as I know, no one repeated Mizuno's experiment with 100 grams of
material -- as I said about a dozen times. It was repeated many times
without small cathodes, usually about 1 gram. The one last week was with gas
loading. It was repeated several times.

Nearly all papers about CF have been rejected in the last 8 years, including
ones about heat after death. Occasionally one slips through.

He measured it by measuring the amount of water that evaporated. This is one
of the oldest and most reliable means of measuring energy. It has been  used
extensively in science & industry for roughly 200 years. "Infer" means
"conjecture" or "surmise" which is silly. That is like saying Mizuno
inferred the temperature by measuring it with a thermocouple. Measuring
energy by evaporating water is an exact science. It is 100% reliable. Are
you suggesting it does not work? Can you think of any other reason why the
water disappeared at a rate correlated to the cell temperature? Have you
seen water disappear from a bucket at this rate with no known cause?

. . .

I gave you web pages and on-line bibliographies. No, I will not repeat
myself. You can learn to use the archives at Google.com.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
"Jed Rothwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9pv4ch$6c4$[email]...
make the
level

Jed, do you have no ideas at all? The surface DOES NOT have unlimited
catalyzing qualities. Molecules on the surface block off that surface
and it will not catalyze further reactions until it is cleared. If the
ability of the surface to transfer the heat of recombination away
exceeds the speed with which the circulation clears the surface the heat
of the recombiner will never reach the flash point and cause an
explosion. Exactly how hard is this to understand?

the

At least you included the "as far as I know".


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

I was going to drop the fuel cell analogy thread until Jed wrote:

Completely?  Absolutely no recombination between oxygen
and hydrogen disolved in the water is catalyzed by the Pd?

I agree with both Jed and Dieter, but Jed would never understand.
The diffusion of D/H and O through the liquid covering the
catalyst would serve to regulate the flow.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

I didn't think I wrote what you implied.
I still think you may well be wrong about this point.

Fuel cell type catalysis, in effect, occurs "underwater".
.....

OK.  It is not replicated.

Gas is a big change from electrolyte loading.

With experiments that work every time, the authors must not
be trying hard enough.  Sometimes it takes several review/revision
cycles to get something published.

Everything else being controlled.

I'm suggesting it may not have been applied properly.

I live in a hot climate.  I've seen it evaporate pretty quickly.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
"Jed Rothwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9psqd9$7gj$[email]...

Shall we try taking this from the top? The slowest form of recombination
is open air naturally occuring. If you use a catalyst to increase the
speed of recombination it acts much more rapidly than in open air BUT
NOWHERE NEAR AS RAPIDLY AS EXPLOSIVE RECOMBINATION. It doesn't matter
HOW much oxygen or hydrogen is available, it will not explode due
strictly to catalyzed recombination.

Is this some sort of concept that gives you trouble Jed? Then try
this -- if you catalyze recombination does it go boom? If not, IT IS
SLOW.


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Kunich writes:

Right. But when enough surface is available to cause a measurable reaction,
that is also enough to trigger an explosion. I suppose that if the surface
was very small, the heat might escape from it quickly enough to keep the
rest of the gas from igniting.

It is not a bit hard to understand, but it does not happen. With a real Pt
or Pd recombiner, you get an explosion like the one at SRI. Perhaps there
are other materials that produce a slower reaction, or that transfer heat
more efficiently to prevent local overheating. I have never heard of one. I
have watched a recombiner grow hot in a stream of hydrogen. It happens very
quickly.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

No measurable level with ordinary instruments.

the

The rate of diffusion is so slow, the reaction would be too small to
measure. H and O recombine by themselves, slowly, at room temperature. This
recombination is much faster than the underwater variety. I doubt you could
measure the performance difference between a cell with an underwater
recombiner and no recombiner at all. For that matter, the rate at which the
gas leaks out of the walls would probably swamp the underwater effect.

If we are talking about a recombiner 1 mm underwater, the slightest jogging
of the cell would probably uncover uncover a large suface area, and then the
cell would explode. A recombiner under a 1 cm of water in a cell with free
H2 and O2 gas would be a bomb. It would explode as soon as someone tipped
it, moved it or sloshed the water around. That is what happened at SRI.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

I do not see what other implication your words can have. You said the
catalyst provides the means to SLOWLY, not EXPLOSIVELY release energy. That
means it slows things down. Catalysts never slow things down. There would,
definitely be explosions. Small ones -- popping and pressure transients of
several atmospheres -- are very common with closed cells.

No me! You now say you agree with me. You are arguing with yourself.

the

I meant in a CF cell. When you bubble H2 and O2 gas through electrolyte, a
submerged Pd sample will recombine them, for example when you put the anode
below the cathode. CF cells must be designed to keep the O2 from touching
the cathode.

Are you suggesting that a change in scale means something is not a
replication? That is a peculiar idea, to say the least.  By your standard, a
pilot plant tells us nothing about the full-scale plant. The first fission
reactor was 1 watt, so it was not replicated later on when they built
kilowatt and megawatt fission reactors. A Boeing 747 is nothing like a DC3
or a Sopwith Camel, even though all three have wings, a tail and so on,
because the scale is different. The earth is a planet but Jupiter is not.
Newton's laws apply to kilogram scale bodies, but not planets or stars.

Yet the nuclear effects are the same. Interesting, isn't it?

You have not read any of the proceedings papers, so you cannot judge how
hard any of these people is working, or how good their work is. In my
opinion much of it is better than most journal papers.

The papers are usually rejected out of hand. No cycles are initiated.

one

Everything was controlled. If you doubt this, you can do the experiment
again with an ordinary joule heater in place of the cell. You will find no
parameters that make a significant difference. If there were any, you would
not survive staying in the room. Your body would be cooked.

You cannot give a reason for this suggestion. You cannot offer a physical
mechanism, or suggest an experiment that will confirm it. This technique has
worked flawlessly in countless tests over the last 200 years. YOU have not
discovered some hidden secret parameter that escaped the attention of James
Watt, J. P. Joule and all those other guys. You pretend otherwise, but you
cannot list any real reason to doubt, or any way to make this technique
fail.

How quickly? Measure it! Tell us. Do you, or do you not observe a liter
vanish every few hours from a 10-liter bucket? If you do not, then stop
making this absurd claim.

Also, bear in mind that Mizuno lives in Sapporo, Hokkaido which is not a hot
climate. Mizuno, I, and everyone else with any knowledge of such buildings
knows that is like a refrigerator inside Japanese National University
building in winter. People wear overcoats in classrooms. This particular
room has a large gap at the ends of the windows, stuffed with cloth and
newspapers. I have worked in similar labs at another National University
hundreds of miles south, and found ice and frozen toothpaste, inside the
building.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Kunich writes:

That is correct, but an explosion occurs anway. When a catalyst recombines a
significant amount of water water, the metal catalyst grows hot. (The water
itself forms as hot vapor.) The metal gets very hot in a fraction of a
second, and this ignites the rest of the free gas, which recombines by
itelf. This was the probable cause of the 1992 SRI explosion. Most of the
time, recombiners only touch a small amount of gas, and the metal
temperature does not rise measurably.

Yes, it does, when there is sufficient free gas.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Just fuel cells <grin>

Have you actualy calculated this?

With a catalyst present?

Which walls do you mean?
Don't forget fish can breath and carry on an oxygen metabolism with
oxygen dissolved in water.

Provided that the mixture is between 5.5 and 95% hydrogen by volume.
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4404/app-a1.htm]

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

And without the catalyst how fast is the energy released from a mixture
of D/H+O - why without some initiating factor, e.g. a catalyst -
not at all.

Yes they speed things up.  Without catalyst nothing happens.
A slow release is a lot faster than no release.

Great.  And might sometimes there be slow fuel-cell like release as well?
[I know you will say no, so you might as well not reply.]

You do not apparently understand the import of your own words.

And the O2 does not touch the electrolyte either?

....

Well were the other experiments exact scale models of Mizumo's experiment?
And yes change of scale can change many things.  Notably surface area to
volume ratio.

Why do you think pilot plants are built?  It is because there
are large differences between small laboratory experiments a
and full scale industrial production.  What works in laboratory
glassware does not necessarily work in steel piping.

It wasn't.  It was scaled up.
The principle of a graphite moderated natural uranium reactor was
confirmed in these later larger models.

A lot more differences than that.

Earth is a terrestrial planet (of course) made of rock.
Jupiter is a gas giant, a jovian planet (of course).

The do break down with quantum sized things and near dense
bodies such a neutron stars.

Yet you won't cite the articles so I can evaluate whether I
think they are the same or not.

How can I read the proceedings papers?  They are not on line.  I do not
have a full inter-library-loanable citation.

In your opinion.  And your credentials are?

One always has the option to revise and resubmit.  Have you ever
published in a peer reviewed journal/volume?

In my experience room humidity is a very big factor.

Your experience with the evaporation of water must be very limited.

[It being the use of amount of water evaporated to determine
energy input.]

