Norman Albers

One could look at vector components, and/or make relevant energy arguments like I did about dropping in the middle. To the extent that this happens 'more than it did', the truck loses energy, like walking in sand. I suspect that vectors will show it experienced less of an angle coming to the center and so accelerated less. You can choose different impedances for your mechanical transducer, and always you work against the static deformation curve. I figure there is a time lag with the generator load making this analysis so. . . . . . . .HOW MUCH SHOULD WE TAKE??? Take more and kill more fish. Blades don't lacerate them; they are large and slow, and efficient at producing a large pressure drop suddenly across them!

In junior high school we electrolyzed water and something into two test tubes and got oxygen and hydrogen, quite cool especially when the teacher lit a match and the H2 tube popped at about a double-high C (short organ pipe) . Is this safe??? It seemed so as it wasn't too strong but is this still done? The point is that this is easily suited to low voltage solar panel output. Is this still not economically down in price?

Clearly somehow, yes! I'd approach this like the generator was a viscous (friction) term and design it first a critical damping for the average load at an average speed to the bridge center. I can also note that a component of give downward is of no gain to the truck if it is purely plumb vertically. yah?

There are many ideas to "capture" mechanical energy As these gents say the question is where is it from? TRICK QUESTIONS: Some smart fellow observes that bridges move a good bit as loads transit them; they are indeed pinned on large pins (!), at least the river bridges around here. So we could make power by letting that squeeze something, yes? Now think carefully, where is that energy going to come from? I've not figured this exactly yet, but without the generator, consider the bridge as an elastic element.

I disagree on several items. Raw electric sources are not efficient for heating. Heat pumps are maybe 2-1/2 times more efficient. Here in Oregon, summers often give us heat waves of 100 degrees F, and after several days, especially if the nights are not much below seventy, heat builds up uncomfortably in the houses. Your arguments are totally misplaced with regard to cooling load. . . . . . . . . .PEOPLE'S WISDOM: Talking to a young Mexican-American checker during such a heat wave, I mentioned drapes. Back on the Eact Coast many Italians I knew had massive draperies, and I figured it's 'just their style'. Then I spent a month or more in Italy and Greece in summertime. With overhead sun, glare from the sea, and white plaster architecture, the heat makes everyone disappear for a few hours' siesta. We'd come out at 3 or 4 o'clock, hang out, start drinking Ouzo, whatever. Do not underestimante the need for and effectiveness of heavy drapes!!! Back to the Mexican gal, she said yes we put aluminum foil on windows when it is so hot. These are older poorly insulated houses with single pane glass. I agreed this should help and she smiled. I left thinking that it was sort of dumb to close out all the light. A day later a lightning bolt struck me down as I realized that if you light one candle in many mirrors, you gain many lights!!! Later I made a point to ask a large heating/cooling contractor. He nodded yes when I mentioned foil; whatever.

I looked at the case of an "anti-wire" and you are successful here! I congratulate you at this level. You always get more from the factor of 'v' being squared inside the expression for gamma, when you give it a coefficient.(Is that clear ?) In the case of an anti-wire, the attraction of the two opposite carriers having a relative velocity of '2v' trumps the other terms, so today I will be happy to buy your coffee. I am still suspicious and will work out the questions of Lorentz tranform. You may not use this selectively.

The particular question I am interested in has to do with interaction between the radiation field and charged entities. Can this be subsumed under the name 'Compton scattering'? Are these interactions dependent upon quantized photons? SUNSPOT, I hope to learn more from you. PS: I read that it is estimated rather at 500,000 years. Vis-a-vis decoupling, the things you say also make sense, at some point! To me a mass/particle is a condensate at a characteristic energy and their effects become important above and going down through that point. We are deep into the boiling virtual pot.

You say there is space outside of an energy-mass plasma or whatever, yet I have heard the opposite characterization, that there is no outside to this manifold. Can you speak further here? Also, once there are bound states, I have not so much to offer; those mechanics are well accomplished. I am speaking about what we assume as the construction of the radiation field. 'A priori', I say we of course observe quanta but they are defined by the 'vending machines' and not by the available coins. Unit photons have a probability of interaction not shared by lower fractionals.

I find your first answer ignorant.

While the preceding stages are not at all yet clear to me, we can say for sure that once plasma recombination occurred, there began a different history for quantized and fractional photons.

Didn't there have to be variations before there were atoms? I have been trying to get at processes coming down through energy levels of temperature where protons and neutrons are first stable, then again around 1MEV where electrons can stabilize. Can we look at these things as phase changes? Each electron sucks up half an MEV as "heat of fusion", no longer available in kinetics.

