subject: Re: Converting Ladder to cmos logic

text:
Allen Bong wrote:

Why do you want to use a darlington?

Setting my question aside, a second diode should
not be necessary if you change to a darlington -
you could even remove D2 when you use it.

With the SCR you are using, you should add a 1/4 watt,
1K resistor from the gate to the cathode, according to
the datasheet.  You may need to reduce the value of the
1K that is connected between +12 and the pushbutton to
330 ohms.

Ed


author: Kurt Ullman

subject: The FBI is tracking you on the Internet

text:
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/index.html

-----------------------------------
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe


author: Andrew Heenan

subject: Re: The FBI is tracking you on the Internet

text:
"The FBI  ...  are now able to see every click [terrorists] make on the
internet. Privacy advocates say this is bad, but the FBI says you will
never even notice, and it won't affect the common man at all."

And the contract for 4 million people to do all this watching has just been
awarded to Iraq.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote ...


author: Robin

text:
Love it!  I will have to be very careful in my bid to overthrow the cable
company!~

Robin

"Kurt Ullman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dTjN9.775$[email]...


author: Gray

text:
How many times are we told we are being watched .....................
Someone's got a BIG dose of Paranoia or they know something we don't and if
we are legal why worry


author: Starlight

text:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 22:33:03 -0000, "Gray"
<[email]> wrote:

:How many times are we told we are being watched .....................
:Someone's got a BIG dose of Paranoia or they know something we don't and if
:we are legal why worry
:
:
The problem is the interpretation of "legal".    And then there's
"suspicion" and then "questionable", and pretty soon there's "out of
the ordinary".   It's not paranoia, it's being vigilant and standing
up for our rights as dictated by the constitution and the law.
Becky


author: ImageAnalyst

subject: LED Sheep Art

text:
Thought some of you might like to see how innovative Samsung is with
their LED's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw


author: Kotya

subject: Re: LED Sheep Art

text:
On Apr 11, 9:42 pm, ImageAnalyst <[email]> wrote:

Amazing!


subject: Re: LED Sheep Art

text:
On Apr 12, 3:08 am, Kotya <[email]> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be interested in watching any other optics-related videos you know
of that are amazing, fun, or clever.  Post the URL's if you have them.


author: Boxman

subject: Re: LED Sheep Art

text:
On Apr 12, 1:19 pm, ImageAnalyst <[email]> wrote:

Similar to Samsung
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/27/video-honda-builds-giant-led-display-out-of-insights-for-commer/


subject: Re: LED Sheep Art

text:
On Apr 13, 10:02 am, Boxman <[email]> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boxman:
That was cool and fun.  Here's another one that uses lights on
flexible fabrics:
Philips Lumalive technology
http://tinyurl.com/j5mwd

Some others:
http://tinyurl.com/238qz4
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1084/bending-light-the-wrong-way.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7190107.stm
http://random-international.squarespace.com/pixelroller-overview/
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/10/atomic-pen-writes-with-individual-atoms/

Regards,
ImageAnalyst


author: Mr. XML

subject: D.D.S. vs. D.M.D.

text:
Hi,

I am used to seeing "D.D.S." after a dentist's name.  Some schools offer
D.M.D. degrees.  Is there any practical difference.  What determines
where you can practice?  Is there any downside to a D.M.D. other than
having some people not know that you are a dentist by your title?

Thanks,

Mr XML


subject: Re: D.D.S. vs. D.M.D.

text:
Mr. XML <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Nope. None at all.

 What determines

Need a state license ....

 Is there any downside to a D.M.D. other than

Some people think a D.M.D. is a chiropractor. It is not. The better degree
is D.D.S.

Cheers,

Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.


author: pudge

subject: Re: D.D.S. vs. D.M.D.

text:
I thought D.D.S. got to sit in front, get in front of the line?
...at least on my computer.
.Pudge

Joel_Eichen wrote:


author: Mike Shiva

subject: Omega-3 Fats blocked by "other" fats when eating?

text:
Hello!  I am trying to eat lots of Omega-3 fats (mostly Salmon) a few times
a week, for health.  But often I eat a meal which is half fatty salmon, and
half "junk" fat (beef, cheese, etc).

My question is, if I have some "bad" fat in my meal, but also lots of
Omega-3 fat in the same meal, will my body absorb the same amount of the
Omega-3 fat?  Or will the other fats block or lessen the absorbing of
Omega-3?

Thank you in advance for any information.

-Mike Shiva


author: Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.' to reply

subject: Re: Omega-3 Fats blocked by "other" fats when eating?

text:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:06:45 GMT, Mike Shiva
<[email]> wrote:

I don't think there will be a problem. Omega-3 and Omega-6, I believe,
are competitive for the same biochemical pathways. It comes down to
proportions. Beef and cheese contain omega-6 fats such as arachidonic
acid. While I wouldn't call it "junk" fat, us people in industrial
nations consume way too much omega-6.

It's good that you are eating salmon. Most of the Omega-3 is between
the meat and the skin, and also in the dark meat.


author: Brad Sheppard

text:
Mike,

Saturated fats aren't good for you.  They won't block the omega 3, but
why not go all the way? BTW I take 2 1000mg fish oil capsules a day
and eat a tin of herring.  My lipid profile has never been better:
trig 43, chol 136, ratio 2.4, CRP .1  The AHA recs everyone with CHD
consider fish oil capsules.  If you want to reduce your risk factors
that is one option.

Mike Shiva <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns93B9A452C8844joiuwret9q34thae7@63.223.5.254>...


author: Hua Kul

text:
Mike Shiva <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns93B9A452C8844joiuwret9q34thae7@63.223.5.254>...

A good source of omega3 fats is free range and grass fed meats.  Their
n6:n3 ratio is about equal to wild fish.  The problem is finding a
source at reasonable cost.  The total fat content is also much lower.
When I roast a free range chicken I get only about 20% of the fat I
would from roasting a grain fed bird.  It's also much less saturated.
When I put it in the refigerator it never gets hard but stays pliable,
indicating a lower saturated content.

--Hua Kul

[email]


author: Larry Hoover

text:
"Mike Shiva" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9A452C8844joiuwret9q34thae7@63.223.5.254...
times
and

Other people are responding to something quite different than what you
enquire about; the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 intake is an important
consideration. Most people *do* get too much omega-6, relative to omega-3
intake. Absorption from the gut is quite a different issue.

There were studies done about fifteen years ago, investigating the uptake of
omega-3 fats when consumed with low-fat and high-fat meals. It was found
that the omega-3 fatty acid uptake was higher when consumed with a high-fat
meal. If anyone is using fish oil supplements, this may be an issue to
consider, also. Moreover, the likelihood of "fish oil burps" (eructation) is
reduced, when taken with a large, higher-fat meal.

Lar


author: Alf Christophersen

text:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:06:45 GMT, Mike Shiva
<[email]> wrote:

Dependents mostly on what you have eaten the last three months of
different fats. Composition in you membranes is the average of the
diet composition for that period. One meal do not affect very much,
but if you daily take some omega-3, it will give an effect, yes.


author: Patrick Barao

text:
good question.  I recently started to take Salmon Oil Capsules 1000 mg from
GNC.  It is more convenient this way.  I take one pill at lunch and dinner.
You'll never believe who prescribed it for me.

Patrick

"Mike Shiva" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9A452C8844joiuwret9q34thae7@63.223.5.254...
times
and


text:
For high triglycerides doses of nine 1000mg are used, I believe.  A
3.25 oz tin of herring = 2 1000mg oil capsules.  Have you tried
exercise for depression - sometimes it may help.

Doug Laidlaw <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Moosh:

text:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:15:08 -0400, Paul E. J. King - remove 'NOSPAM.'
to reply <[email]> posted:

That seems to sum it up for me. Thanks.


text:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:41:21 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
<[email]> wrote:

Isn't this rather like partition coefficients?

If you eat little fat, in a good ratio of O3 to O6, then there will be
no need to supplement. If you eat a lot of fat that has too much O6,
you should take O3 supplements to adjust the body ratio.

BTW, I would guess that a diet restricted to varied wholefoods will
likely not have an exces fat problem, or a lack of O3 problem.

When you are trying to better a population of bad overeaters, then the
blanket "cure" may be seen to give extra O3 to them, as the large
quantity of O6 they are eating essentially "flushes out" the normally
adequate O3 that they eat.

Is this as clear as mud?


text:
[email] (John the Man) wrote in
news:[email]:

Dont make assumptions!  I eat *a lot* of fruits and veggies.  My main
concern (about omega-3 and nutrients in general) is that the "bad" part of
the meal will block the nutrients in the good part.

For example, a common dinner for me is a can of red salmon, a *small*
hamburger (or some other bad-fat food), and a large serving of broccoli (or
some other green veggie).

Thanks-

-Mike


author: Mark Thorson

text:
Brad Sheppard wrote:

That's a lot of herring.  You might be getting an overdose of
heavy metals, such as mercury and arsenic.  As predators,
herring are high on the food chain, and concentrate heavy
metals from lower in the food chain.

There are excellent vegetable sources of essential fatty
acids which do not pose the risk of toxic heavy metals.
Wheat germ oil, for example.  (I'd strongly recommend
against the recent fad in flaxseed oil products, because
of the extremely highly unsaturated nature of that oil.)


text:
Not necessarily. Wheat is very high in 06, whether it's stone ground,
whole or refined. Also, the amount of 03 required to balance 06 fat
intake can be too much to absorb and cost a lot of money.

03 supplementation does help but to get to a prefferred ratio of 2:1
(06:03) takes a complete change in eating.

Hope this helps,

JoeZychik


author: John the Man

text: Ooooh!  Way too much meat and not enough veggies, me thinks!  :)


author: William A. Noyes

text:
(or

I'll make a modest suggestion of change.
Drop the burger and replace it with a
small steak. Burger meat often has
quite a history. It can be from many
countries and numerous cows and
all be in the same burger patty.
Further to be safe it needs a bit
more cooking than whole meat.
Moreover, I'll suggest you
don't cook the meat at high
frying heat as this produces
PCAA and PAH which tend
to cause cancer.

Next include berries in your
diet. A cup of blueberries
every day would be a place
to start.