The result violates known physics.  It is suspicious therefore

Repeat the experiment - put a window in the room so the
bucket/cell can be constantly monitored.  Make sure
the room is sealed so that everything is know about what
goes in and out.  Etc.  Better yet, let the cell cool down
in a calorimeter.
One does not overthrow physical theory based on one
anecdotal experiment.

Low humidity.

I think you live in a hot climate as well - what is your experience?
I have seen the water level in my pool drop 2 inches in a day.
[But then I suspect the pool leaks when the water is above a certain
level.]

Conversely, did Mizumo have a control bucket next to the bucket
with the cell in it?

What is the surface area of the 10 liter bucket?  Assuming it is 30 cm
deep, it must be about 300 sq cm.  My pool experience is 2 mm/hour,
so that would be 60 cc/hr. So that would be a liter/16 hours.
You say a "few hours", I don't know if 16 is a few or not, but the
order of magnitude is there.

Humidity is the key.  Every hear of freeze drying?  We have to be more
quantitative.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

H and O gas do not pass through liquid to reach the fuel cell cathode and
anode.

It is common knowledge. I would not know how to calculate it. I expect the
equation would be very complex, but it is obvious that gas does not permiate
through the surface of water quickly. If you are talking about bubbling the
gas from under the water, this would enhance the reaction. But there would
be no need to do anything like this. All you do is control the gas flow
rate.

I meant they recombine slowly without a recombiner present. I do not think
the rate would change measurably with a recombiner placed underwater.

the

Cell walls.

The mixture we are talking about is stoichiometric, from water, with a
little excess oxygen.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

of

A fuel cell is not slow. If you flood a fuel cell with hydrogen, it will
explode.

touching

The electrolyte is water. Of course O2 touches it, but the bubbles rise to
the surface. In a properly designed cell, very little O2 reaches the
cathode.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Not so common.  Or else I am uncommon, but come to think of it ...

To get order of magnitude should not be hard.  Rate of diffusion is gradient
over diffusivity.  Gradiant would be difference in concentration (gas)
versus surface of electrode/catalyst where it goes to zero since oxygen is
consummed in reaction with hydrogen.  Quick net search doesn't turn
up diffusivity of oxygen in water, but it must be a fairly available number,
involved as oxygen is in cell respiration etc.

No.  Just motion of O and H/D by diffusion.
Probably convection as well.

Common knowledge?
There is a recombiner - of sorts - underwater, the Pd electrode.

Well then I should hope not as that would mess up the energy
balance of the calorimetry.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Many things when abused will explode.  Under normal operating condition
a fuel cell does not explode.  The question is whether fuel-cell like
conditions
cover come to be within a CF cell.
[I know you will say no, so don't bother to answer.]

In many cases with additions of salts, but mostly water, yes.

Very little is not zero.  Perhaps the diffusivity of O in D/H2O is too low
for this to be significant, but quantification is needed.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke wrote:

The diffusion coefficient of oxygen in water is of the order of 10^{-9}
m^2/s, and hydrogen's is roughly similar. Let's simplify things a bit,
by assuming a thin layer of water. At the metal end of the film,
catalysis assures zero O2 concentration, while at the air end, there is
instant equilibrium between the air and O2's solubility in water, about
0.3 mM for 1 atm air pressure. If the layer is thin, there will be a
more or less linear concentration gradient across the layer, and the
reaction rate is then, by Fick's first law, the gradient times the
diffusion coefficient. Go forth and calculate. Actually, all this goes
for the hydrogen as well, so there is a degree of interplay, but I was
simplifying.

This means that the thinner the layer, the faster the reaction. There
must be a point where, if the layer gets thicker, the heat generated
is not enough to evaporate the film and set the gas mixture alight.

-- Dieter Britz                          http://www.chem.au.dk/~db


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

Yes, but that is because the flow of fuel is regulated, not because the fuel
cell reaction or catalyst is "slow" in any sense.

  The question is whether fuel-cell like

Yes, of course they do, as I have pointed out many times. It is common
knowledge that the cathode acts as a hydride, slowly releasing a small
amount of chemical fuel, and then the recombiner causes heat. It is very
similar to a fuel cell. As I pointed out, the power and total energy release
is smaller than cold fusion, by factors ranging from several hundred to
roughly 100 million.

Quantification would not be possible with most experiments and most
instruments. Internal, underwater recombination is usually too small to
measure.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Dieter Britz wrote:

Oops.  I should have said gradient times diffusion coefficient.
Diffusion coefficient is in units m^2/sec, gradient is M/m^3/m
so multiplying gives Mm^2/sec or moles/surface-area/second.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Dieter Britz writes:

I think this experiment might be difficult to perform in practice. If I
understand you correctly, to achieve a measurable reaction rate, the layer
of water would have to be very thin. Right? Perhaps 1 mm or so. A slight
vibration might expose a portion of the catalyst.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke wrote:

Make that "M/m^2/sec or moles/surface-area/second."

ASCII and math give me fits.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

There are ways to prevent that, e.g. using a surfactant to get the
water layer to stick better. Also, you don't need to use water, a thin
polymer film, as used in the Clark electrode, would be even better.
I am not sure, though, what all this was in aid of, if it's more than
an idle thought.

-- Dieter Britz                          http://www.chem.au.dk/~db


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

m^2/s

Using mass instead of moles for stoichemetric D/H at 1 atm
the rate is closely (0.2 kg/m^2) (10^{-9}m^2/s)/thickness.

For 1 mm thickness, this is 0.2x10^{-6} kg/m^2/sec.

Heat of combustion of D is 72 Mj/kg, so
The rate of heat production would be ~14 j/m^2/sec
or 14 watts/m^2.

Should be detectable (sunlight is ~1000 w/m^2)

1 atm pressure at 1 cm water would give 1.4 w/m^2,
10 atm pressure at 1 mm would give 140 w/m^2 etc.

Tom Clarke


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Tom Clarke writes:

14 watts is easy to detect. I think it would be difficult to arrange a
square meter of surface under only 1 mm of water, and then fit the whole
thing into a calorimeter. Not impossible, but difficult. Reducing the
surface by a factor of ten should still produce a reasonable level of power.
A multi-layer approach would put different the layers at different levels,
which confuses the issue. Keeping exactly 1 mm of water over the entire
surface might be difficult, with vibrations, stirring from the heat, and
other factors. I think a somewhat deeper layer of water might be more
practical and accurate.

In a CF experiment, the surface area may be large (with a convoluted shape),
but the Pd is placed centimeters below the water line, to prevent accidental
exposure to the head space.

14 watts, or 1.4 watts is easy to detect, when it comes from a fairly
compact object. 0.14 watts can be more challenging. Most conventional,
reasonably priced calorimeters have space for an object no larger than 10 or
20 cm per side. A good one from Thermonetics costs $6,000 to $10,000. A
calorimeter capable of detecting 1.4 watts from a much larger object would
cost a great deal more than that.

In that case, high pressure would make the experiment much easier, and it
would be the way to go.

- Jed


subject: Re: Palladiium is a Fuel Cell Catalyst

text:
Jed Rothwell wrote:

Probably easier to throw the geometry of a real system into a
solver for parabolic/diffusion/heat-equation and get a prediction
of heat to compare with measured value.
[e.g. http://www.mscf.uky.edu/~skim/GRADE/#PARABOLIC]

Tom Clarke


author: @cts.com (Patrick Salter

subject: How long?

text:
This is a question that came up at a meeting we had at work. One of the ladys
from our personal dept. was giving a talk concerning HIV and AIDS. The big
question was, The HIV virus doesn't show up for approximately 6 Months, If an
individual contracts the virus on say January 1st. two weeks later he gives
blood believing he is HIV free. How does the blood bank know the blood is HIV
free? Please Email me or post here with the right answer. Thanks....


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: How long?

text:
In <[email]>, [email]@cts.com (Patrick Salter) writes:
There is a small risk of transmission of HIV during blood transfusion.
It can take up to 6 months ,occasionally longer, for antibodies to HIV to be
detectable.  Currently blood banks do not screen for HIV itself, HIV showing up
prior to antibodies.
Blood banks continue to discourage high risk individuals from donating blood.
Using donated blood most likely out ways risks in an emergency situation.
If someone is planning elective surgery where there is a likelyhood of blood loss
that will require transfusion, the patient can donate his/her own blood prior
to the proceedure where it can be frozen for later use.


author: Phoenix ll

subject: Re: How long?

text:
Unless the blood tests positive for HIV thorugh either the Western Blot or
ELISA test, they won't know about the blood they currently have received
and then, the test doesn't catch all blood as positive for the antibody.


author: Cvherst

subject: Re: How long?

text:
May I respectfully also add that the "six month" time period should not be
considered the "last point" at which antibodies may appear. Much depends
on what is referred to as the "loading dose" phenomenon; did the person
infect him/herself with one virus ? with one million ? how ? through
sexual transmission ? intravenously ?
Thus much depends on the number of virus and the route of transmission. A
new type of test for the actual virus, not just the antibodies, uses PCR
(polymerase chain reaction) technology. This test is very specific and can
detect one infected cell in 100,000. It, too, is dependent on the loading
dose, but can be used to confirm the presence or absence of HIV. I hope
you find this information useful.
Dr. C.V. Herst ([email])


author: Priya Joshi

subject: Re: How long?

text:
While blood bank testing is not 100%, it is not particularly risky --
that is compared to so many health risks out there. Aside fromthe blood
testing which blood banks use, they also screen verbally for any
perceived risk activity which may have led to HIV infection.