Do they dim with a simple controller?

I am enjoying so much the threads on hybrid cars and LED lights that I'd like to launch here a thread on building and living efficiencies. I live in southern Oregon, USA, in a temperate climate right "between North and South". Winter nights average just a few degrees over freezing, with every fourth year or so having a cold spell of maybe -10C. Building spec is walls insulated to 6 inches, roofs 9". I built a solar collecting house with south-facing glass of 160 square ft. This is more than is advised because of loss. Figure an R- value of 2 for double-paned (not IR coated), and an R-value of 20 for the walls. Builders are advised to keep window area to 10% of walls; mine is 10% of walls+roof. When a few thousand watts of insolation come in (maybe ten thousand BTU/hr), you had better not have the woodstove cranking. ON THE OTHER HAND, loss here is great. The area is not great, though, and curtains are critical. As I've been able to, I buy pleated shades. Covering up at night, or on cold days, is important, since window loss might have been roughly a third of the total load. With some well-fit level of curtains or shutters, one can hope to save, maybe, 2/3 of that loss. Growing up in New York, our "Cape Cod" style houses had decorative shutters on the outside, European style, yah? No one used them, though.

Here in the USA flourescent screw-in electronic balast bulbs have been only $4 apiece. They are being sold as 3 or 4 times as efficient as incandescent, and they do last 10k hours. Total lighting expense counting bulbs is one-third what it was. Color is nice and I have all my fixtures using them, except one dimming 40-watt bulb for 'cave atmosphere'.

I watched the owner of the Murphy Cafe showing a new employee (a tall Brunette) how to run the automatic coffee maker. It was plumbed with copper tubing so you didn't have to pour in the water yourself. They carefully went through the measuring of coffee into the filter basket. Then the owner said, "OK, start the coffee cycle." Gloriously water and steam came blowing out all over the hotplate with no pot underneath to catch anything. I gasped and totally lost it over the looks on their faces. No mention had been made of placing the pot. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. PHI, I think you missed your chance. You should have made the checker call for a price check! WWW

At the age of 57, I can say that every few years or so I have again approached quantum mechanics for the n'th time. Each time I feel I am ready to see deeper and this is so. I have learned to be able to start reading things I cannot even understand, because I am well prepared to go further with the necessary work. I skip around, go back, repeat, etc. Now the value of 'n' is roughly 8, and I have done significant work in E&M field theory. I am really gonna get stuff together this time.

You are asking excellent questions. I am on the far end of this spectrum with detailed electromagnetic model of an electron (http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na). I am describing a frozen state of light as literal as ice, but in this case, each one seems to be simply identical. Same problem, though. Phase change. Then again, there is no far and near. Physics of the nature of electrons and hadrons (nuclear stuff) all is critical where I am trying to get discussion over on 'plasma recombination'.

With all your loyal support I have been in the middle of the 'Fractional Photons' Hit Parade first page this week. Thanks, fans!!!

OK, I see now that the h-bar takes out one of the "2pi's" so I am seeing the construction.

If there was a nearly head-on collision, one of low angular momentum, what would be the nature of the signal? I will hazard a guess that there is none, because a changing quad. moment is not the same as an oscillating one. In electromagnetics, dipole time derivative matters; here it might be the second-order derivative.

The last line quoted there is mine. Sally, how do you deal with the directional choices here? Also, isn't there a charge imbalance in the conductor, or do you say it is manifest only as what we call B-field?

Thanks, sorry I didn't realize it was often so easy to Wiki answers to well-placed questions. I read that first list and am enlightened to read that radiation happens predominantly with a changing quadrupole moment. It also said that dipole mode is possible but gave no detail. Anyway I started off bass ackwards since a symmetric dumbell is only quadrupole, yah? Then too, is an unbalanced pair simply similar about its center of mass? . . . . . . . . . . The implication seems to be that we will observe frequency sweep upward. If you hear my message end in such a chirp, assume I have imploded.. . . . . . . . . A FEW HOURS LATER: I see it says that a 'dumbell' of changing length radiates; also does a rotating dumbell of stable orbit. That sort of signal does not chirp. Is this a fair summary?

How do you get the squares up in the argument of the exponents (i-omega-t, per mode)?

If two bodies of roughly equal mass coalesce into a condensed form (neutron star or black hole) would we experience dipole waves? If the masses are different are there then quadrupole components?

Grind separately.