tvp45

I don't know that formula, but l is the axial length of the coil. Voltage and current don't affect resonance unless the voltage is high enough to saturate the inductor core. Resistance affects the Q but not the frequency.

OK. You seem to be enough of an old-timer to know what's acceptable. I don't know the rate of inbreeding in the southern highlands as compared to the rest of the US. I don't know the correct way to characterize that rate (horse and cattle breeders usually use a system that gives them something like a "closeness coefficient"; I can't find a reference to that just now and I don't know if it's even valid) I don't know the effect of that inbreeding rate on either cognitive or physical deficiencies. But, I know a bad source when I see one, and the Cecil Adams link is pure hypothetical insinuation. There are individual problems, such as: 1. He quotes Weyl and Tincher without giving specific references that are easy to check. 2. Weyl's numbers from the Armed Forces Test has no support. At the least, we'd expect to see when it was given, the kinds of things it tested for, and some statistical analysis of the data. We'd also want to see if the data was corrected for factors such as educational level, age, etc. 3. Tincher (I actually know the source, no thanks to Adams) used isonyms to check for cousin relationships. In other words, if the groom and bride had the same last name, Tincher counted that. I research personal property tax records from the 1800 period and frequently find six or seven people in a small county with the same first and last name, and yet not related (perhaps third or fourth cousins back in the old country?) Isonyms might be meaningful, they might not. Without a calibration against an actual kinship check, it's only a guess. Moreover, Tincher used some kind of algorithm to come up with an "average kinship"; I don't know that algorithm and I don't know its validity. But, the fatal blow to the Adams source is that it uses what is commonly understood to be faulty logic. He states that people from certain parts of Appalachia have the lowest scores on the Armed Forces Test. He then states that certain parts (the same parts?) of Appalachia have a higher than normal cousin marriage rate. From this, he concludes that cousin marriages lead to stupidity. This is commonly called "the mashed potatoes proof" ever since someone (probably tongue in cheek) did a "proof" perhaps thirty years ago showing that most mass murderers had eaten mashed potatoes at some time prior to their crimes. Thus, mashed potatoes lead to mass murder. So, I ask again, is there any evidence that the southern highlands, in general, have a higher than average cousin marriage rate? And, no, don't quote the Elvis movie, Kissing Cousins.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that my great grandparents were first cousins (of the second kind, i.e. brother-sister rather than brother-brother or sister-sister; some differentiate on this basis). I believe I have known all of their approximately 150 descendants. There are three who have mild cognitive deficiencies and one who has a moderate congenital defect; all four instances can also be associated with possible environmental causes. However, it is significant that three descendants have stood for public office; that rate of 2% is quite likely a very good reason to ban cousin marriages. On a more serious note, I wish to respond to DrDNA's citation, but don't want to hijack this thread. Moderators, should I start a new thread?

Actually, the movie was shot in north Georgia and Georgia was the only southern state that prohibited cousin marriages (Yes, the book was set in the Ozarks, but, heck, hillbillies are the same all over, right?). The notion that hillbillies are inbred, and that this accounts for all sorts of defects and deformities, is pretty much a stereotypical prejudice. Appalachia tends to be poor and that has lead to some dietary deficiencies that manifested themselves either physically or cognitively. The point is, if this is a science forum, we probably ought to keep somewhere near the facts. Is there any evidence that highlanders (the preferred term) have more first-cousin marriages than the rest of the US?

That seems OK. I am, as you might guess, mostly a pragmatic federalist and I never thought of myself as a Hamiltonian (I keep thinking energy) but I could accept the label I think. I've never read much Hamilton, so I'm not completely sure.

Ambiguous? Not at all. Only the first Order Book survived the unexpected visit by Tarleton in 1781, but that one and those after 1781 are available at the Library of Virginia (you may be able to arrange for an interlibrary loan) and through the LDS (available for a few dollars at any LDS Family History Center). Of course, you can always visit the County Clerk's Office in Charlottesville. In general, order books show only the consensus of whichever magistrates bothered to sit that day. There was no such thing as a minority report. Thus, you will not find an action that can be specifically attributed solely to Mr. Jefferson. Nonetheless, the County Court system of government in Virginia was quite well documented. You might also consult Hennings Statutes at Large. I agree we are all hypocrites and certainly Mr. Jefferson was as well. He was also quite verbose and people read into his writings perhaps more than he meant. I recommend Mr. Madison as an alternative.