If you have land, put in
a berry patch. If you have
acid soil blueberries are a
good choice. Huckleberries
are nice too. Raspberries, and
modern blackberries are pretty
good but are loaded with seeds;
therefore, they don't agree with all people.
Red and black currants can be
tasty though they may carrier a disease
lethal to pine trees.

If you are
willing to spray, and have
space, pie and sweet cherries
are good. Also prune plums and
plums should be strongly considered.
Of course, I live above
the 45th parallel on an acreage.


author: Doug Laidlaw

text:
Mark Thorson wrote:

The DHA in Omega 3 is known to help depression, and my pdoc has recommended
that I take it, but no more than the recommended dose (3 capsules a day.
In practice I am taking 2, or 240 mg DHA.)  I haven't checked on the daily
maximum recommended by nutritionists, but it never pays to follow the
philosophy:

"If enough is good, more is better, and too much is just right."

Doug.


text:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:18:38 GMT, Mark Thorson <[email]>
wrote:

This is rather farfetched. Herrings are rather low in mercury and the
arsenicals are in an organic form that is totally without toxic
effects, unless you convert it by chemicals into inorganic arsenic.


text:
On 20 Jul 2003 09:35:10 -0700, [email] (joe_zychik)
wrote:

This is a key problem in commercial animal nutrition, the meat will
contain huge amounts of omega-6 and very low concentration of omega-3,
while at the same moment contain lots of fats totally, compared to
free-range fed animals of same race which will feed on much leaner
food with a far more higher ratio btw. omega-3 and omega-6 (or vice
versa, much lower ratio btw. omega-6 and omega-3) and being much more
lean and far more richer in antioxidants from plant stuff etc.


author: FREDWELFARE

text:
Whewre does this notion of blocking come from?  Fats are dissolved into fatty
acid and glycerol in the small intestine and then absorbed into the
bloodstream.  What is your understanding?

Fred Welfare


text:
Alf Christophersen <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Just to add my two pence, I recently switched to eating meat from
pastured livestock instead of grain fed, to the extent possible, and
noticed several marked differences.  The pf (pasture fed) meat is much
lower in total fat.  When I roast a free range chicken I get only
about 20% of the fat I would get from a gf (grain fed) bird.  Likewise
with the beef, the ground meat I buy is only 3% fat content.  The beef
is much darker red and much less marbled but just as tender or more
so.  If overcooked it will taste dry compared to gf.  The fat must
also be much less saturated as it stays soft even in the refrigerator
(at least the chicken fat does, there's not enough beef fat to save).


text:
On 23 Jul 2003 03:03:45 GMT, [email] (FREDWELFARE) wrote:

It's the fatty acid that is the "active" component in this phenomenon.

Too much of one fat will tend to "wash out" the other. Sort of like
the law of mass action, or partition coefficient.


text:
Just to add my two pence,

To me, diced chicken is diced chicken.  Anything more than a few cubes of
chicken in a meal is clearly excessive.  :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)


text:
On 20 Jul 2003 19:36:04 -0700, [email] (Hua Kul) wrote:

As the majority of this fat is subcutaneous, skinning the bird should
reduce this problem.

I generally boil ground (minced) beef in excess water to remove the
fat. Sometimes cheap meat is close to fat free, sometimes it has more.
A butcher told me that putting it through the mincer several times
removed excess fat. I find this difficult to believe.

Interesting that the Japanese pay premium prices for highly marbled
beef.

Good imagination  :)


text:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:20:14 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

No, it isn't. You only mean adipose fat. The fats in membranes are
still there, and it is those fats that are the main source for the
PUFA and MUFA fat in a body. Adipose fat is mostly saturated fats and
MUFA of omega-9 class and PUFA of omega-9 class. Most PUFA of omega-3
and omega-6 classes enter phospholipids and those are not found in
adipose fats :-) Or very seldom.


text:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:20:14 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

The majority of fat is in the cell membranes of the muscles, so the
problem still is there. Or do you suggest demuscularizing the animal
too before eating the bones??


text:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:46:03 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

First I'm not bothered by all that "fat type" obsession :)
I'm only interested in the calories. I avoid excess fat coz it's so
calorie dense and I can therefore eat more calorie-sparse foods that I
enjoy.

Our beef is generally pasture fed, and therefore different to grain
fed which is common in the States. I don't know of a feed lot in my
state, Western Australia, which is about eight times the size of
Norway  :)

When I say boiling gets rid of the fat, I'm only talking about the
adipose fat. The phospholipid cell membranes are fine by me.
What percentage of the calories of ground beef would be lipids other
than those that float on boiling?


text:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:46:02 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

Well, skinned chicken has close to zero fat according to the reference
books. Skinned roast turkey is even lower  :)
How do they work this out?
I agree beef and other meats are different.


text:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:43:24 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Difficult to say, but maybe 15-20%, Much of it as arachidonic acid.
(Needed always by inside of membranes)


text:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:42:14 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Mybe triglycerides, but 0 phospholipids?? False statement

Perhaps as extractable white fat deposits.

There are two types of fat, extractable and non-extractable. But also
the non-extractable fats contain fatty acids :-( And, much of it is
arachidonic acid. Muscle cells do contain a lot of non-extractable
fats (not possible to dissolve in organic solvents in a simple way).
Mincing and finely grinding may give more fats as phospholipids and
other fats.


text:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:09:47 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

I thought that cell membranes were very thin, and hardly more than 1%
of the volume of a cell. Of course the grinding and boiling ruptures
most cells, and cell membranes boiled will likely denature these into
the fats to rise to the top.


text:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:09:45 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

So how much lipid from phospholipid?

So how much fat is likely to be in ground beef that is boiled for half
an hour, and the fat that rises to the surface is removed?
I would suggest so little as to be negligible., But how much do you
reckon?


text:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:35:49 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Depends on how the chickens are fed. SOme tables reports more than 1 g
arachidonate pr 100 g meat :-( And about 10% total fat)


text:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:35:49 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Unless you boil the meat to sauce, about 90% of the fat is still there
since it is very little soluble, even in ether or CCl4


text:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:22:14 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

So  <1% fat is pretty close to zero for nutritional purposes.
Thanks.


text:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:22:15 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> wrote:

So 90% of <1% fat in the boiled and separated meat. That's as good as
fat free for me. Not that fat free is important, except for the
calories, and this is negligible. Thanks Alf.


text:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:54:02 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

1% arachidonate is definitively not zero. Arachidonate has very
special functions and many researchers means the diet should give you
less than 50 mg daily. Otherwise I stated about 10% fat. It's little,
yes. But 1 g arachidonate will give you constant headache and
increased need for NSAIDs to dampen the pains the increased
prostaglandine production from increased intake of arachidonate may
result in.


text:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:16:36 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

As far as calories go, and that's all that concerns me, personally.

Well in my experience, you can find many researchers that say just
about anything you want  :)

So all meat eaters have constant headaches?
Not true where I come from  :)


text:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 07:12:39 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

1% arachidonate is like using 10000 V applied to your brain when what
you needed was electrostimulation of dead nerve cells after being
paralyzed through broken back :-)

Arachidonate are normally not used for energy production at all, but
for signal production. Normally it is bound to phospholipids,
transported through blood to cells who store the lipids inthe
membranes, but if too much at one time, it may produce PG's and
leukotrienes and other eicosanoids out of control or if triggered by
peroxydative processes in blood, thus triggering allergy or asthma
attacks almost with next to none stimuli at all. You get just
hypersensitive to anything because the amplification of the
input/output get too big. Far more arachidonate are being release for
a single stimuli and far more leukotrienes are formed, triggereing a
much more bigger histamine release than normal and much more cramping
may occure.

Please be careful about arachidonate through diet! It is another
matter than just calories.


text:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 07:12:39 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Other meats are normally much lower in arachidonate, but high in the
substrates (omega-6 oils), and very low in the inhibitors of forming
arachidonate in your liver (omega-3 acids). Chicken and turkey are
those meats that have been measured to contain the hughest amount of
arachidonate in muscles, mostly dependent on feeding manners.

Freerange fowls are normally very low in AA,but fed only corn and
other cereals, they may oooze of it :-( But I guess the free fats are
also rather low in it. (Those that you skim off when boiling)


text:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:44:29 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

But all meat has ~1% arachidonate?

When eaten, or synthesised by the body?

Is this much more common in meat eaters versus vegetarians?

But if what you say is true, all meat eaters should be in hospital?


text:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:44:32 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

So what are the cell membranes made of if not arachidonate?

So hang on, this AA is in the phospholipid cell membrane, no?


text:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:38:46 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

No. Most meats has much less, but it depends heavily on feeding.Liver
though has a lot of arachidonate, about 500 mg/100g and upwards.
Numbers are rather varying. Some tables are too bad for use with
arachidonate since they have rather high low level limits, and say 0
if below (often 0.5% of total fats)

both, but some molecules eaten are prolonged to C22:4 omega-6 and
longer by peroxisomes, thus detoxifying it.

No.


text:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:39:33 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

In 1-position (of three positions) there is always a saturated fatty
acid. In 2-position of the glyceride, it will be a mixture of MUFA and
PUFA, but there seem to be differences in those used in the outer
membrane half, where arachidonate is seldom found, and on the inside,
where at least in humans, there is about 70% arachidonate and the rest
is omposed in a ratio that fit the ratio in diet integrated over a
long time, about 3 last weeks. The same seems to apply for outside
half. In triglycerides I'm not that sure, but consist mainly of
saturated fats and MUFA/PUFA in 2-position (only). Not sure if there
are specific enzymes splitting off 2-position fatty acids like in
phospholipids, where 2-phosphlipase specifically cleaves phospholipids
into a mixture of PUFA from 2-position, mainly arachidonate (since
2PLA is an internal enzyme activated btw. several of calcium leaking
into cells when membrane has been ruptured in any way, knife cut,
cavitation stress in endothel cell layer in blood vessel when surface
and geometry of blood vessels changes, eg. narrows because plaque
formation and blood stream velocity increases and maybe even turns
direction in another manner than before, and the same calcium increase
may also induce lipoxygenases to produce lipoxines and leukotrienes
which in turn increase lipid peroxide level and turn on cyclooxygenase
I or II which in turn start producing PGH2 from aracidonate fraction,
PGH1 from evt. DHGLA fraction and PGH3 from the EPA fraction and in
smaller amount of some newly found products from linoleic acid. The
less EPA fraction, the more PGH2 is produced in a non-linear manner,
since EPA binds much stronger to the active site of the enzyme, thus
making the substrate much more attractive for the enzyme, but at the
same time has a max veloity of about 1/10, thus occupying the site for
an about 10 times longer time than PGH2, Also DHGLA do slow down
production of PGH2. (the substrate for all
prostaglandines/thromboxanes)
Only PGH2 can form active thromboxanes. You cant make it from PGH1 and
the PGH3-derived thromboxane is ineffective in inducing thrombe
formation, which is why EPA is "thinning" blood.