The issue with blood banks, I think, is partially a question of locating
one's fears somewhere other than in connection with one's sex life and/or
IV drug use.


author: Saulius Muliolis

subject: Re: Absence of Intermediates and the T.O "FAQ" system

text:
Ted, it doesn't matter how you dodge and evade the issue, how much you scream
and whine about being called a liar, no matter how much you threaten people
with legal action, you and Ed are still liars. We have proven it time and
time again.

In message <medved.833631679@access5> - [email] (Ted Holden)
writes:

Namecalling is not a defense against the charge of lying.

How about adressing the 40%. All you ever answer is the part where someone
calls you a liar, not the part where they present their evidence.

Then you tell your biggest set of lies:

If that is what Gould means, then why does he say,in reference to three major
arguments for evolution:

   "The third argument is more direct: TRANSITIONS ARE OFTEN FOUND
IN THE FOSSIL RECORD [This sentence was capitalized by me]. Preserved
transitions are not common--and should not be, according to our understanding
of evolution (see next section)--but they are not entirely wanting, as
creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones,
that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by
step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the
back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are
descendants of these nubbins."

Gould says himself that there are transition.

And later:

   "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and unnuendo to butress
their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp and bitter, indeed I am-for I have
become a major target of these practices."

He is complaining about exactly what you have been doing.
You are not going to get any apology. In fact, Stephen Gould deserves an
apology from you.

It's not going to happen.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A. Heinlein.

The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/

Take off!!
Let's see some fin!!

The rec.windsurfing FAQ file is at
 http://www.interlog.com/~aoldham/windsurf.html

Saulius Muliolis   [email]
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html


text:
In message <medved.833976751@access5> - [email] (Ted Holden) w
rites:

The size of the quote doesn't matter. The content and context of the quote do.
I notice that you, as usual, edited out the parts where I quote Gould, in
context, in a way that clearly blows away your contention that Gould believes
there are no transitional forms. I will now edit it back in.

In reference to three major arguments for evolution:

   "The third argument is more direct: TRANSITIONS ARE OFTEN FOUND
IN THE FOSSIL RECORD [This sentence was capitalized by me]. Preserved
transitions are not common--and should not be, according to our understanding
of evolution (see next section)--but they are not entirely wanting, as
creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones,
that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by
step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the
back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are
descendants of these nubbins."

Gould says himself that there are transition.

And later:

   "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and unnuendo to butress
their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp and bitter, indeed I am-for I have
become a major target of these practices."

 Remember
Then He must hate you with a passion.

By the way, I am going to try to get a copy of "The Panda's Thumb", the book
from which I believe your quotes were taken. Then I will be able to show more
directly why they are out of context.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A. Heinlein.

The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/

Saulius Muliolis   [email]
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html


author: Ted Holden

text:
[email] (Saulius Muliolis) writes:

Sorry, Mulie;  what you <have> proven time and time again is that <you>
are an idiot.  Your continuing with this pathetic little charade after the
large quotes from Panda's Thumb doesn't help your situation any.  Remember
what Clint Eastwood said in The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly:  "...No, God
isn't on our side, because God hates <IDIOTS> too..."

You really ought to consider the wisdom in that statement.

Ted Holden
http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html

                               ______
                         [ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
         \                \              /             /---
         |                 \  \     /   /             |
    _..-'(                 / _0  |  0_  \             )`-.._
 ./'. '||\\.              /   \  _  /    \          .//||` .`\
 '.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ /   \__/ \__/    \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.

Splifford the bat says:  Always remember

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste;  especially on an evolutionist.
    Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
    doctrines.


subject: Pontic has been saved

text:
The save the pontic post was done in sarcasam. Please do not send any
donations to the "Save the Pontic" foundation. I will be returning all
Donations shortly. Oncce agen do not send any more donations.
 This does howeaver,greatly lift my spirits in my fellow dentists.
There is compashion out there! We are a brother/sisterhood, kinda like
the firemen.
Valio Vali
Pontic

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: evvy

subject: Re: Pontic has been saved

text:
I'm truly sorry that I've been unable to send my contribution as of yet.  I
have the two $1.00 bills sitting right here on table.  But I haven't been
able to get out to buy any 1 cent stamps yet...

evvy
[email]

Poems & Poetics:
http://www.homestead.com/evvygarrett/Index.html

Working Writers email list for published writers (list mom)
Subscribe:  [email]
http://www.homestead.com/workingwriters/index.html


author: Roy Brown

subject: Re: Pontic has been saved

text:
Pontic et. al.,

My first thoughts on this post were to laugh at the humour of the situation,
my god, these guys here at s.m.d. actually sent Pontic some money - what a
kicker! I finished reading the threads, logging off the newsgroup, ending my
workday with a smile on my face. As I sat eating dinner, still chuckling
over the situation - it hit me. What if everybody that sent money to Pontic
asked for the funds to be put towards the treatment of the individual that
Pontic has been seeking treatment advice about in another thread. If I
recall Pontic was looking for ways to treat someone with minimal costs as
that was all they could afford. Would those generous donors to the "Save the
Pontic" foundation be willing to have their funds redirected to the "Save
Pontic's Patient's Teeth" foundation.

What do you think?

Roy

<[email]> wrote in message news:954r6g$l73$[email]...


subject: Re: Pontic has been saved

text:
In article <5dud6.847$[email]>,
  "evvy" <[email]> wrote:
yet.  I
been

  Evvy do not send this It was a stupid joke.
Stultis dichicat multis
Pontic

 evvy

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: drmarislans

subject: Re: Pontic has been saved

text:
In article <5dud6.847$[email]>,
  "evvy" <[email]> wrote:
yet.  I
been

  I hear the money was actually going towards a pair of Yosemite
Sam "Back Off" mudflaps for his pick-up truck.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


author: Brendan Bailey

subject: "Walking"

text:
I remember watching the first shuttle launch on television and the
announcers kept talking about when the shuttle took off, it would
do something they called "walking" which took place when the
main engines ignited.  I remember them showing a side view of the
launch close-up and showing the boosters actually move several feet
from their original position to look as if it was "walking".  Maybe
it wasn't when the main engines ignited, but the boosters ignited.
Since that launch I don't think I've heard anything ever mentioned
about this.  Has anyone heard of this?

                                           Bren Bailey


author: Brynn Rogers

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
In Ben Baily's artical he commented on walking.

I have heard it called Twang.  It happens on every launch when
the MAIN engines are ignited. since the main engines are not on the
centerline of the spacecraft they produce offset thrust.
When they are ignited the whole STS twists (in relation to the pad,
I think the orbiter is pretty ridged) in its mounting and springs back
to close to its original position before SRB ignition, which balances
out the thrust so it is centerline and not offset.
The top of the ET moves something like 1 or 2 feet (a guess) during
this period.   The Clamps holding the SRBs down apparently absorb this
torque. (another guess)

Brynn Rogers      [email]


author: David Smith

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Brendan Bailey) writes:

When the boosters ignited, the shuttle lifted off and became free to
"walk" under the side force of the liquid engines.  If you review a
tape of the STS-26 liftoff, you can see the lateral movement.
I seem to recall talk after STS-1 on the order of "Now that we know
how much it walks, we can compensate for it in the future."  But I don't
know why that aspect of the flight should have been an unknown to
the engineers, nor do I know how it is compensated.  It doesn't appear
to tip back any.  But STS-26 walked less than my fuzzy recall says
STS-1 did.


author: Phil Karn

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
The phenomenon you call "walking" is easily seen on any shuttle launch when
the westward-looking camera is used (the one that shows the wings edge-on).

The northward (rightward, as seen from this camera angle) "walk" is caused
by the shuttle's center of mass not being aligned directly above its thrust
vector for the first few seconds of flight.  This is a designed-in
phenomenon, though I'm not sure why.  You will note water "rainbirds" on the
top of the launcher platform; these cool the platform when the shuttle's
plumes hit it during its northward walk. Perhaps the walk was intentional, to
spread out the impact of the plumes during launch, lessening damage to any
one part of the pad.

Phil


author: Allan Pratt

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
Somebody I know who had his master's thesis go up on the Shuttle said that
it goes like this:

	At T-5, the main engines start, and their thrust rocks the whole
assembly (orbiter + ET + SRBs) forward some distance.  As the thrust
settles down, the orbiter rocks backward again, and as it passes through
the vertical (at T=0), the SRBs ignite and off you go.

Is this what you mean?