Careful about Mr. Jefferson. Pay attention to what he did, not what he wrote. As a County Court Magistrate he took part in a system where he and the other Magistrates could, and did, decide who might follow which trade, what an inn-keeper could charge for a meal, what a night in a livery stable cost, whether people could even live in the county, who could be required to bear arms and who could be barred, whether residents could be forced to perform county public works, whether a single mother (or widow) could keep her children, and much more. Only the very few well-connected, wealthy gentlemen of Albemarle escaped this close regulation. But, in regards to Pangloss and Inow, I agree that such things as flu shots are not pure socialism by any means. But, opponents of socialism are quick to point out any small parts as proof that a program is "the camel's nose under the tent" on the slippery slope to complete socialism (Think George Will.). I should be able to defend socialism on the same terms.

The term "socialized medicine" is a moving target. The Cato Institute, for example, seems to include SCHIP as socialized medicine even though SCHIP looks a lot more like free Blue Cross than the British National Health Serice. I think we agree that some parts of "socialized medicine" are OK and some aren't. That was my point. But, I would maintain that flu shots do count. The WHO and CDC (and others) determine what the vaccines should contain, advise who should get them and when, distribute the vaccines for free in many cases, and regulate the prices charged. This seems like an acceptable, effective mix of socialism and capitalism.

Few things are ever 100% good or bad, but socialism gets a very bad rap. May I see the hands of those who got flu shots last fall? That was socialized medicine. Not so bad, was it?

Although that was probably part of the reason for the ban on close affinity marriages, the experience of the early Nantucket settlers shows this to not necessarily be a problem. For perhaps a hundred years there were only about ten families and there was a feud. Add the de facto requirement that Quakers must marry within their monthly meeting and you start to see the problem. Though my line left the island in the 1770s, I can trace relationships to many others by more than a half dozen ways. I would judge that most people in those early families had multiple relationships to their spouse. It caused no particular problem, though I should note that these Quakers seldom died intestate. It's also worth noting that most people in my extended family have similar large crooked noses, so there may have been a downside.

I, like most young men my age, was required to perform 17,500 hours of community service, the alternative being an exercise camp in Kansas or foreign travel. We thought it our patriotic duty. Now I learn that was socialism! And, we didn't even get off for May Day. Darn!

I hope you're right, but I have to say I feel sorry for the poor guy. The auto sales figures for October just came across and it's the pits! By January we'll be in a deep recession and I'm fearful there's not much a president can do except try to provide a safety net for those of us who fall off the cliff while we're waiting for the economy to improve. Oh, wait - we could try cooperating with the rest of the world. Although I have to hope President Obama proves as steadfast, unswerving, and efficient in his administration as Candidate Obama has been. I think this week so far I've heard from the Senator, Michelle, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Ed Rendell, and Dan Rooney (president of the Steelers); I've got a car magnet, sixteen e-mail thank you's, a chance to win a ticket to Chicago, and an offer to buy a T-shirt. And, it's only Monday!

Many of us have regular cancer checks. I get an annual PSA and an occult blood screen. I get a colonoscopy every five years. I am checked by a dermatologist occasionally when a mole changes. I have fairly frequent CBCs that would show evidence of blood cancer. I get a chest x-ray about every ten years. My wife has a pap smear and mammogram annually. The questions for each of these are: Does early detection significantly improve the outcome? Is the test cost effective? My health insurance carrier and primary physician encourage the above tests on the basis of a "yes" answer to both the questions.

It's still not clear whether he has lost the right to vote. Only felonies involving "moral turpitude", whatever the heck that means, result in the loss of voting rights in Alaska.

Most fans are ac, so it wouldn't matter which way you connected it. But, some small fans are dc and those will reverse when you reverse the polarity of the applied Voltage.