By changing proportions of PUFA in diet, you also change the habit of
what prostaglandines may do. But, inhibiting prostaglandines totally
is a very bad idea. For men, that would mean more or less impotent,
for women who are waiting for delivering a baby, prostaglandines
induce the muscle contractions when giving birth to a baby, and will
never start until evt. the baby dies because it get to big. (Usually
this never happens since no doctors will allow such a situation to
occur)


text:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 01:20:15 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

Thanks Alf.
What puzzles me is that you appear to be saying that if a substrate
supplied in the diet for some cascade of events is in excess, then the
eventual product of that cascade will be increased. From my general
understanding, there will be several, if not many feedback and
limiting mechanisms along the way. Seems to me that so many
"nutritional supplement" addicts find some abstruse pathway between
substance A and substance B, and so, to increase substance B, they eat
a lot more substance A. Seems way too simplistic to me.


author: MattLB

text:
"Moosh:]" wrote:

Biochemically it can be that simple. There are only so many fates for a
particular molecule and if you increase the substrate concentration, you
increase the rate of all the pathways it can take. While intrinsic
regulation can limit things, it is usually the main pathways that are
most heavily regulated, so a higher than normal level of substrate gets
shunted into a normally insignificant pathway. Some pathways are more or
less unregulated because there's usually only a small amount of
substrate around. A sudden increase will mean more product.

 Another possibility is an enzyme that has more than one substrate. If
you provide a disproportionate amount of substrate A you will see an
increase in product A (as well as a decrease in product B, C etc.).

Physiologically, it's less straight forward as the body doesn't absorb
everything you eat and everything you eat doesn't necessarily reach
every part of the body (the liver intercepts blood leaving the gut and
will do it's best to prevent abnormal changes in blood composition).
Similarly, you have things like the blood-brain barrier.

MattLB


text:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:35:29 GMT, "Moosh:]" <[email]>
wrote:

Not all steps (enzymes) are regulated. Most in fact are not. Very
often 3 or many more enzymes are in work in a biochemical pathway
where the endpoint inhibits the first, controlling step. And if you
eat some of the intermediates, then those substrates will be converte
along the pathway (and may even more suppress the initial step) When
initial step is suppressed, the intermediate chemicals fall in
concentration, and after a while, there is a lack of endpoint stuff,
which in turn increase rate of synthesis, and then after a while, too
much again is produced. Normally, the amplitude oscillation is
dampened, but under certain circumstances, the amplitude oscillation
is increased, and in end, you may be in big problems because there is
enormous oscillations. Fortunately, many systems are regulated
bidirectionally, like blood sugar, so if the outswing is outside a
certain limit, the antiregulator start to work, like too low sugar and
glucagon increases and signa release of more glucose, and if too much
is released, insulin downregulate. If insulin had to be alone, the
system would have been much more prone to oscillations, since then
breakdown or removal of insulin would be essential to stop the
decrease in blood sugar, and fatal hypoglycemia would be the result at
some point (if too much insulin is released, and glucagon is lacking
when stimulated)


text:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:12:28 +0100, MattLB
<[email]> posted:

Thanks Matt. Interesting.


author: [redacted]

subject: PRestressed Vs. Reinforced Concrete

text:
I have a fundamental doubt. I have read in the book "T.Y. Lin-Design of

PreStressed Concrete Structures" , in regard to comparison of
Reinforced and PreStressed Concrete, that, using high strength concrete
in
Reinforced Concrete results in smaller sections and hence more
reinforcement. Thus making it uneconomical.

The same cannot be said about Prestressed concrete.

However, I am not able to get this point well. Can anyone justify??Plz
help


author: Keith W

subject: Re: PRestressed Vs. Reinforced Concrete

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
I don't think that there can be a generic 'best buy' for this situation.
The cost of a single beam is likely to be more expensive as suggested, but
the depth of construction will be reduced (hence the requirement for more
steel), but there are many situations where reduced construction depth can
have considerable savings - eg for a limit on total building height it may
be possible to get another floor in place, or the volume of embankment fill
carrying a road over a fixed obstacle may be significantly reduced.

Keith


subject: Re: PRestressed Vs. Reinforced Concrete

text:
Keith, thanx for the reply!!But,
Less construction depth means more reinforcement?How do you justify
this?
and, then why cannot this not true in case of prerstressed concrete?

Raj

Keith W wrote:


subject: Re: PRestressed Vs. Reinforced Concrete

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
If the construction depth is reduced, the lever arm is reduced, and hence
you need more force to generate the same resisting moment.  The extra force
in the concrete comes from the high strength being stressed to a higher
level.  However, unless the grade of steel is increased, the only way to get
more force out of the steel to balance the concrete's compression force is
to put more of it in.

Keith


author: Double-A

subject: Proton Shrinks!

text:
Physicists confirm surprisingly small proton radius
January 24, 2013

International team of physicists confirms surprisingly small proton
radius with laser spectroscopy of exotic hydrogen. The initial results
puzzled the world three years ago: the size of the proton (to be
precise, its charge radius), measured in exotic hydrogen, in which the
electron orbiting the nucleus is replaced by a negatively charged
muon, yielded a value significantly smaller than the one from previous
investigations of regular hydrogen or electron-proton-scattering. A
new measurement by the same team confirms the value of the electric
charge radius and makes it possible for the first time to determine
the magnetic radius of the proton via laser spectroscopy of muonic
hydrogen.

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-physicists-surprisingly-small-proton-radius.html

Double-A


author: American

subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 29, 1:19 pm, Brad Guth <[email]> wrote:

The hyperon is a product of nucleon decay. Hydrogen atoms contain no
neutrons. A large number of neutron stars suggests that there may be
as many neutrons as protons. Thus there appears to be nearly twice as
many nucleons as electrons. The mass of the nucleon is about 2000
times as much as the electron - yet the nucleon is twice as abundant
as the electron. Thus there is a great deal more influence from the
hyperon (i.e. 'hyperspace') then there is with the electron. One has
to reverse-engineer the idea for red-shift being not a result of the
BB, but a result of discrete quantum shifts, where light loses energy
the same way as a Bose-Einstein condensate does - in discrete jumps.

One example shows how 4He confined to a circular ring exhibits the
same quantum redshift as that of a Bose/Einstein condensate. The BE
suggests that every part of the 4He condensate (superfluid) must have
the same wavefunction. Momentum applied to the ring will not cause
motion until every boson component has obtained a whole spin value.

Taking this a step further, 4He can be used as a substitute for the
weakest bridge connection link in superconductors. This ring-shaped
link would have a 0.1 nanometer collar width, but no telling yet what
the application might be used for. Perhaps something akin to producing
a Casimir force in a disc-shaped magnetic vortex generator, yielding a
Poynting-energy density flow.

But many have said that the Poynting-energy is only applicable for
flat spacetime. That would have to become modified to include the
Heaviside component for curved spacetime - in other words, a 'warp
drive'.


author: Brad Guth

subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Feb 10, 11:26 am, American <[email]> wrote:

Interesting interpretation.


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 29, 7:36 am, American <[email]> wrote:

Where does the hyperon get its energy?

What's the half-life of a hyperon?

Are we to believe in perpetual motion? (zero energy loss)


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 29, 7:01 am, "Luigi Caselli"
<[email]> wrote:

If government and its faith-based partners in crimes against humanity
got their way, we'd become worthless to them, like our being the
"small people" that BP referred to.


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 28, 11:51 pm, Brad Guth <[email]> wrote:

Since nucleon cores can become regenerated by hyperon decay, the
hyperon represents a baryon decuplet, as shown in the following
diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baryon_decuplet.svg

Hyperons would be the interactive energy between the outer atomic
shells of heavier atoms, such as Bismuth IV, which would resonate the
strong force for such a thing as reactionless propulsion.


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 28, 7:44 pm, American <[email]> wrote:

interesting feedback, creating more questions.

What else is cloaked within those multitasking protons, and why are
they doing immortal stuff?


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 28, 2:15 pm, Double-A <[email]> wrote:

A radius of 0.8775 fm shrinking down to 0.84087 fm isn't very big
news.  However, what's inside of the little proton (quarks) that's
making it tick, is a whole lot more important than knowing its exact
size.  In other words, why is a proton what it is?


author: Luigi Caselli

subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
In presence of economic crisis also the proton shrink down, as all our
money...

Luigi Caselli


subject: Re: Proton Shrinks!

text:
On Jan 28, 5:29 pm, Brad Guth <[email]> wrote:

The rotation (and spin) of a quark up defines what kind of 4 nucleons
it might be (proton, neutron, anti-proton, anti-neutron). The
rotational field is called the principle field, and the spin field is
called the secondary field. The interesting thing to note about
nucleons, is that there are real and imaginary parts of the pole
positions that the field(s) align themselves, which would seem to
indicate a quadrupolar structure. Since the proton is not a positron,
it would not contribute significantly, with the idea for say,
reactionless propulsion.


author: Archimedes Plutonium

subject:
(use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old? Re: Age of solar system
	needs a fresh look

text:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Keep up the good work Sam, for that caught my eye.

Took a look at that report and it makes only a difference of 1 million
years.

But it set me to thinking about why I cannot find a zircon crystal or
uranium
that gives an age of Earth as 10 billion years old?

Not only the assumption of constant amount of uranium in certain
meteorites.

But what if the age reckoning had a undue hidden assumption?

Dirac new radioactivities is the growth of the Solar System from dot-
seeds and
where uranium comes into existence by the conglomeration of cosmic
rays and
cosmic gamma ray bursts.