============================================
Opinions expressed above do not necessarily	-- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.	  ...ames!atari!apratt


author: Craig Stanfill

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (David Smith) writes:

I'm guessing on this, but the dynamics of the shuttle-EFT-SRB system
when the solids ignite and the holddowns release are probably complex,
and could not be exactly determined without a launch.  Remember that
the spacecraft is an elastic system, and at the moment of launch,
between SRB ignition and holddown release, the forces acting on the
system and the point at which they are acting suddenly change by several
million pounds.  The result will be short-lived system oscilation.
So what you've got is a system with 3 SME'e and two SRB's flexing around.
The result is that the axis of thrust is going to change, and the space
craft is going to ``walk''.

The crux of the problem: how much and how fast?  If you know the
dynamics of the system, you can use active control methods (gimboling
the engines) to compensate.  I'm sure the engineers had a pretty good
idea of system dynamics before STS-1 based on computer simulation, but
these simulations are never exactly right. If your simulation is off
by, say, .1%, you're going to walk a little between release and the
time you can gimbol the engines to stop the walk.  The only way
to be exactly right is to light the candle and find out.  Then you
know how much to compensate for the walk before it happens.

An additional source of walk could be interference between the SRB
plume and the launch pad, but I'm less sure of this; most of the plume
is deflected sideways by the launch pad, and the space craft doesn't
care what happens to the plume after it leaves the nozzle.  However,
if SRB ignition changes atmospheric pressure at the pad noticably, it
would affect the thrust of the various engines.  You might also get
aerodynamic forces acting on the wings as air displaced by the SRB
plume rushes forward.  Again, you don't know accurately enough to
compensate until you launch it.

A final possible source of walk could be if you don't know the thrust
profile of the SRB.  I suppose it's possible that there is a differnce
in the thrust profile between a horizontal SRB at a test facility and
a vertical SRB on a launch pad, but this seems unlikely.

By the way, to the extent that these effects vary from launch to
launch, every launch will see some walk.  If you change the
distribution of weight in the cargo bay, you change the system
dynamics, and you walk a little more or less.  Each SRB probably
has a subtly different burn rate at ignition, and again this changes
the system dynamics and you walk a little.

As I say, I'm guessing on this, but it seems reasonable based on first
principles.  My guess is that uncertainty as to system dynamics is the
major cause of the large walk on STS-1, but I wouldn't completely rule
out the other causes.


author: Knudsen

subject: Re: "Walking"

text:
Don't forget that a certain amount of "walk" is deliberate.
Because the SSMEs are off-center, and angled, it is necessary
for the whole stack to clear the tower a little off-vertical,
so the SSMEs are more nearly under the center of gravity of the
whole thing.  Otherwise the SSMEs would pitch the stack right over.

So on liftoff the shuttle has to walk under the tank a little bit.
I predict that if you check the tapes carefully you will see that
the top of the stack (ET) moves sideways less than the bottom,
so the whole thing goes up a little tipsy.

I've heard that the SRBs are ignited just as the "twang" effect is
swinging back to the neutral point.  This rotational momentum
is in the right direction to help the shuttle walk its way under
the ET.

Thanks to Phil Karn for explaining the above to me years ago;
apologies to him if I screwed it up here.


author: Ed Conrad

subject: The Stinky Side of THE SMITHSONIAN

text:
<
<
More than 50 years ago, the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
combined supreme intelligence and incredible courage
to write "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval."
His two books set the Scientific Establishment back on its
unscrupulous heels, offering the undeniable physical evidence
that the Good Earth had NOT been sleeping peacefully
for countless eons as it had so long insisted.
Instead, the late, great Immanuel Velikovsky presented a different
picture of the earth's past: mindboggling, horrific catastrophes,
some of which had torn both man and animal from limb to limb.
It is a matter of historical record that the late, great Immanuel
Velikovsky had been subjected to the very worse that the Scientific
Establishment could offer -- the victim of deceit, deception,
collusion and conspiracy, as well as relentless assassination
upon his character.
Well, this vicious assault upon truth continues to this very day, but
with one BIG difference .
The Internet has given John Q. Public a ringside seat to the sewer
tactics employed by members of the Pseudoscientifc Establishment
in their adamant denial of the physical evidence that confirms --
beyond all doubt -- Man as Old as Coa (and maybe a great deal older).
That's because they are glaringly aware that it is providing
sibstantial ADDITIONAL credence that the late, great Immanuel
Velikovsky was 100 percent right and the Pseudoscientic Establishment
was -- and still is -- 110 percent wrong.
How could petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some human --
be preserved between anthracite veins if some unfathomable catastrophe
had not put them there?
Fortunately, much good will come out of the ongoing battle between
Ed Conrad and the vested-interest academia know-it-all's who have
long made a mockery of the sacred name Science.
That's because, back in the days of the late, great Immanuel
Velikovsky, the deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy -- as well
as character assassination -- weren't plainly visible and 99.9
percent of the time were beyond the scope of the general public.
So, the average person wasn't aware that  the "prestigious" scientific
institutions, their so-called "experts," their scientific publications
AND the news media were ALL totally controlled by the Pseudoscientific
Establishment in the adamant denial of physical evidence to
destroy to its erroneous doctrine..
Well, we all know they still are in cahoots today. (Hell, Larry
King wouldn't touch this with a 12 1/2-foot pole). But the major
difference between then and now is the Internet, with its newsgroups
and Google (deja.com), magnificent repositories of the written word.
It means that the pseudoscientists'  disgraceful mistreatment
of physical evidence is plainly visible as they carry out their
day-to-day mission of crucifying facts but promoting facetious,
factless theories, same as they didwhen they ganged up on the late,
great Immanuel Velikovsky some 50 years ago.
Thank heaven for the Internet. It means that the most of the sewer
tactics employed by members of the Pseudoscientific Esablishment
are in plain view for all to see, and they'lll be visible for
generations to come, long after the pseudos have thrown in the towel..
There -- in plain view -- your grandchildren and their's will be able
to see how ridiculous the pseudos were, defending their assine
paradigm of the evolution of man.
The discovery of petrified human bones, teeth and soft organs
between anthracite veins is destroying their erroneous paradigm
because they predate, by multi-millions of years, the pseudos''
ridiculous  theory that man had a non-human ancestor (which, of
course, we never did).
Some day -- when truth finally comes shining through -- we'll all be
able to look back and see how low the disgraceful, deplorable,
disgusting pseudos had stooped to defend their fairy tales in order
to protect their vested interests.
<
=================================================
<
<          (All Found Between Anthracite Coal Veins)
<
==============================================
<
Ed Conrad
Man as Old as Coal


author: Steve Hayes

subject: Re: The Stinky Side of THE SMITHSONIAN

text:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:38:19 GMT, Ed Conrad <[email]> wrote:

Until Baigent et al upstaged him by writing "The messianic legacy"


author: Allan Adler

subject: soldering for Linux Device Drivers

text:
I'm slowly reading the book, Linux Device Drivers, 2nd edition.
In the beginning, they mention that for the most part you don't
have to have to try any of it out on any actual hardware, but
that in chapters 8 and 9, you might need to solder a little bit
of wire. The closest I found to an explanation was in Ch.9, p.253,
where they say: "A short length of wire inserted into the appropriate
holes in the parallel port connector on the back of your system will
create this connection." By "this connection", they mean they want
pins 9 and 10 to be connected. A few lines later, they write: "If you'd
rather avoid soldering, but you do have a printer at hand, you can run
the sample interrupt handler using a real printer, as shown later. Note,
however, that the probing functions we are going to introduce depend
on the jumper between pin 9 and pin 10 being in place, and you'll need
it to experiment with probing using our code."

I believe that what they have in mind is not difficult, but I don't
think they have described it adequately. I'm not sure what they want
me to do in the way of soldering. Solder what to what? They have a pin
diagram of the parallel port in Ch.8 but I just don't believe they want
me to solder something to it.

Along the way, they mumble: "The simplest way to force the interface to
generate interrupts (short of hooking up a printer to the port) is to
connect pins 9 and 10 of the parallel connector." Maybe when they say
"connector", they mean to obtain the kind of connector that plugs into
the parallel port (just the connector, with nothing attached to it, i.e.
no printer) and connect two pins on that plug by soldering a wire to both
of them. And then the two pins on the parallel port get connected by plugging
the connector into the port. And they just forgot to mention that there is
supposed to be a plug that you are soldering the wire to?

Is that what they mean? In other words, when they wrote: "...the appropriate
holes in the parallel port connector on the back of your system", they didn't
mean the parallel port itself, and they didn't mean the connector that is
already attached to any device already plugged into the parallel port of
your computer; they meant a connector that ISN'T on the back of your system
yet but which is meant to be plugged into it and which you first have to go
out and purchase and solder the wire on it before plugging into the back
of your system, after which it will then be on the back of your system.

Anyway, I just thought it was worth asking about it before burning up my
computer...


author: CWatters

subject: Re: soldering for Linux Device Drivers

text:
"Allan Adler" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Ok so to avoid trashing the printer port socket on your PC....