You might look at the attempt by Joule to do this. If I recall correctly, someone (probably Kelvin) later performed a lab demo of Joule's calculation.

There are some clues to this in work being done on blood (HSC) where a damage-repair mechanism is seen to function less and less well with age. (You'll have to excuse me if I use crude phrases, but I'm not a bio person.) There are also proteins that regulate cell division. Try Googling stem cells, particularly HSC and embryonic.

Remember Masters and Johnson? Excessive is just a little more than you do.

I'm an Obama supporter and I think he's lost his mind. Does anybody really believe that a woman wearing a Burka is going to be treated equally at a food bank run by the Jesus Wants White Folks to be Rich Church of the Absolutely True Gospel?

Indeed!

Indeed! I find them both attractive. There is, however, that nasty inverse square issue.

Yes, I think you are correct and that I have mistaken the draft document at the National Archives. I have found a note that Mason offered that day to immediately prepare such a bill, but apparently made no draft at that time. I have no access to Mason's papers, I think. An interesting point. I don't think it shifts the evidential balance, but it certainly suggests a deeper look at Mason. Perhaps his writings can shed more light on the Quaker dilemma. Cheers.

Farrand only mentions that there was a discussion on September 12, without giving details. Mr. Madison's notes flesh out the topic. There is, in the National Archives, the text of the proposed rights as presented by George Mason. The right to bear arms under that proposal is number 17 (not 2) and the language is fairly similar to the actual 2nd amendment. In support of your position, it should be noted that many Mason supporters have understood his language (and his position) to mean individual rights. If so, this would imply the actual 2nd amendment is also about individual rights. I still find the balance of proof shifted in favor of collective duty, but I acknowledge the points raised by those supporters. You may find the motion to consider a bill of rights here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/912.htm I do not have a link to the National Archive text. I would be grateful to know if you find one. I cannot recall at this moment a source for what I remember as a stronger Pennsylvania argument and I have not examined Gerry's positions.

Are you saying that you find no record of a debate on a bill of rights or that you find no records of the specifics of such a debate? The question of rights is central, perhaps, to our differences and is unlikely to be settled. I date my political rights from 1215 and my natural rights from eternity. If you date yours from 1791, we are "at sixes and sevens" and unlikely to reach similar conclusions. I respect your right to that view, but will oppose that view at the ballot box (well, actually, touch screen:eyebrow:). It was not my intent to debate the merits of individual versus collective rights, merely to answer the question about the peculiar wording of the second amendment. Thanks for the mental exercise. I appreciate your not using the Pennsylvania Minority Report; that would have made my explanation particularly convoluted.

I apologize for sloppy language. A (not "The") bill of rights was argued at the Constitutional Convention. The right to own guns was part of that argument. A bill of rights was not included, largely due to the opposition from Mr. Madison. Once the Constitution had been ratified, Mr. Madison (as seen in a letter he wrote the Reverend George Eve in Culpeper County) then supported a bill of rights in the form of amendments. It might be argued that Mr. Madison was influenced by political sentiment in Virginia, but he claimed the flip-flopping was so that future generations would not see those rights as being the only rights guranteed to citizens. I have no way of knowing if the original right would have been the second one enumerated; thank you for correcting me. As for SCOTUS precedent, I am unaware of any previous decision that specifically addressed the question of individual vs collective rights. To the best of my knowledge, Miller was the next previous decision and that clearly does not address the question, except in the eyes of very passionate gun-rights advocates. If there are decisions about which I am ignorant, can you please tell me? As to why the history lesson included in the decision might be incorrect, I can only assume that the Justices, like most of us, are woefully ignorant of history and, in that ignorance, tend to insert personal prejudices and agenda. BTW, before someone suspects me of such an agenda, I am a strong advocate of gun ownership. It's just that I don't feel I derive my rights from the Constitution; the Constitution spells out those natural rights which i have agreed to allow the government to regulate. I am much more comfortable with Mr. Madison's theories than I am with Mr. Jefferson's.