So that if we started not with the assumption of a Nebular Dust Cloud
theory but rather with the assumption that the Solar System began 10
billion years ago and through that time period
grew, like crystals the elements on Earth.

So would it take 10 billion years of Dirac Radioactivities to create
atoms of uranium in
meteorites that we would then go to measure and mistakenly believe
those meteorites are
only 4.6 billion years old when in fact it required 10 billion years
to create that uranium-lead
complex of crystals?

So maybe, not just one bad assumption of the constancy of uranium but
a walloping huge bad
assumption that these uranium atoms existed from a Nebular Dust Cloud
origin. When in fact,
due to Dirac new radioactivities, these uranium atoms are 10 billion
years old?

So could that be true?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


subject:
best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages**
	Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in
	4th)

text:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In the 3rd edition I was calling for a relook at all the zircon and
other aged crystals for
a lone crystal that was 10 billion years old.

But up along comes Sam with a news-flash about a bogus-assumption in
radioactive-dating.

So, then what followed was that "Why not all of radioactive dating as
false assumption"

If Dirac is correct, and Dirac was the preminent giant of physics of
the 20th century, far
ahead of any rivals such as the midget Einstein. Well, Dirac proposed
New Radioactivities
to logically fill in the Large Numbers of Cosmos. You see, Einstein
never had the scientific
logic that Dirac had. Only Dirac could have done a Relativistic
Schrodinger Equation of the
20th century because only Dirac had that superb physics-math-logic.

And the giant of physics of the 20th century was Dirac and all the
others were students to
Dirac.

So if the Cosmos is governed of the creation of matter and new planets
and stars by
Dirac New Radioactivities. Well, kiddoes and kiddies, we cannot use
radioactivity for any
kind of reliable age parameter.

The creation of the uranium and lead and zircon crystals was created
by Dirac New Radioactivities.

So if the planet Jupiter in the far distant future starts to shine
like a star and be a companion
star to the Sun, are we still going to say that Jupiter in that
distant future is only several million
years old? No. For Jupiter was in existence for at least 4.6 billion
years before it started to
become a star.

AGE reckoning by NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS:

Here is a new way of age reckoning of stars: We measure the age of
a neighborhood of stars.

Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
remain
in its current stated to 4 trillion years old

Barnard's Star 10 billion years old

Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old

Sirius A
Sirius B binary stars of different ages

What the above shows the science of astronomy how silly it is for
anyone to believe
and accept a Nebular Dust Cloud theory for the origins of stars. The
99.9% of star
origins are by Dirac New Radioactivities.

The Nebular Dust Cloud people expect everyone else to believe that a
Nebular Dust Cloud that would form our Solar System danced and waltzed
and threaded through the above star systems to make its cozy home in
the Solar System and then proceed to coalesce out into
our Sun and its planets.

Does anyone expect Nebular Dust Clouds to have the flexibility of
making a Solar System that is 4.5 billion years old and surrounding it
to have stars systems of 10 billion years old.

Honestly, the most ardent Nebular Dust Cloud believer, how does he
manage to get of that
silly predicament he is in?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


subject:
new test for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory of star formation
	**neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old;
	Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)

text:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Obviously the Nebular Dust Cloud theory needs a fresh look and a whole
new
methodology of testing.

Show me any group of stars in a region of the cosmos that all bear
nearly identical
ages, in order for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory to pass a
"commonsense test".

If the neighborhood of most stars are not of similar ages, indicates
the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is a fake theory. For certainly the Sun is not
surrounded by
similar-aged stars and that the fact that several of Sun's neighboring
stars are
10 billion years old indicates that the age of the Sun and Earth is
probably 10 billion
years due to the true mechanism of the birth and growth of stars and
solar-systems
as that of Dirac new radioactivities such as the accumulation of
cosmic rays and
gamma ray bursts.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


subject: Nebular Dust Cloud where all the stars are "blue stars"; (use in 4th)

text:
Now I am not saying that Nebular Dust Clouds never form stars. I am
saying that
99% of the creation of stars and planets are formed by Dirac new
radioactivities.

Our own Solar System was formed by Dirac new radioactivities.

There is a picture of a Nebular Dust Cloud which I had seen many years
back
in which it showed about 6 blue shining stars all about the same size
and
same luminosity. I do not recall much else. (Perhaps it was the
Horsehead
Nebula??).

So I am enforcing or applying a commonsense criteria for the Nebular
Dust
Cloud theory. A criteria that other scientists and astronomers of the
past
century should have voiced, or should have thought of before me. It is
odd to me that astronomers for about a century of collecting data on
stars
never asked how the Nebular Dust Cloud theory could ever hold up when
the
neighborhood of star's ages always seem to drastically vary.
That if the Nebular Dust Cloud theory has any credence, it would say
that
stars in a neighborhood should be typically of the same age. This is
commonsense.

But if you look at most every star in the Milky Way Galaxy and then
inspect
the neighbors of that star, we usually find that the neighborhood has
vastly
differing ages of stars in close proximity.

And if we inspect binary stars, we usually find that they are of
different ages.

So, immediately we see that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory fails even
a
commonsense test.

The fact that our Sun is surrounded by 10 billion year old stars in
its immediate
neighborhood, tells us by commonsense, that the Sun is likely to be 10
billion years
old and not the formerly thought age of 4.5 billion years old.

So the idea that there was a bogus assumption of radioactive decay
dating of
uranium that adds on a mere 1 million years, that rather instead, we
throw out
all radioactive dating to determine the age of the Solar System. Throw
it all
out because our Solar System came into being via radioactivities of
Dirac's
outline.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


subject: Dirac's new radioactivities #342 Atom Totality theory 4th ed

text:
Chapter 12

Subject: rings of Saturn should prove Dirac's multiplicative-creation

The Rings of Saturn can provide a proof of Dirac's new-radioactivities
with its multiplicative-creation.

I realize the topic of Saturn's rings is a rather closed topic in that
it is pretty much all settled and agreed upon that theory covers what
is seen. However if my memory is correct that Saturn's Rings still
have open questions of dynamics.

If Dirac's new radioactivities with multiplicative-creation is true,
would have a affect on the Saturn Rings. Dirac predicted that the Moon
would recede from Earth by 2 cm/year due to multiplicative-creation.
But how would multiplicative creation affect the Rings of Saturn?

Chapter 12
Subject: E Ring of Saturn to tell of Dirac's multiplicative-creation

--- quoting Wikipedia on E ring of Saturn ---
The E Ring is the outermost ring, and is extremely wide, beginning at
the orbit of Mimas and ending somewhere around the orbit of Rhea. It
is a diffuse disk consisting mostly of ice, with silicates, carbon
dioxide and ammonia.[56] Unlike the other rings, it is composed of
microscopic rather than macroscopic particles. In 2005, the source of
the E Ring's material was determined to be cryovolcanic plumes[57][58]
emanating from the "tiger stripes"  of the south polar region of the
moon Enceladus.
--- end quoting ---

The nice thing about the rings of Saturn over the Moon is the details
of multiplicative-creation. If we measure for the increase in moon
distance of 2 cm/year there is no visual on the Moon to correspond to
the increase in orbit. But with the Rings of Saturn, the entire Ring
system is visually expanded each year due to multiplicative-creation.

So which of those Jupiter Rings or all of them, confirms the Dirac
multiplicative-creation?

I suppose since we have accurate visual measuring, that we can fix
a point of the Rings and check it every year for expansion.

If Dirac's multiplicative-creation is true, then the entire Ring
System expands outwards every year. I just happened to chose the E
Ring
since its micro particles maybe sensitive to a yearly expansion.

Chapter 12
Subject: website or book that talks of anomalies in science

I found a good website whilst looking for anomalies in Saturn Rings
that may or may not support Dirac's multiplicative-creation.
--- quoting ---

http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-astr.htm

ABB DYNAMICS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS-A-WHOLE
ABB1 Solar-System Instability
ABB2 Circularity of Planetary Orbits
ABB3 Anomalous Split of Angular Momentum between Sun and Planets
ABB4 Ubiquity of Resonances in the Solar System
ABS REMARKABLE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PLANETARY AND SATELLITE PARAMETERS
ABS1 Solar System Laws of Distance
ABS2 Similarity of Densities of Composite Terrestrial Planets
ABS3 Multiple Primaries in the Solar System
ABS4 Supposed Quantization of Planetary Orbital Periods
ABS5 Solar System Mass Laws
ABS6 The Quantized Nature of Orbital Systems
--- end quoting ---

Seems like a working scientist in a field of study should have
available as reference source a constant updated periodical book which
describes the anomalies of that science.

I was looking for anomalies in Saturn Rings. But the above others
listed caught my eye also.

If we were to accept Dirac's new radioactivities as the creation
process of the solar system, how many of those above anomalies would
be answered? Probably the last one mentioned of quantized orbital
systems would be answered, as well as quantized orbital periods.

I wonder about the anomalous split between Sun and planets with
respect to angular momentum and with Dirac new radioactivities.
According to CellWell1 and CellWell2 there is a split between the
oldest objects in our Solar System of the Sun and inner planets and
then the cellwell2 of the outer gas giant planets. But in the above
looks to have a split between Sun and planets over angular momentum.
So that poses a challenge to the CellWell1 and CellWell2 concept.
So is the angular momentum of the Sun and inner planets linked and
disconnected from the angular momentum of the outer planets?

What worries me the most about the above is the concept of
"resonance". I am not sure I know what is meant by resonance in the
solar system and will have to find out. Since it is discussed heavily
on the Saturn Rings.

Chapter 12
Subject: evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why
global
        warming is inevitable with our Sun's future

Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are
going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far
are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because
only
those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will
argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that
exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a
large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means
that
such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every
solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow.

So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a
star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around
the
star.

So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit
around
our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter.

So the question before us is how does Solar System Dynamics have
such a programmed pattern? And the reasonable answer is that it is
all coming from a Dirac Multiplicative-Creation process.

In Multiplicative-Creation as can be read for details in Dirac's book
"Directions in Physics" 1978. In that process, matter is multiplying
up
where matter already exists. So that the Sun grows larger and so do
the planets, meaning that the planets become ever closer and tighter
in orbit around the Sun. This means that the orbits of satellites
around
planets becomes increasingly separated from their planet and becoming
closer to the Sun. So in Multiplicative Creation, the orbits of the
planets
grow closer to the Sun and the orbits of satellites become distant
from their
home planet.