1) Get a matching plug. See this photo..
http://www.revealcable.co.uk/acatalog/aa_2552_p350w.jpg

Note you want the "solder bucket type exactly as shown. The photo shows both
sides of one connector. The bottom one shows the "pin side" that plugs into
the socket on your PC. The top image shows the side with solder bucket
terminals that are designed to make it easy to solder wires to. .

2) Join pins 9 and 10 together using a short loop of wire on the solder
bucket side. Not the pins side - that would be really dumb!
If you look carefully at the plug with a magnifying glass you should see
that the pins are numbered (or at least Pin 1 is numbered).

Try to make the soldered connections quickly - if you hold the iron on there
for more than about 5 seconds the plastic supporting the pins might melt and
distort. Its easy if you clamp the flange (with the two big holes) in a vice
so it doesn't move around.


subject: Re: soldering for Linux Device Drivers

text:
"CWatters" <[email]> writes:

[lucid  and helpful advice deleted]
Thanks!


author: JamesOberg

subject: FOX TV Auction of Vostok Tonight

text:
FOX TV Auction of Vostok Tonight

I've gotten a fax from its current owners, that the flown Vostok capsule (March
1961) will be auctioned off on FOX TV sometime tonight (Thursday, December 7),
check local listings. I videotaped a few comments about the capsule's
significance, as did Alan Bean, but I don't know how they will be used.


author: Chris Jones

subject: Re: FOX TV Auction of Vostok (Caught it)

text:
[email] (Rusty Barton) writes:

You can't say "the" March 1961 mission, since there were two March 1961 flights
of the Vostok, on the 9th and 25th.  Both carried one dog and a space-suited
mannequin (I don't know if it was the same mannequin, but there were two
different dogs).  Each flight was one orbit long, just like Gagarin's.


author: Dan Parker

subject: Re: FOX TV Auction of Vostok Tonight

text:
"JamesOberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
(March
7),

Check out http://www.fox.com

There's a splashy little applet about to Vostok auction on there. But what
does Al Bean have to do with the auction??

--Dan


author: Richard Glueck

text:
I caught the piece, and I think it was really poorly done.  I caught Jim Oberg's
piece and Al Bean's, and I have nothing unseemly to say about those pieces.  The
file footage they used was terribly chosen.  Al Shepard's launch is on board a
Sautrn V rocket?  Laika is shown as a dog that survived a ride aboard a Vostok
craft?  Terrible history, not any worse than the report that this particular
capsule is the last Vostok vehicle, which it isn't.  I have seen three Vostok's in
the Moscow region alone, although two are reported to be Gagarin's exact craft!
Gagarin's craft is also reported as being on display at the Korolev space center.
This particular capsule is alledged to be the one tha carried "Cosmo-manniken" Ivan
Ivanovich into orbit, a few weeks prior to Gagarin.  A bid of $4.8 million was
rejected as not having met the reserve.  I don't believe this particular article
carries enough really critical history with it to warrant such a bid anyway.  And
when they screw up the historical documentation used to promote the bidding, one
would have to wonder what else they weren't telling you.


author: Tim Killian

subject: Looking for Opinions on Takahashi Epsilon Astrographs

text:
Tak is getting ready to introduce the Epsilon 180, one of the worlds
most expensive DSLR accessories. The f/2.8 speed and aperture are
positives, and the $4K price is also reasonable considering the
alternatives. Are there any Epsilon owners out there with advice or
opinions concerning these OTAs?

Thanks in advance.


author: Ed T

subject: Re: Looking for Opinions on Takahashi Epsilon Astrographs

text:
"Tim Killian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Tim, have you checked the Uncensored Tak group on Yahoo?  Wodaski has been
posting his early results with the 180 there.

Ed T.


text:
The Yahoo group was very informative - thanks again. Based on the
comments from Wodaski and other Epsilon owners, I'm now leaning towards
a MNT. TEC seems to have dropped their short-focus MNT, but Intes-Micro
has the MN74. It's one f-stop slower than the Epsilon 180, but then it's
also a lot less money and it doesn't have diffraction spikes or blue
halos around bright stars.

Ed T wrote:


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: XM-8 Rifle

text:
In article <Y52xc.9$[email]>, [email] wrote:
<CHOP>

What we are all forgetting here, is this basic truth:
Q:
In a battle between 1000 men armed with M16s/AK47/etc vs 1000 men armed with
'03 Springfields,M1 Garands, M14's or G3's; which side will win?

A:
The side with the better training and leadership.


author: Tony Williams

subject: Re: XM-8 Rifle

text:
[email] wrote in message news:<8bbxc.7002$[email]>...

No argument there - but the interesting question is: if both sides
have equal training and leadership, which will win?

The answer in this case is: in open country with good long-range
visibility, the old bruisers will win, while in closer fighting
(urban, jungle, etc) the assault rifles will.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/


subject: Re: XM-8 Rifle

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Tony Williams) wrote:

Without a doubt.
The right tool for the right job.

I don't believe anyone here will dispute that the Garand was an excellent
weapon. In open country or light forest, I'll take a big MBR anyday. For
Jungle, Urban, or any other close combat enviroment, a light full auto would
be my choice if I had one.

 On the other hand, if I HAD to go into a jungle full of bad guys, I'd rather
take a platoon of guys who know what they're doing, armed with
Martini-Henry's, over a company of green idjits with the newest assault rifle
on earth.

The original thread here was the XM-8 and what, if any, improvements it
represented. I got a chance to play with one (but not fire it) at the SHOT
show this year. I was VERY impressed. It was light, solidly built, and a
breeze to switch out from compact, near smg size, to full size with integral
GL. The sights were VERY easy to use and appeared fairly rugged.
I could hold a cheek-to-stock weld and still swap out the magazine, perform
Immediate Action, or reload the GL.

Was it a quantum leap in any direction? No.
Was it an incremental improvement in several areas? Definitely.

Would I rather have an M-16 or AK? Not Likely!


author: Daniel Pick

subject: Reliability of numerical software

text:
In the 1990 edition of Numerical Methods That Work, Forman Acton
repeats his 1970 assertion that most numerical software is unreliable
and poorly documented.  Granted, his description is a gross generalization,
but I wondered what people on the net think.  Do you agree or disagree,
and can you describe some specific examples?

                                                  --Dan 8^)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pick                                  ----      ---     --------  !
Mathematics Department                          /    /     \       |     !
University of California,Irvine                /    |       |      |     !
Irvine, CA 92715                              /      \     /       |     !
[email]                            ----     ---         |     !


author: Dave Dodson

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Daniel Pick) writes:

I agree that it is hard to produce good reliable and well documented
mathematical software.  As a math software library project manager, I
believe I have put together a team that does develop good, robust
software and accurate documentation, but the cost is quite high.  My
project staff consists of 3 software developers (2 PhD, 1 MS), one
software tester, and perhaps 1/2 of a technical writer.  This level of
test and documentation support seems about right, for even though our
math library product consists of a few hundred subprograms and about 1200
pages of documentation, our customers report only about 1-3 software
bugs and 2-5 documentation bugs in our yearly releases.  Most of the
software bugs are in special cases which affect only a few users, and
most of our documentation bugs are trivial things such as spelling or
small gramatical errors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Dodson		                             [email]
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      (214) 497-4234


author: Ajay Shah

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
[email] (Daniel Pick) writes:

He was discussing the old world of Fortran oriented numerical
computation, where the people writing the software were generally
scientists or mathematicians with very poor computer science or
software engineering skills.

These guys have produced some incredible software.  Linpack is the
best example.  Linpack gets a lot of the software engineering right --
e.g.  the testing which the original developers put into Linpack was
very good (Lapack was even better).

Linpack benefitted from mass-scale usage with a stable interface
(like TeX).  Hence usage served to throw up bug reports and fixes.

In contrast I've seen numerous examples of disastrous numerical
software (esp. those written for one-off use which are
problem-specific).  Some of these were even released as commercial
products with horrendous problems lurking underneath!  IMHO the
factors which tend to produce poor software are:

        - lack of pressures of replication in the academic sweepstakes
          (i.e. in areas where replication is a big issue, bugs are less
           likely).

          Prospects of eventual productisation also act as a good
          QC in controlling the single-file-no-comments-no-testing
          nonsense.

        - fortran orientation; unconcern for computer science
          and software engineering.


author: Thomas Koenig

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
[email] (Ajay Shah) writes:

Oh, yeah.  Back to the "scientists as programmers" debate of last year,
are we?

Well, for an example on the other side:  A few years ago, a well - known
end - user package for computing flows was extended to allow certain kinds
of non - Newtonian materials.  Problem was, they chose a model which was
not objective; in other words, stresses computed as a function of
deformation depended on the coordinate system, in other words, they did
not have the foggiest notion of what they were doing.  But I'm sure they
followed all the rules of software engineering :-|.


author: Marc Roussel

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
In article <1s6fmc$[email]> [email] (Ajay Shah)
writes:

     I'm not sure why Ajay labels this "Fortran orientation".  If you'll
forgive the colloquialism, there's nothing you can screw up in Fortran
that you can't screw up using another language.  Most scientists will
produce bad code in any language, for exactly the same reason that most
scientists abuse their other tools (mathematics being a prime example):
It's not their main line of business.  I'm not sure why that should be
surprising or whether it's really that serious.  Important results will
almost always be replicated and studied until a reasonable level of
certainty results, and no one cares about unimportant ones.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                [email]


author: Richard M. Venable

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
I have to take issue with the above; I don't believe the choice
of a programming language is in ANY way related to one's concern
for computer science and software engineering.  (I suppose BASIC
could be an exception, but certainly not Fortran, at least not in
my experience.)   To paraphrase:

	- computer science orientation; unconcern for solving
	  real world problems, only the elegance of the code

Gee, maybe I should switch to Pascal...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick Venable                  |    "Eschew
 FDA/CBER Biophysics Lab       |   Obfuscation"
 [email]        |         -- the Phantom Nerd
-----------------------------------------------------------------


subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
[email] (Marc Roussel) writes:

Agreed perfectly.  You can write better fortran than most fortran out
there by knowing more about CS and SE, and you can write horrible
hacks (by being ignorant about CS and SE) in any language.

I make this statement in the following sense: in my observation,
as an empirical regularity, people who take interest in computer
science and software engineering do not write fortran.  They migrate
into other languages (either towards gauss/matlab/S or towards C/C++).

In my peer group, there are guys who take little to no interest in
computation; it's "a means" and no more.  I call them "fortran
oriented" -- they produce the horrible fortran I described in the
previous posting.  And then there are the guys who take interest in
computation, and try to do it well.  In my experience, none of them
write fortran, except for those who are close to retirement and can't
enjoy a long enough payback for the effort in migrating from fortran.

It's not hard to see why.  Knowing computer science means knowing
about data structures and algorithms -- these are concepts which
are as applicable to numerical computation as anywhere else.  Fortran
ties your both hands by not allowing linked lists, etc.

Caring for software engineering comes with ideas like conditional
compilation etc.  BSD derivative systems let you write .F files which
will be put through cpp, but you can't count on it on other systems
(even on Unix).  Similarly, a crucial mindset you get from SE is about
information hiding and scoping.  Fortran allows 0 intelligence here.
If you are serious about producing good software engineering, then
fortran won't cut it.

The above is just MHO.  Irate fortranheads > /dev/null

        -ans.


author: Tanuj Bansal

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
In article <1s6u8t$[email]> you write:
-------->  delete---delete---delete  rest of the stuff <--------

When Ajay says that "You can write better fortran than most fortran out
there by knowing more about CS and SE"...I agree with certain reservations.

But overall he seems to be implying that

If (you do Fortran) then
       you are ignorant about CS/SE
else if (you are the CS/SE pro) then
       you do not do Fortran;
       you do C/C++ (or 'LISP???)
end if

My experience ranges in codes for hard core Fortran  stuff like Finite
Elements  and hey, the  CS/SE part...C/C++/LISP etc.   etc. And I have
seen non-CS/SE  peers knowing Fortran and  producing the  beauty  of a
code and the CS/SE  peers producing the  horrors in  C/C++. Yes...it's
the interest in writing a nice code and a programmers (personal) style
and certain local  effects (e.g that favorite slot  of yours being out
of supplies on the  Vending m/c) which  affect  the final product (if)
and No! it's not  just  the CS/SE  orientation which  guarantees one's
capability to write a better code than "that Fortran guy".

And I'm not retiring in next 40 yrs.
And I've peers in CS/SE/Fortran-E  :)
And (I would rather repeat it the nth time that )  while C/C++ are
good for some things, Fortran is irreplaceable for what it does
Numerically.

And any1 who has not done coding in Fortran might be missing
something.

for i in `who | fgrep \`whoami\` | awk '{ print $2}'`
do
  echo "Write a NEAT CODE in Fortran, Today\!" > /dev/$i
done

Tanuj Bansal.


author: darcey@[129.170.16.50] (Terrance M. Darcey, PhD

subject: Re: Reliability of numerical software (a.k.a. fortran bashing)

text:
In article <1s6u8t$[email]> [email] (Ajay Shah) writes:

I would submit that a background in numerical analysis and an understanding
of the characteristics of the algorithms in question is far more important
than the language used...Caring about and applying structured
programming / software engineering principles are not the province of
any particular language...Anyone who turns a numerical software project
over to a software engineer who is not well-grounded in numerical
analysis is asking for trouble...

Save your fortran-bashing for comp.lang.religion...

Terrance M. Darcey, PhD
[email]


subject: On FORTRAN as a development language (was Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
In article <1s6u8t$[email]> [email] (Ajay Shah) writes:
I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but FORTRAN retains
one distinct advantage--high performance machines, like the CRAY Y-MP,
usually come equipped with smart FORTRAN compilers.  This means you don't
have to learn the arcane syntax of C to write a numerical algorithm, and
still  take advantage of the high performance of a vectorizing machine.
For a scientist working with a reliable FORTRAN code, this feature can
be a major advantage of FORTRAN.

                                     --Dan 8^)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pick                                  ----      ---     --------  !
Mathematics Department                          /    /     \       |     !
University of California,Irvine                /    |       |      |     !
Irvine, CA 92715                              /      \     /       |     !
[email]                            ----     ---         |     !


author: J A Stephen Viggiano

text:
[moronic blabbering of Ajay Shah deleted]

In article <darcey.69@[129.170.16.50]> darcey@[129.170.16.50] (Terrance M. Darcey, PhD) writes:

Terrance, Terrance, Terrance, you took Ajay's bait. You see, Ajay is a career
FORTRAN-basher who seems to delight in people responding to the bunkem he
posts. The best way to get rid of assholes like Ajay is to simply ignore them.
Hopefully, without an audience, they'll go away.


author: Mayer Humi

subject: Re: On FORTRAN as a development language (was Re: Reliability of numerical software

text:
For a long time I tried to stay out of this discussion about
Fortran. But no body seems to raise the point that Fortran is
a language GENERIC to scientific computations while all the
others are not. Whether you like it or not or is the most
efficient language on the block is perhaps secondary.
In the final analysis one should use the language that he/she
is most comfortable as e.g for a German it is more natural
to use german rather than English.
Those features that are not in Fortran and can be found in C
are seldom needed and can be circumvented by Fortran.
The feature that perhaps is needed (and was in some fortran
compilers at the begining.....) is the ability to insert another
language easily as e.g.
       Fortran code

....................
        start C (or other language...)

       C  code.....
       end C
      fortran code....


author: David Kastrup

text:
[email] (Daniel Pick) writes:

When the discussion goes as with regards to FORTRAN, calling the
C syntax arcane (if my associations connecting that with archaic,
or any negative attribute whatsoever, are correct) is a bit audacious.

I mean, compiler writer classes are presented with Fortran as one of
the most horrible syntax tackable by compilers whatsoever, because it
does not have things like spaces, or reserved words, and code like

doi10=1,20
doi10=1+20

mean entirely different things, and so does
format(x)
format(x)=3

I mean, the syntax is that bad, that there is really no compiler getting
all "correct" Fortran programs compiled properly is around! They enjoy
themselves in the compiler construction classes in trying to find out
which compiler fails on which subtle ambiguities, and how one could
avoid that! So with regard to syntax, Fortran fans better not open
their mouth too wide! C at least has a syntax compiler compilers
and parser generators can deal with!


author: Ron Shepard

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Daniel Pick) writes:

I think you have this a little wrong.  C actually prevents high performance
machines from achieving their potential.  Two reasons for this are the
wild-alias model on which C is built, and the programming style of C
programmers which gets in the way of optimizers.  BTW, these issues are
discussed in the comp.lang.fortran FAQ.

As far as C being somehow better designed or engineered, that is questionable
for other reasons too.  Remember, the expression (i/j) is not well defined in
C whereas it is in fortran.  If you don't believe me, look it up! :-)

The reason CS people use C is because unix is written in C and because C is
taught in courses.  When was the last time a Fortran course was taught? 15
years ago?  The issues are the same--when to use global variables and when to
use local variales, when to use arrays and when to use linked lists (yes you
can do it in fortran), which errors should be trapped and what should be done
with them.  Fortran does of course have its problems, but C is not the answer
to many of them.

Finally, regarding the desire of individuals to write good code in fortran,
you simply have to read this list for a couple of days to see much discussion
on the matter.  If we programmers didn't care, we wouldn't subscribe.  :-)

Ron Shepard
[email]


author: Greg Lindahl

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:

This means that Ajay is never going to have a career if I'm doing the
hiring. I'd require people to understand the tools available, and be
able to tell me how to solve a problem with each tool, even if it's
not the best one for the job from some standpoints. Ajay clearly fails
this test.


subject: Personal attacks (was aka fortran bashing)

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:

These kinds of personal attacks have no place in the discussion. Please
restrict yourselves to addressing the scientific and technical issues on this
board, and take the namecalling elsewhere.

                                         --Dan 8^)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pick                                  ----      ---     --------  !
Mathematics Department                          /    /     \       |     !
University of California,Irvine                /    |       |      |     !
Irvine, CA 92715                              /      \     /       |     !
[email]                            ----     ---         |     !


author: furio ercolessi

text:
In article <1sc0s5$[email]>, [email] (David
Kastrup) writes:
|>I mean, the syntax is that bad, that there is really no compiler getting
|>all "correct" Fortran programs compiled properly is around! They enjoy
|>themselves in the compiler construction classes in trying to find out
|>which compiler fails on which subtle ambiguities, and how one could
|>avoid that! So with regard to syntax, Fortran fans better not open
|>their mouth too wide! C at least has a syntax compiler compilers
|>and parser generators can deal with!

Users of the language couldn't care less about how hard is to write a parser,
and compiler writers, quoting you, "enjoy themselves" in doing it, so your
point seems a little weak.


author: Paul Dineen

text:
David Kastrup ([email]) wrote:
: I mean, compiler writer classes are presented with Fortran as one of
: the most horrible syntax tackable by compilers whatsoever, because it
: does not have things like spaces, or reserved words, and code like

: doi10=1,20
: doi10=1+20

 I've usually seen this example expressed as:

  doi10=1,20
  doi10=1.20
	 ^


text:
In article <1sc0s5$[email]>
[email] (David Kastrup) writes:

     Too bad C's syntax is so tough for humans...  :-)

				Marc R. Roussel
                                [email]


author: Andrew A. Anda

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Ron Shepard) writes:
...
Excellent points deleted
...

Actually for those "CS people" actively engaged in the research of numerical
computation and supercomputing, Fortran and MATLAB seem to be the languages
of choice.  Here at the University of Minnesota, well attended Fortran
courses are taught to the undergraduates, and numerical research is
performed primarily in Fortran and MATLAB.
Students who attend the Undergraduate Workshop in Supercomputing  at the
Army High Performance Computing Research Center, here in Minnesota, are
taught Fortran and Numerical Analysis and expected to use Fortran in their
research projects.
"CS people" are responsible for LAPACK, written in Fortran, has undeniably
achieved an extremely high level of performance, reliability, legibility,
and portability--all indicative of good software engineering.
Yep.

&y&a
Andrew Allen Anda, (University of Minnesota: [email])
Computer Science Dept., 4-192 EE/CSci Bldg.,
200 Union St. S.E.,
Mpls., MN 55455


text:
furio ercolessi ([email]) wrote:
: Users of the language couldn't care less about how hard is to write a parser,
: and compiler writers, quoting you, "enjoy themselves" in doing it, so your
: point seems a little weak.

  However, users *do* care when their compilers are slow.  So, the
  gymnastics needed to compile awkward features do affect users.  Also,
  time spent on such diversions, if you will, reduce the time available
  to provide more bug fixes and features.


author: Ravi 'Kity Bum' Sundaram

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Paul Dineen) writes:

   David Kastrup ([email]) wrote:
   : I mean, compiler writer classes are presented with Fortran as one of
   : the most horrible syntax tackable by compilers whatsoever, because it
   : does not have things like spaces, or reserved words, and code like

   : doi10=1,20
   : doi10=1+20

	Horrible syntax? may be.
	THE MOST HORRIBLE syntax? Come on. That honour belongs to C.

	Of course Fortran does not have reserved words and spaces.
Q1:	Does it make Fortran more succeptible to typos?
A1:	Then C is practically a mine field with things like
		char (*(*x[])())[]
	lurking behind every corner.

	Compare
	if( (a+b) .gt. c) then    |will compile
	if( (a=b) .gt. c) then    |won't compile
	Remember the + and = differ only by the shift key.

	And don't forget the star :-) feature of C.

	"C guys calling Fortran syntax horrible"
	is exactly "Kettle calling the pot black"

Q2:	Does Fortran syntax make compiler writing difficult?
A2:	(a) Yeah. Go ahead and earn your pay.
	(b) With much less contructs and data types Fortran should
	    be a cinch.

	Ravi Sundaram
	UTA
	Aero
_____________________________________________________________________


author: Bradley T Banko

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Marc Roussel) writes:

C's syntax is like just about everything else developed in the
toolmaker world of unix... elegant and concise.  no 6 spaces... no
continuation lines... no 72 column limit... no clunky common block
constructions... a free flow of computer
language.

Brad Banko

ps: buy yourself a copy of Kernighan & Ritchie and a copy of Kernighan &
Plauger and get with it.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Paul Dineen) writes:

Although this is a really stupid & lame flame-war, I should point out
that:

1) Parsing is not the dominant time for most compilers, especially
   optimizing compilers, so fortran's awkward parsing is not a
   problem in this respect.

2) It's not as awkward as the original poster made it out to be.
   For example, see the fortran parser in the comp.compilers archive
   for a simple hack that makes it easy to use normal yacc on fortran.

Can we please stop having a FORTRAN-C flamewar? We were already
snoring through the lengthy execution of Jim Giles on
comp.lang.fortran, and we'd like some peace and quiet to finish the
job. Thanks.


author: Trevor Paquette

subject: STOP C vs Fortran wars (Was: Re: On FORTRAN as a development language (was Re: Reliability of numerical software))

text:
[email] (Ravi 'Kity Bum' Sundaram) writes:

 STOP!!!!

 This is all crap... Fortran and C BOTH have advantages and disadvantages.
 They were NOT developed for the same purpose.

 What does FORTRAN stand for? FORmula TRANslation. It is a number-crunching
 programming language. That is what is was developed for.

 C was written to interact with the OS, it can get at devices and addresses at
 a lower level then was previously available.

 Stop the bashing.. Take whatever you read with a grain a salt and remember
 that whatever ANYONE posts about this subject is his/hers own OPINION.


author: suresh krishnajois

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
(Ravi 'Kity Bum' Sundaram) writes:
|> [stuff deleted]

|> 	Horrible syntax? may be.
|> 	THE MOST HORRIBLE syntax? Come on. That honour belongs to C.
|>
|> 	Of course Fortran does not have reserved words and spaces.
|> Q1:	Does it make Fortran more succeptible to typos?
|> A1:	Then C is practically a mine field with things like
|> 		char (*(*x[])())[]
|> 	lurking behind every corner.

        What about operators with side effects such as ++ -- += -= &=  and
        their ilk.
        I believe these are Satan's personal gift to Software Engineering.

|> 	"C guys calling Fortran syntax horrible"
|> 	is exactly "Kettle calling the pot black"

        Banish them to the People's Republic of C and Unixdom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply To:    Suresh Krishnajois
email   :    [email]
Phone   :    415-390-5454 (work)
Methinks:    I think, therefore my head aches  };-(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


author: Victor Eijkhout

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Bradley T Banko) writes:

   [...]they are convenient shorthand for statements that
   don't mean what they say anyway:

		   i = i + 1	! !!!?  if i = 1 then 1 = 2 ?!!!
	   vs.	i += 1
	   vs.	++i or i++

   [...]

	   "x = 1" is an expression in C with the value "1", so is

So what is "1 = x" ?

	   "y = 2, x = 1", but here you get to do two things at once.

And what is "x = 1 ; x = 2"? Doesn't that imply 1=2?

The =-sign is just a confusing assignment operator. Don't
try to read anything deeper in it.

This business with the expression "x=1" having the value 1
has been done in Algol 68, and far better than in C.

   I can tell you to learn C, and you tell me to learn better Fortran, but
   in the end, *you* will learn C, because the best computer scientists
   are not going to be writing Fortran compilers.

Who knows, but you'll have to come up with better arguments first.


text:
I know C. I use if i need to interact with the OS or need
	dynamic memory. The tool should match the job.
	Fortran has some advantages over C.

	And of course,
	C does have some advantages over Fortran.
	But Sir, NOT, DEFINITELY NOT, IN  SYNTAX

	Ravi Sundaram
	UTA
	Aero
____________________________________________________________________


author: Chuck Rose

text:
At the company I work for, we found developing in VAX fortran very
useful.  VMS loves fortran and that made development so nice.

In contrast, developing in C on the VAX was, at best, painful.
The operating system and the language were always fighting one
another.  Nearly all of the run time libraries for VMS either
wouldn't work or would extremely annoying to use.

Now that I work almost exclusively on Unix workstations, I
code in C or C++.  But given a good fortran90 compiler, most
of the real reasons for not using fortran, i.e. data typing,
recursion, dynamic allocation, will be gone.

Chuck.


text:
Greg Lindahl ([email]) wrote:
: In article <[email]> [email] (Paul Dineen) writes:

: >  However, users *do* care when their compilers are slow.  So, the
					 ^^^^^^^^^
: >  gymnastics needed to compile awkward features do affect users.  Also,
: >  time spent on such diversions, if you will, reduce the time available
: >  to provide more bug fixes and features.
:
: Although this is a really stupid & lame flame-war, I should point out
: that:
:
: 1) Parsing is not the dominant time for most compilers, especially
:    optimizing compilers, so fortran's awkward parsing is not a
:    problem in this respect.

	I was not attempting to focus only on parsing.  I was trying to
	take advantage of an opportunity to make the language-independent
	point that sometimes the compiler implementor's problem can
	become the compiler user's problem.  Users sometimes miss this
	point, to their detriment (such as when a new language-by-committee
	is created and gets mal-designed features that neednessly slow
	down the compilers).  It would be to their benefit to keep this
	in mind.

:
: 2) It's not as awkward as the original poster made it out to be.
:    [...]

	Good.  Glad to hear it.
:
: Can we please stop having a FORTRAN-C flamewar? We were already
: snoring through the lengthy execution of Jim Giles on
: comp.lang.fortran, and we'd like some peace and quiet to finish the
: job. Thanks.

	I agree about the rehash of the FORTRAN vs C flame war, which
	seems to happen about every 3 months.  I'm not trying to
	participate in that aspect of the discussion.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (suresh krishnajois) writes:

what side effects?  they are convenient shorthand for statements that
don't mean what they say anyway:

		i = i + 1	! !!!?  if i = 1 then 1 = 2 ?!!!
	vs.	i += 1
	vs.	++i or i++

many great advances in science have been accompanied by advances in
notation... e.g., four-vectors for electrodynamics, field theory...
why not the better way of thinking about such expressions that is C?

	"x = 1" is an expression in C with the value "1", so is

	"y = 2, x = 1", but here you get to do two things at once.

If you've never used APL for matrix manipulations, then maybe arguments
about better notations are lost on you.  C has a good way of looking
at *many* things.

I can tell you to learn C, and you tell me to learn better Fortran, but
in the end, *you* will learn C, because the best computer scientists
are not going to be writing Fortran compilers.

Brad Banko


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

(btw, "++i" means increment i and the value of "++i" is that value,
 "i++" means the value of "i++" is i, *then* increment the variable i
  (increment the variable before, versus after returning the
  expression value)

are you trying to make a point about an assignment statement having
a "direction"?  what is your point?  the value on the left side of
an assignment statement must be an "lvalue", which means that it must
be able to have its value reassigned.  so what?

the "," is an operator, and the semicolon is a statement separator.
Your comparison is meaningless.  one of the convenient shorthands of
C is that *every* expression has a value, including assignment
statements... that generalizes the assignment statement *operator* "="
on par with other expression operators.

The "=-" and other combined "post" assignment operators are pretty
much obsolete today, but that doesn't mean that "+=" (or &=, |=, ...)
is obsolete...  it is simply, and unambiguously defined:  (K&R)

		e1 += e2

is equivalent to:

		e1 = e1 + e2 	(with the usual meaning for assignments)

How can you do something that simple "better"?  Please explain.

I learned PL/1 as my first structured language...
I have great respect for all structured languages (including Algol 68)...
they were largely a revolution against Fortran 66 which was barely
better than an assembly language for scientific floating point.

Pascal is ok, but there is nothing in the original definition which
allows for a standard for separately compiled modules.

I won't try to deny that you can do just about anything in Fortran that
you can in C, but the requirements for a:  6 column prefix for continuation
lines and the 72 column limit for line lengths make writing code which
is pleasant to *read* difficult.  I know that you can get rid of those
ugly Format statements by including them in the I/O statements... that
is nice, and I know that you can get rid of continuation lines and labels
with structured elements of newer Fortrans.  You can probably even do
dynamic memory allocation in newer Fortrans, but you can't *count* on
access to a "newer" Fortran every where you go.  You can find ANSI C
just about anywhere you go.


subject: On C as a development language

text:
motd : Use what's best for a job.

I am enclosing a funny article I picked up from rec.humor. Let's smile
and then talk about something more productive than this thread.

No offense intended.

Newsgroups: rec.humor

  COMPUTERWORLD 1 April

  CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX
        In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken
  Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix
  operating system and C programming language created by them is an
  elaborate April Fools prank kept alive for over 20 years.  Speaking at
  the recent UnixWorld Software Development Forum, Thompson revealed the
  following:

        "In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the
  GE/Honeywell/AT&T Multics project.  Brian and I had just started working
  with an early release of Pascal from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs
  in Switzerland and we were impressed with its elegant simplicity and
  power.  Denis had just finished reading 'Bored of the Rings', a
  hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien 'Lord of the
  Rings' trilogy.  As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics
  environment and Pascal.  Dennis and I were responsible for the operating
  environment.  We looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as
  complex and cryptic as possible to maximize casual users' frustration
  levels, calling it Unix as a parody of Multics, as well as other more
  risque allusions.  Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped
  version of Pascal, called 'A'.  When we found others were actually
  trying to create real programs with A, we quickly added additional
  cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL and finally C.  We stopped when
  we got a clean compile on the following syntax:

  for(;P("\n"),R=;P("|"))for(e=C;e=;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2);

          To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that
  allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension!  We actually
  thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science
  progress back 20 or more years.  Imagine our surprise when AT&T and
  other US corporations actually began trying to use Unix and C!  It has
  taken them 20 years to develop enough expertise to generate even
  marginally useful applications using this 1960's technological parody,
  but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common sense) of the
  general Unix and C programmer.  In any event, Brian, Dennis and I have
  been working exclusively in Pascal on the Apple Macintosh for the past
  few years and feel really guilty about the chaos, confusion and truly
  bad programming that has resulted from our silly prank so long ago."

        Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
  Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time.
  Borland International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools, including
  the popular Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++, stated they had
  suspected this for a number of years and would continue to enhance their
  Pascal products and halt further efforts to develop C.  An IBM spokesman
  broke into uncontrolled laughter and had to postpone a hastely convened
  news conference concerning the fate of the RS-6000, merely stating 'VM
  will be available Real Soon Now'.  In a cryptic statement, Professor
  Wirth of the ETH institute and father of the Pascal, Modula 2 and Oberon
  structured languages, merely stated that P. T. Barnum was correct.

          In a related late-breaking story, usually reliable sources are
  stating that a similar confession may be forthcoming from William Gates
  concerning the MS-DOS and Windows operating environments.  And IBM
  spokesmen have begun denying that the Virtual Machine (VM) product is an
  internal prank gone awry.


text:
[email] (Victor Eijkhout) writes:

Statements don't "say" much. And they mean what the language defines.
And we all might have got the difference between "becomes" and
"is equal", the assignment being the former.

Illegal.

It is archaic as well. The operator long since is called -= . Or do you mean
really only = ? In that case the confusion is not much: the operator does
the assignment, returns the value of the assignment, and groiups right to
left, so that things like
i = j = k = 0;
work. As to -=, it makes reading of
arr[i,2*j+3*k+5,z*z+2] = arr[2*j+3*k+5,z+z+2] + j
easier and less error prone when writing. And it is really handy where
the indexing needs function calls, because it avoids really unnecessary
additional variables without information content (for the human reader).


author: Bjorn Halvor Solberg

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
[...]

Sure, an Algol 68 '1' must be *far* better than a C '1'.

Bjorn.
(just throwing his rock in the language war :-)


author: Patrick F. McGehearty

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Bradley T Banko) writes:
I agree that the best computer scientists are not likely to be writing
Fortran compilers (or any other kind of production compiler).  They will
be off inventing new science.  That is irrelevant to what compilers
will be available.

Some of the best computer engineers will be writing production quality
highly-optimizing Fortran compilers because it pays the bills. :-)
Note that the implementation language for those Fortran compilers may
be C, Pascal, Modula, Perl or some other language.  The computer engineers
will need to be proficient in the implementation language, but the
user need not be aware of the implementation language.  I predict that high
quality Fortran compilers will be available for a long time to come on most
hardware that is aimed at the scientific marketplace.

If one is going to be a professional programmer, it is beneficial to
learn a variety of languages just to learn different ways of thinking
about programming.  C uses different methods than commonly found in
Fortran.  These methods can be emulated in Fortran at some extra effort.
For example, I implemented linked lists in Fortran IV and a form of
dynamic storage allocation 20 years ago, because I needed them, and Fortran
was the language I was expected to implement the project in.

Lisp provides yet another mind-set for programming in a functional style.
That style can also be used for some Fortran programming (if you have
a compiler which supports recursion).  Other examples of learning from
other language styles could be described.  But rehashing the C vs Fortran
(or any other) language war is unproductive.


author: Barry Merriman

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Bradley T
Banko) writes:

Why? You like to read lines longer than 72 characters? And having
white space at the start of a line
      like this
hinders readibility?

No, those are not really any problem at all, nor are continuation
lines. The greatest barrier to readability is the 6 character
limit on names, whch lds 2 mny abbrv nms tht r hrd 2 rd.

The second problem with readability is that you can't
put more than one stament on a sigle line, like
      x = 10, y = 11
or do operations using +/-/= on vectors, matricies or
other data structures.

 --
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
[email] (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


author: J A Stephen Viggiano

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Bradley T Banko) writes:

All I can say to that is, "Amen, Brother!" To paraphrase one of the wisest
people I know (who happened to be comparing fishing to working at the office),
"A lousy day of real science is better than a good day of Computer 'Science'."

Get a life, Bradley.