So in that process we would have Global Warming increases even if we
solved humanmade global warming. Looks to me that in the future we
have to colonize Mars in order to extend the future of life in our
Solar System.

I need to examine the orbit of Mercury as per multiplicative-creation.
We know Mercury has an odd and strange orbit with a precession. And
we,
in the past have ascribed that precession to General Relativity as an
answer. But I doubt that it was an answer. I suspect the precession of
Mercury is the forboding of Mercury becoming swallowed up by the Sun.
I doubt that anyone can apply a General Relativity mathematics to the
already discovered exoplanets of exostars; meaning that GR was never
a scientific truth but merely a algorithm at best. I suspect that when
planets
end up as close to the star as Mercury, that they are "falling into
the star"
and all due to Multiplicative Creation of Dirac's new-
radioactivities.

In old solar systems, it is the multiplicative-creation that causes
close and
tight orbits of its last remaining planets. Those planets may turn
into a
twin star to the original star. So that Jupiter ends up becoming a
twin
star to our sun.

Now let us take the opposite view, that of say no-multiplicative-
creation.
Then can we answer why exoplanets are so huge and close orbiting their
star? Can we answer why all of our planets that have satellites, why
none
of them seem destined to be swallowed up by their parent planet? Why
every planet that has a satellite, that the satellite is moving away
from
the parent planet, whether as small as rings or as large as moons?

So the **obvious logic** is pointing to a scenario of multiplicative-
creation
as the main mechanism driving solar system evolution.

Chapter 12
Subject: commonsense argument in favor of Dirac's multiplicative-
creation --
        never any satellite swallowing by a planet

Let us examine our solar system for clues as to
whether there is Dirac's multiplicative creation. If
Dirac's multiplicative creation is true then the satellites of planets
would be tugged away from
those parent planets and sent into a path towards
the Sun. If Dirac's multiplicative creation is false,
then the probability of a satellite being swallowed
by the parent planet is rather a high probability considering tidal
friction.

So if we look at our Solar System and ask whether
any satellite is in danger of being swallowed by
parent planet we must conclude none are in that
danger. In fact, every satellite, even Io of Jupiter
is receding away from its parent planet.

So if Dirac's Multiplicative-Creation is true, then there should be no
evidence of a spiralling inward
orbit of a satellite that is heading for a swallowing
by its parent planet. And there is none in our Solar
System. About the only swallowing candidate is
Mercury by the Sun (but Mercury is saved by the enormous
radiation pressure by the Sun on Mercury). And that is in agreement
with
the Multiplicative-Creation, that the tug of the Sun
should be the dominant tug in our solar system.
And the first planet to be lost to the Sun is going to
be Mercury if its Sun's radiation pressure does not save it.
And that a future time of billions years
hence, that our solar system will have just two
objects, the Sun and Jupiter about to become a twin
star to the Sun with some surviving planets that got out of the way.

There is nothing in mainstream physics or astronomy to account for the
reason that no
satellite is spiralling inwards to be swallowed by
its parent planet. And mainstream physics should
have accounted for this assailant fact and observation. It does not
prove Dirac's multiplicative
creation but it surely supports it in a drastic measure.

However, the Exoplanets discovered in the past two decades
increasingly
support Dirac new radioactivities as these are huge planets swallowed
up or becoming twin stars.

If Dirac's multiplicative-creation was false, then
we should expect half the satellites in our solar
system to be ramping up for a collision with their
parent planet. We see none of this. In fact, even
the worst satellites as to a parent planet tug-- Io
of Jupiter, that its orbit is receding away from that of Jupiter.

This indicates that the overall forces going on in our
Solar System is the Multiplicative Creation which has all the orbits
of planets and satellites tugged
in the direction of the Sun since the Sun is the benefactor of most
of Dirac's new radioactivities.

Sometimes in science the most obvious of facts
about the world we live in are grossly ignored. Since
Kepler and Galileo and Newton there must have been thousands of
scientists who asked themselves, why no satellites spiralling into
their parent planet?

And ever since Newton of 1687, noone has answered that question or
pondered the question
in broad daylight-- why no satellites swallowed by
parent planets? The answer is that Dirac's
multiplicative-creation is ongoing and drives all
satellites away from their parent planet and towards the Sun.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


author: Jim Oberg

subject: First mission ever SHORTENED by weather forecast?

text:
So -- home we come....

I can't think of any earlier human space mission that
was called home early on account of forecast bad weather --
what am I overlooking?

JimO


author: no body

subject: Re: First mission ever SHORTENED by weather forecast?

text:
Jim Oberg wrote:

perhaps the same frequency as active missions with a hurricane barreling
down on mission control?

-r (not intended to be as smart-arsed as it may sound)
(i don't think the hurriance-on-houston-during-a-flight situation has
happened before either...)
(but since we ARE at fault for the global warming and all.. :)
(ok, that one was smart-arsed..)


author: Joseph Nebus

text:
"Jim Oberg" <[email]> writes:

	Didn't Gemini V land an orbit or two early because of a
hurricane forecast to be moving into the recovery area?


author: Brian Thorn

text:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:38:11 -0500, "Jim Oberg"
<[email]> wrote:

51C and 61C, although 61C ended up being delayed anyway and ultimately
diverted to Edwards.

Brian


author: Brian Gaff

text:
So, maybe  its just a cover up for something else then?

Seriously though, seems a bit odd to me that they  might only have the one
basket to keep their eggs in for this sort of thing. I mean, if something
really bad happened to Houston, something unexpected, what  then?

By the way, where does TC keep going ever couple of hours during EVAs?

Are they running out of adult nappies? :-)

Brian


author: Craig Fink

text:
Well, I certainly hope they don't do something stupid like fly over a
Hurricane on the way to Florida. Hurricanes outgas over the top. All the
air that is spiraling in, picking up all that energy (velocity) from the
water, doesn't make it to the center. It gets flung out the top of the
hurricane. I imagine it might be a pretty big bulge of air leaving a
category 4 or 5 hurricane. I imagine meteorologist have studied hurricane
quite extensively to come up with the proper models, but how well is the
airflow on top of a hurricane understood beyond the useful range for
hurricane prediction. But how well are the hurricane's effects known past
that, the area that the Shuttle would be flying. What do the extreme upper
air currents look like going around the bulge of air created by a
hurricane?


author: BradGuth

text:
On Aug 18, 3:38 pm, "Jim Oberg" <[email]> wrote:

Good thing that global warming has nothing to do with any of that.
- Brad Guth


author: Neil Fraser

text:
On Aug 18, 3:38 pm, "Jim Oberg" <[email]> wrote:

Thre was a close call on Vostok 4:
  http://www.astronautix.com/flights/vostok4.htm

"Popovich was given the code phrase 'observing thunderstorms' to be
used if he felt severe motion sickness and needed to return on the
next opportunity. Unfortunately he actually did report seeing
thunderstorms over the Gulf of Mexico, and ground control took this as
a request for an early return, causing a scramble before the
misunderstanding was cleared up."


author: Pat Flannery

text:
Neil Fraser wrote:

That's at least twice that something like that happened to them; on one
of the early Vostoks, the cosmonaut reported he had defecated -"Shtul";
ground control thought he said "Shtuk" - knocking sound, and began
panicking and asking him what was knocking in the spacecraft.
Once he explained his meaning, everyone broke out laughing. :-)

Pat


text:
On 18 Aug 2007 21:44:09 -0400, [email] (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

  Yes, Joe, you are correct


author: Ry Alford

text:
Marshall SFC has the POSC (Payload Op Support Center) that can serve
as a back-up to Houston MOCR.  I believe (it's been a long time since
I was on the tour) that the room is brought up for launch and entry
just in case.


author: Agki Strodon

subject: Timing system

text:
I want to set up an experiment with gravity and viscosity with a
semi-homeschooled gifted.  Here's what I want to do:

We envisioned a tall column of tubular plexiglass or other plastic that
would have height markings and a start position.  We want to use a
couple of laser pointers as start and stop sensors for a timing device.
The start laser would be at the top (natch) and would activate the timer
whenever a marble or other thing blocks the laser light to the sensor
and another laser-sensor that would stop the timer whenever the object
cut off its light.  We are going to use a clear plastic tube so that we
can see it fall and one that we can use different density objects as
well as fill with liquids and measure the effects of viscosity on the
rate of fall.  My question is does anyone have any specific information
on how to hook up the timer, sensor, laser system and about the parts
themselves.  If anyone has done this, I'd like to know what sensors and
timers are good and about where you got the items (Radio Shack?), and
the way you connected the sensors to the timer.  If you have Radio Shack
or other vendor part numbers, that would be very nice.

Please post or send me email spcifics on what you recommend as a good
system.  Cost, while an object isn't too big of a deal.  We may want to
use these parts for other timed experiments as well.  Thank you for your
time.

Agkistrodon


author: Herman Family

subject: Re: Timing system

text:
You might consider setting up a couple of relays.  The first one would be
normally off until hit with some current, the second normally on.  Place
them in series, so that if relay 1 is activated and relay 2 is not
activated, current flows to a clock.

Put your lasers and photosensors at the locations you wish to measure start
and stop times.  The top photosensor is wired to control relay 1 (normally
off), the bottom is wired to control relay 2.  When the liquid level drops
below 1, the timer turns on.  It turns off again when the level drops below
2.   You could have several of these set up, so that the output of relay 1
feeds several relays, each of which would turn the current off when the
level got to them.

An alternative would be to put a pressure tap on the bottom of the column
(not facing any direction of flow), and hook it to a computer a/d board.
You could then watch the pressure in the column drop with time, and
calculate the height from that.  It could give you a better set of values.
Checking the slope of the graph of the height would give you the
instantaneous velocity downward.

Michael

"Agki Strodon" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Kevin Kilzer

subject: Re: Timing system

text:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:53:02 -0400, Agki Strodon
<[email]> wrote:

First, consider the optical effects of the tube.  The diffraction of
the curvy sides might be a problem.  If you can find a rectangular or
square tube (something with parallel sides) you might get better
results.  You will have to experiment a little.

It should not be necessary to use lasers per se; simpler and less
expensive devices are more easily obtained.  Any narrow-beam light
source should suffice, and many LEDs are well suited to this
application.  Radio Shack carries some very bright LEDs, and they have
one that is about 1cm in diameter that has a fairly narrow beam with
an intensity that will hurt your eyes.  It may be possible to drill a
hole in the tube and glue the LED into the hole, which would eliminate
part of the diffraction problem, but make alignment more difficult.

The sensor is the most difficult part.  Use of a phototransistor (also
available from Radio Shack) will work, but the details of connecting
it are somewhat complex.  Given that you can find a ciruit, I would
recommend connecting it to the parallel port of an old PC.  There are
many examples of such a connection, and the software needed to monitor
them, on the net somewhere, and others might be able to provide the
references.  Radio Shack used to have a book with some examples, but
that was when people still bought books.

Bon chance!

Kevin


author: Nickname unavailable

text:
ayn rand disciple alan greenspan said "there should be no regulations,
let the markets self police and clean up themselves" sounds like old
rand was missing a few buttons:)

 click on the link for the video.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/come-on-ben-bernanke-come-clean!-399189.html;_ylt=AjMxmeshjVRCjVyqIupSfU.7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZGc3cmZ1BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN0ZWNoVGlja2VyBHNsawNjb21lb25iZW5iZXI-?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,dia,spy,xlf,FAS,FAZ

Come On Ben Bernanke, Come Clean!
Posted Jan 06, 2010 11:26am EST by Heesun Wee in Investing,
Newsmakers, Recession, Banking
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, DIA, SPY, XLF, FAS, FAZ
Say it ain't so Ben. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently blamed
lax regulation for the financial crisis -- not the Fed's easy money
policies, which encouraged profligate spending from Wall Street
traders to American consumers.


author: Werner

subject:
Re: ayn rand disciple alan greenspan said "there should be no
	regulations, let the markets self police and clean up themselves" sounds like
	old rand was missing a few buttons:)

text:
On Jan 7, 10:04 am, Nickname unavailable <[email]> wrote:

Pay attention! Manipulating the money supply IS regulation! Moving
risk to Fannie and Freddie IS also regulation!

Not long ago, New York state had a regulator named Carl McCall. He was
the state?s Comptroller - a fiscal regulator. Mc Call was also
responsible for investing the State?s retirement system funds. Wall
Street is located in New York City where Mr. McCall spend a lot of
time. When the stock market was doing well and the value of the
retirement system was rising fast, Mr. McCall liked to point out how
well he invested the people?s money. Then came the Dot Com crash. The
value of the retirement system crashed as well. Suddenly our
government regulator blamed Wall Street (unfettered capitalism) for
the losses.

The Federal Reserve System is a government creation to regulate the
supply of money. It lowered interest rates to encourage business and
employment. As expected, banks lent and people borrowed the money.
Those who borrowed when rates were regulated low did well and everyone
was happy. When interest rates were regulated back up to forestall
inflation many borrowers were no longer able to make loan payments.
Thus the crisis. It seems unfettered regulation has caused this fiscal
turmoil.
Here are a few more examples of unfettered regulation. Government
created loan institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have gone
bankrupt. Instead of eliminating poverty, government anti-poverty
programs created millions more poor people on welfare. Government
Medicaid (for the poor) causes fiscal distress for local governments
which must share the costs. Government Medicare (for the aged and
disabled) is going broke faster than the government Social Security
program.

Should you not reassess your assumptions about the value of
regulation?


author: Rod Speed

subject: Re: ayn rand disciple alan greenspan said "there should be no regulations, let the markets self police and clean up themselves" sounds like old rand was missing a few buttons:)

text:
Werner wrote

No point with this mindless silly shit of yours!

Wrong, as always!!

Wrong, as always!!

All that means is that he had more than one role, stupid.

Wota surprise.

Thats not the regulation being discussed at the top.

They were actually set low, not regulated low.

Fuck all were no longer able to do that. Only the fools that were
actually stupid enough to not allow for the possibility that interest
rates would inevitably rise sometime.

Only to the pig ignorant fools that dont actually understand
what the REGULATIONS being discussed actually involve.

Nope, not one.

Like hell either of them have.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Nothing to do with regulation of business, fool.

Nothing to do with regulation of business, fool.

Should you not get a dictionary and check the difference between REGULATION and REGULATIONS ?


author: rhodo chrosite

subject: $25 Million Creationist Museum opens

text:
http://tinyurl.com/9wxp6

The world would be a better place if these folks had spent their $25 Million
helping the poor, rather than trying to perpetuate the myth that the Earth
was created just 6,000 years ago.  And they think 600,000 people will visit
that den of iniquity over the next year!  Be afraid, be very, very afraid.


author: rick++

subject: Re: $25 Million Creationist Museum opens

text:
Washington Posts mentions the Smithsonian is hosting a
moving about Creationism.


author: George

text:
"rhodo chrosite" <[email]> wrote in message
news:1116862957.c3fbeb9e85832c369b677beee24ebecb@teranews...

Be disgusted, be very disgusted.


author: Joe Zorzin

text:
But it might be a fun place to go after some good refer- like Disneyland.

"George" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Lcske.147$IC6.144@attbi_s72...
Million
Earth was
that


author: Sean Holland

subject: Re: (Very) New Student, With a Quick Question:

text:
in article [email], Michael Cash at
[email] wrote on 7/7/03 6:03 AM:

Cheez, yer gettin sharper as you age.


author: Ross Klatte

text:
All right, Sean, I don't get it.  Either you or I stand whooshed.

Ross
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
http://www.panawave.gr.jp


author: Michael Cash

text:
On 07 Jul 2003 19:47:01 GMT, [email] (Ross Klatte)
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:

phone.....extention

cheese....sharp

See the "connection"?


author: Sceadu

text:
"Ross Klatte" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Phone... extension?

Sceadu


text:
"Phone..extension" I get.
"Cheese...sharper...age" I get.
What I don't get is "Phone...Cheese."

Q.  How many Polocks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A.  Because of the sandwiches there.

Ross
http://community.webshots.com/user/ross_klatte
http://www.panawave.gr.jp


author: Peter Bennett

subject: Re: Anybody know of an EASY way to make a 20Hz 90VAC Sinewave?? (Sorry Mark..but, I Gotta Ask.

text:
NoGenius wrote:

I used an XR2206 oscillator driving a National LM1875T which drove a
reverse-connected 120V to 12V transformer to make a 200V 300Hz AC source
good for a few watts.  A standard 50/60Hz transformer should work
adequately at 20 Hz.


author: Maurice Gavin

subject: new Nova Sco image + spectrum

text:
Much clearer last night with this binocular nova recorded in 20s
exposure <3o above my southern meridian  from SW London - UK.
Spectrum obtained that clearly show H-alpha and other lines in
emission as posted at

http://home.freeuk.com/m.gavin/nsco04.htm

Maurice Gavin @ WPO - UK


author: Peter Bealo

subject: Re: new Nova Sco image + spectrum

text:
Maurice,

Great image and spectrum. What spectrograph did you use???

I've had a film based Fecker spectrograph for some time now...I've got to
actually go out and use it. You give me inspiration! No, I can't convert it
to CCD due to long, curved focal plane...but 16mm film is still available
and I od have the original manual.

Peter Bealo
Sweet Hill Observatory
http://home.comcast.net/~pbealo/sub8.htm


subject: Re: new Nova Sco image + spectrum

text:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:24:33 GMT, "Peter Bealo" <[email]>
wrote:

I used the simplist form of spectrograph eg a Rainbow Optics trans
grating 20mm from the CCD/film.  Dispersion [resolution] is low but it
goes faint.


author: Lee Hobeck

subject: exercise

text:
Is there a type of exercise that should be avoided when one has
osteoporosis in both spine and hip?  I recently joined a health club.
It is equipped with many machines,  I am wondering which ones I should
avoid.  Lee


author: Kate

subject: Re: exercise

text:
Lee,

After reading some of your other posts...
Since you go to a gym, you can use the bike. Recumbent bike supports
your spine and bike is a good weight bearing exercise for your hips.
Most recumbent bikes at gyms allow you to increase resistance
progressively.

Then stair climbers are also good for hips. Just be sure not to 'hunch
over' the front bars; stand tall.

You can get more benefit if you do one of these for a month ...and then
change off to the other.  This gives a sense of 'new stresses' when you
go back to the other machine and osteoblasts respond better [at least
that is what some of the research says.]

As for your back, there are lat pulls ....
I am not sure why you want the abs so much but one alternative would be
to try some isometric exercises for your abs. They do not require
bending, twisting etc.

YOur health care provider ought to be helping you design an exercise
program to fit your condition!!!  If s/he is not able or willing to do
that, why not ask for copies of your dexa scans [it is your right to
have these] and then take these to physical therapist or such who
should be able to help you devise a program that fits your
circumstances.  Medicare would probably pay for the consult if your
health care provider writes a script for it.

I know it is sometimes hard to get doctors to do these things ....but
you have every right to such serivce AND it is your body, your bones.
It is so great that you want to be actively involved!!!!

Right now I am researching recumbent trikes. They are big things in
Australia and parts of the US. I figure it will give me a great 'hip'
exercise and the trike will take away my fear of falling.

Again, good luck.
Kate
PS...I just added a piece about how you can ad weight to walking so as
to make it more of a bone builder on the web page ...the link is on the
bone density exercise page www.osteopenia3.com

Lee Hobeck wrote:
should


subject: Re: exercise

text:
Art said about recumbent biking:

bicyclist is pushing hard enough to support their entire weight (which
very few do unless they are standing on the pedals), there will be less
stress than simply walking.  It can be good as an
aerobic/cardiovascular
exercise, but it is poor for increasing bone density.<<

Art, this  goes agaist the recommedations of Leon Root, Md  and also
Nancy Lane MD both of whom have books out about osteoporosis.  Even my
orthopedist has said that  recumbent bikes are good exercises for
increasing hip BMD - especially since most of them allow you to
increase the resistance at will - thus providing the same 'increase' as
one has when increasing weights in weight lifting.

The research studies about weight lifting - [most of which show postive
results on bone density,]  NO one was ever asked to raise her 'full
weight'  - in fact, depending on the level of conditioning of the
participants, many showed improvement with very low poundage. So too
with gym cycles--- the resistance can be changed to fit the fitness
level of the rider.

Stairs - I agree with your comment that 'real stairs' are best.  But I
would never recommend that to anyone whose balance and co-ordination  I
do not know well.  One of the real problems with 'real' stairs, as well
as  'step programs' is that participants can fall - and this is
dangerous for those with ostoporosis.  Stairmasters do provide 'weight
bearing' - much  as lower  free weights do AND those using Stairmasters
have double handles to ensure that they do not fall. Again, Root, the
doctor-author mentioned above suggests Stairmasters.

As for changing from one type of exercise to another - so that there
are 'new stresses',  that is mentioned in so many books about
Osteoporosis I am not sure what to reference.  As I read the literature
it says that although all weight bearing exercise puts stress on bones,
different exercises put more and less stress on different parts of the
skeleton.

Osteoblasts only respond to 'increased stress' - which is the reason
that any exercise loses its ability to stimulate new bone growth unless
there is increase weight added.

But if you stop the  exercised generated increased stress on a bone for
a period of time, the osteoblasts in those bones get used to the less
stress.  {There is not a loss of the bone that was created during the
first exercise period since the osteoclasts are not being stimulated]

But when you increase the stress again by taking up the activity again,
the osteoblasts are again stimulated since this is now a 'new level of
stress compared to what they are used to' and they pick up activitiy.
The key is to wait long enough between switching off and switching
back.

 If we do not change exercises, then it becomes necessary to keep
adding weight/stress since the osteoblasts are no longer stimulated
once they have gotten used to a given amount of bone stress.  [In
lifting weights, this is why we need to keep adding heavier weight for
the weight lifting to increase bone mass].  When doing things like
walking, racewalking, dancing, jogging people can not keep 'adding
weight'...so the advice has been to change off to a different exercise
and then come back to what you were doing.

Most orthopedists can tell you exactly what bones are stressed by what
exercise. Cyclists develop different problems from joggers and the
latter do not get hurt in the same place as race walkers and those
doing weighted walking develop other problems etc. Of course,
gymnastics is the 'best' exercise for buidling bone - even with the
commonality of annorexia [a risk factor for osteoporosis] among women
gymnasts, for example, they were found to have greater BMD than most
others.  This is, of course, because of the 'weight bearing' and the
bounding etc.  These gymnast studies are one of the reason why they
began to test 'jumping jacks' and jump rope - which proved great for
buidling BMD BUT THESE EXERCISES  could be dangerous for anyone with
osteoporosis  since they could cause fractures if bones are porous.

Kate


author: Art S

subject: Re: exercise

text:
"Lee Hobeck" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Sorry; no specific answers.

In general:

1)  bone density is roughly correlated with risk of fracture (something like
      a 70% correlation), so the lower your bone density the greater the
      risk of getting a fracture.  But you, as an individual, may have a greater
      or lesser risk of getting a fracture than someone else with the same
      bone density.
2)  Your bone doesn't have nerves, so you can't "test" an exercise with a
      specific weight and have some warning that - as far as your bone is
      concerned - you are getting into a dangerous area.
3)  If you don't "stress" your bones, you won't increase your bone density
      (if it is easy to do an exercise with 5 lbs, then continuing to do the same
      exercise with 5 lbs will, at most, maintain bone density for the affected
      bones without stimulating an increase.  In addition, doing a biceps curl
      won't affect your hip.).
4)  Bone appears to respond to a "peak load" a limited number of times
      each day (the paper I read hypothesized it was around 30 peaks per day
      with a better response if they were broken into two or three groups
      spread throughout the 24 hours of the day (i.e. - every 12 hours or every
      8 hours).  A short rest between each peak load may also improve the
      bone's response.  (Note that your muscles can NOT respond to a peak
      stress this often, so look for complementary activities for the days that
      you can't lift weights.)

Recommendations:
1)  See if your doctor can provide any guidance.
2)  The greater your risk of fracture (the lower your bone density and/or
      having had an "unexplained" fracture before), the lower you should
      start and the more careful you should be about increasing the weight.

Good luck,

Art


author: Shirley Thebaglady

subject: Re: exercise

text:
I would ask one of the trainers there.

The ones that I did was stregthening my back and hips. (on the machines)
I know I needed to build up my muscle mass to support my back and hips.
Those were the ones that were hurting.

 And a good warm-up on the treadmill before doing anything in the Gym.

shirley


subject: Re: exercise

text:
Yes, Lee...you are correct. There are some exercises that should be
avoided.

Go to:
http://www.osteopenia3.com/osteoporosisexercisewarning.html

I hope your exercise program goes well for you!

Kate
Lee Hobeck wrote:
should


subject: Re: exercise

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

Not really.  Since the body is supported from the waist up, the only
load will be based on how hard the pedals are pushed.  Unless the
bicyclist is pushing hard enough to support their entire weight (which
very few do unless they are standing on the pedals), there will be less
stress than simply walking.  It can be good as an aerobic/cardiovascular
exercise, but it is poor for increasing bone density.

They aren't as good as real stairs for building bone density.  This
is because - due to the "stair" going down, there is minimal impact,
which means minimal stress on the bone, which probably means no
increase in bone density.  It can be a good aerobic/cardiovascular
exercise, though, if done properly (stand upright and don't use the
hands/arms to support any of the weight).  As an aside, going down
stairs is better for increasing bone density than going up stairs because
there is more "impact" when the foot "hits" the stair.

All of the research I have seen says "different" stress (different angle or
different peak load).  I haven't seen anything that just says "new" stress.
Could you provide your references, please?  Also, note that both stair
climbing and bicycling stress the bones in the same way: along the axis
of the bone.  Keep in mind that bone doesn't have eyes - it doesn't know
what exercise is being done.  All it "knows" is that it is receiving a certain
level of stress (stretch or compression) in a certain direction.

Lee should get copies of the DEXA scans regardless.  Seeing a Physical
Therapist is also a good idea.  The PT can do two things:  first, help with
balance exercises, if required (at 71, it may be premature).  Second, help
with proper exercise technique (my personal estimate is that 95% of the
personal trainers don't know their head from a hole in the ground, but
this is gym dependent. The PTs I have seen have all known more about
how to do exercises than the personal trainers I have seen. Note that Cyli
may disagree - it appears that the people in her gym are doing more
technically complicated lifts (Olympic Lifting) than the people in my
gym and that may be reflected in the trainers there.)

Many states limit what a Physical Therapist can do (no diagnosis, etc),
so Lee may need a doctor's prescription to see the Physical Therapist.

Art


subject: Re: exercise

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

Never heard of them.  My library has some books by each of them, so
I've put in a request.

Any peer-reviewed studies?

When I looked in pub med (www.pubmed.com), I didn't find any studies
on recumbent bikes and bone density.  I found several talking about
bicycling and bone density, but "mixed" results:

1.  (article in German.  everything is based on a translation)
     Modification of bone quality by extreme physical stress.  Bone density
     measurements in high-performance atheletes using DEXA
     Sabo D, Reiter A, Pfeil J, Gussbacher A, Niethard FU.
     Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1996 Jan-Feb; 134(1):1-6

     Bone density was measured in 40 internationally top ranked high
     performance atheletes and compared to 21 age-match controls:
     weight lifters (28): bone density was 23% higher in Ward's triangle
     sport-boxers (6): up to 17% higher in spine, 9% in hip, and 7% in
                                  ward's triangle
     bicycle racers (6): 10% LOWER in the spine; 14% LOWER in the
                                  hip, and 17% LOWER in Ward's triangle.

2.  Low bone mineral density in highly trained male master cyclists
     Nicols JF, Palmer JE, Levy SS
     Osteoporosis Int. 2003 Aug;14(8):644-9

     Basically, controls, master cyclists (51.2 +/- 5.3 years of age with 10+
    years training and racing [with the mean being 20 years]) and junior cyclists
    (31.7 +/- 3/5 years of age 10+ years training and racing).  The group of
    master cyclists had significantly lower BMD, with 4 having clinical
    Osteoporosis.  Nobody else in the study had clinical Osteoporosis.

3.  Bone mineral density after bicycle ergometry training
     Leeds EM, Klose KJ, Ganz W, Serafini A, Green BA
     Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990 Mar; 71(3):207-9

     A group of quadriplegics measured before and after six months of
     bicycling.  Post exercise measurements were lower, but no statistically
     significant difference was found.  Three additional men with spinal
     chord injuries who had been bicycling for three years were measured.
     Their mean BMDs were not significantly different from the group that
      had only bicycled six months.

4.  Non-weightbearing exercise may increase lumbar spine bone mineral
     density in healthy postmenopausal women
     Bloomfield SA, Williams NI, Lamb DR, Jackson RD.
     Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993 Aug; 72(4):204-9

     Seven postmenopausal women exercised on bicycle ergometers for
     eight months at a moderate intensity (60-80% of maximum heart
     rate, however that was determined.  Bone density in the spine went up
     3.55 +/- 1.43% in the spine, as opposed to a non-exercising group
     whose bone density went down 2.44 +/- 0.81%. No change in the
     femoral neck was noticed.

5.  (article in chinese; all info from a translation)
     Preventive effects of exercise training on bone loss during 21 day
     -6 degrees head down bed-rest
     Liu YS, Huang WF, Li LP, Zhong CF, Dong RD, Sun HY
     Space Med Med Eng (Beijing). 2003 Apr; 16(2):96-9

     Ten healthy men were seperated into two groups of five.  Both had
     21 days of -6 degrees head down bed rest, with one group doing
     bicycling while in a supine position.  The non-exercise group's BMD
     went down by 5.8% in the femur, while the exercise group's BMD
     went down by 0.9%.

Not a ringing endorsement.

Note that the ability to increase resistance in and of itself is not
meaningful unless the minimum amount of stress required to increase
BMD can be reached. To phrase it another way, if you can do a bicep
curl for 15lbs, then buying a weight set that lets you do from 0.5 to 5
lbs in .5 increments won't do you any good - the maximum weight is
below the threshhold required for growth.

My point is that when you walk, your leg (and hip) is supporting your
full body weight.  When most people bicycle, it isn't.  That suggests that
bicycling will put less strain on the bones than walking, further suggesting
that bicycling will do less to maintain BMD than walking.

When lifting weights while standing, by the way, the proper things to
compare are total weight (body weight + additional weight) and speed
(so, if done safely, a fast movement - such as is done in olympic lifting -
is better than a slow movement - such as is done in almost all other
weight lifting).

In addition, the expected benefit is based on how much the bone is
accustomed to supporting vs how much it is being asked to support.
Most people are able to support their weight on one leg easily but
don't do the same with one arm.  As such, I would expect exercises
to increase BMD in the leg (and hip) to require more weight than
exercises to increase BMD in the arm.

Finally, the studies that I have seen regarding weight lifting don't say
how much weight is being lifted (which, as an aside, I find extremely
irritating.  I saw one study indicating that women doing one kind of
weight lifting lost BMD while other women doing a different kind of
weight lifting increased their BMD.  The weight lifted was recorded,
but isn't provided, reducing the value of the study.  As a further
complication, the group of women who lost BMD all "coincidentally"
started with higher BMDs than the other group and ended with higher
BMDs than the other group, making me suspect that the two groups
were not comparable.).

While true, you might want to consider the possibility that you are being
over protective and hiding information.  Wouldn't it be more valuable to
the person you are talking to to note both the positives and negatives and
let them make their own decision (such as "I think it would be better to
go up and down stairs, but I'm not ready for it yet so I should see a PT
and work on my balance first" instead of "walking on a stair master will
increase my bone density so there isn't any need to worry about anything
else"?)

1.  Ignoring the cardiovascular element ('cause this is an Osteoporosis
    news group), there is less impact from walking on a stair master than
     there is from walking on the side walk.  This is because 1) when you
     are walking, you place all the weight on the foot relatively quickly,
     increasing the stress on the bone;  on the stair master, weight is placed
     gradually, minimizing the stress and 2) since the platform that the foot
     is being placed on is going down, it reduces the impact from pushing
     the foot against it when "climbing" the stair.
2.  This suggests that the impact from using a stair master will be lower
     than what most mobile people are already adapted to.
3)  This suggests that using a stair master for increasing bone density will,
      for most people, be a waste of time and effort.

If you can find a peer-reviewed study, I would be delighted to read it.

Then (please) point out the specific benefit of each of the exercises
you recommend, rather than saying they are good simply because
they are "different" and "new".

And while there is a diffence between doing a standing military
press and a seated military press (basically lifting a weight overhead
while standing or sitting), the difference is from the hips down, so if
you are looking for a change in the spine, shoulders, or arms, the
differences will be minimal.

And I suspect that the writers are talking more about the differences
between something like a biceps curl and a squat than they are between
two variations of the same exercise.

Keep in mind that, as I said in another post, your bones don't have eyes.
They don't know what exercise is being done.  All they "know" is that
there is a certain level of stress (dynamic or static) in a certain vector.
If someone changes from one exercise to another and both appear the
same as far as stress on the bone goes then, as far as bone growth is
concerned, they are the same exercise.

Provided you are talking about increasing the weight to stay reasonably
close to what the bone can support and not talking about someone who
can do an unweighted squat (almost everyone) and having them do the
squat with 1 lb (less than a 1% change for the average woman), I
completely agree.

Bone is constantly being remodelled.  If you stop the stress on the bone,
the osteoclasts WILL tear down the bone and, since it isn't being stressed,
the osteoblasts will NOT build it back down.  That is why people who
are bedridden for a long enough period of time lose BMD (see reference
5 above, or look up weightlessness and osteoporosis).

If it is the same level of stress as before AND the bones are already
adapted to it, I would only expect the BMD to remain the same.  If
you have a peer-reviewed study on this, I would love to read it.

As I've said, I wouldn't expect change in and of itself to be of benefit.
A change from walking to jogging? yes.  From jogging to running?
yes.  From up hill to down hill? yes.  The reverse of any of those? No.
I suspect that some of your sources have either been misinformed
or misread something.  Again, if you have a peer-reviewed study
supporting your claims, I would like to read it.

Relatively simple logic can do that:  trace the skeleton from where the
weight is being held to the first place the body is supported.

I have vague recollections of having seen a study showing that serious
(competitive) weightlifters had a higher BMD than gymnists.

Gymnastics will provide more impact than walking, jogging, running,
or jumping, though.

No, it is because of the impact when they do things like land on the floor
from being over 6' above the ground or "hit" the pomel horse with their
hands while running at full speed.  Note that they only do body-weight
exercises and that weight changes gradually as they age.

I have seen studies showing JUMPING can increase BMD.  I haven't seen
any showing that JUMPING ROPE can increase BMD.  Keep in mind that
an adult jumping rope to increase BMD is going to be jumping rope by
themselves, and (probably) not playing the games that girls do when jumping
rope.  Because of this, unless they've been told that they need to keep their
jumps high, there will be a tendency to increase their effiency by keeping
their feet as close to the ground as possible so, as they get more proficient,
the value - as far as increasing BMD goes - will be reduced.

Art


subject: Re: exercise

text:
Thank you for the advice each of you gave.  I really need to strengthen
my abdomen muscles however, all the machine  designed for those muscles
require a crunch position.  This exercise is done in a seated position.
How can the abdomen muscles  be worked without  bending foward.  I  am
at the  health club 3 days a week and spend 1 1/2 hrs on various
machines, starting out 30 mins on treadmill., than on  to  weight
machines for legs and arms. I am trying to determine what is safe to use
for the torso.  Any suggestions?      Lee


author: Cyli

subject: Re: exercise

text:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:23:44 GMT, "Art S" <[email]>
wrote:

No disagreement here.  My trainer was good and careful.  I shouldn't
have spoken of trainers in general.  The lifters I've watched were all
serious about it.  I'm not talking about the average guy who wanders
in and does a few reps.  I tended not to pay attention to them.  They
had the gym  set up so that some of the machines I worked out on faced
the weights area, so I almost had to watch the lifters or shut my
eyes.  It was the major downtown gym of a local chain and had the most
equipment of any of the chain, so they may have had a better group of
trainers?  I know that in my very little bit of visiting the suburban
ones I couldn't see anyone I'd bet was a trainer and the equipment was
a bit spotty as to numbers (but clean beyond belief), with the 'burbs
having emphasis being on the handball and tennis sorts of stuff.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen.  Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email:  [email] (strip the .invalid to email)


author: Larry

subject: Re: exercise

text:
Interesting discussion. My endo (who we already know claims that
significant improvement in osteopenic/osteoporotic people is highly
unlikely) also recommends simple walking and running without weight
resistance for osteoporotic patients.

Larry E.

Art S wrote:


subject: Re: exercise

text:
"Lee Hobeck" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

A couple questions:
1) what are your DEXA scores?
2) have you had any unexplained fractures?

Art


subject: Re: exercise

text:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:21:35 -0400, [email] (Lee Hobeck)
wrote:

(Snipped)

You can tell us why you can't bend forward?  Doctor prohibition?
General fears?  We don't discount general fears here.  I think we all
worry about being a bit fragile until we find our limits and then
improve on them as / if we can.

Leg lifts could work.  Depends on your knees a lot, though.  Almost
any of the leg machines will give your abs some workout.  When I used
to go to the gym there was a slightly inclined machine I could lie
down on, that had foot rests (actually one solid foot rest piece) and
shoulder pads.  I'd set it mild and then push my body upward by
straightening my legs.  Relax and let the knees bend and then do it
again.  I got up to a fairly respectable weight after a month or two.

If you don't believe that that could work on the abs, lie down on the
floor flat out and pull your heels back to your buttocks, so that your
knees go up.  Pay attention to your ab muscles as you do so.

You have professional staff at your gym (or you should be going to a
better one) who should be able to help you find the right exercises.
Explain that you may be very fragile and want to start out at a very
low rate of strain.  You may have to emphasize this, as their idea of
low strain is that of people who work in a gym and work out.  When I,
briefly, had a trainer, she could do one hand pushups with her feet on
a wobble board.  Luckily she understood my out of shapeness.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen.  Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email:  [email] (strip the .invalid to email)


subject: Re: exercise

text:
"Larry" <[email]> wrote in message news:BCb8e.1742$[email]...

Yes, isn't it though? ;^)

The problem with using weights is using enough to make a difference
and where to put them without increasing the risk of injury.

If someone uses light ankle/wrist weights, they increase the likelyhood
of injury. With ankle weights, the leg gets tired faster, and the foot can
hit the ground faster than intended, causing injury.  In addition, the only
part of the body really receiving the extra stress is the ankle and foot.
With wrist weights, the amount that can be held is low (probably too
low to make a difference) and there is a risk of injury from extended
arm movements due to the extra momentum caused by the weight.

Weight around the hips will be stable, but not benefit the spine.  Also
(speaking from experience hiking and going on conditioning hikes
where I had a hip pack with water) the more weight you carry, the
slower you will go.  At what point does the additional stress caused
by carrying the extra weight get balanced by the reduced stress from
going slower?  I doubt that anyone has studied that.

Weight on the shoulders (in a pack or vest) will benefit the spine, but
it will change balance and I would expect it to make a fall - especially
while running - far more likely.

Art


author: bj

subject: Re: exercise

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

This is the sort of thing that physical therapists are trained in. A few
educational sessions would probably be very useful. Then perhaps a "tune-up"
after a few months as you progress.
bj


subject: Re: exercise

text:
I do not know what the DEXA score is.  What I do know is I was diagnosed
3 years ago.  I did ask the doctor if my condition was more severe than
women my age (I am 71).  He said I was average for my age.  I took
actonel until recently.  I have in the past , .and continue to consume
plenty of calcium rich food plus 2 citrate pills daily.  The osteo is
worse in  my hip than in my spine.

I am not fragile.  I take care of my house, wash my own car, and have no
other health problems other than osteo.  I  h ave read  countless
articles not  to bend over, twist, or liift very heavy objects.  Except
for walking I have no idea how a person would get proper exercise if
these activities are to be avoided.  I do not pamper myself,
nevertheless I do not want to take this problem so lightly that I end up
doing some harm to myself.    Lee


subject: Re: exercise

text:
YOu really do need to find out what your DEXA score is and this is also
something you must consult with a doctor or a physical therapist on.

Larry E.

Lee Hobeck wrote: