imatfaal

Alan McDougall has been banned for a number of reasons - the most serious being a ghastly spew of hate speech and vile private messages sent to Moderating staff

Neither look exactly like a Caxton 1st or 2nd Edition - but then although the script is Burgundian there are variants (I think even within each of Caxton's two printings)

The general formation of what looks like a y (which I gather was an i for the end of words or where it would look good)would be as follows

1. a down stroke from mid-height to the line with a slight turn to right at the bottom

2. a down stroke from same mid-height slightly to the right of the first, this turns to almost horizontal to track left and meet the first

3. it continues in a wide cursive loop similar open to the right

Neither of these look correct - the first has a distinct right to left upwards stroke to join the two downstrokes and the second is formed by first making a left to right downstroke.

Secondly the question is a little odd - Neither are "From the Canterbury Tales" as such; the oldest version we have of the Tales was handwritten after Chaucer's death by a friend/colleague - so potential thoughts of an "original" canonical version are moot. Works of literature have text not type - whereas impressions, printings and books have type and script. My copy of the Canterbury tales has both the Burgundian Script of Caxton, the Times New Roman of a transliteration, and the Italic Roman of a modern English translation - all are "The Canterbury Tales" as much as each other

The staff have noticed an uptick in spam messages being sent by the Personal Messenger system; this is not being tolerated and any member sending unsolicited links or adverts via the PM system risks being immediately Spam-banned.

Could we please ask any member who receives an unsolicited PM which is at all spammy to report that message. Below any incoming message Members should see an option to Report (next to Reply button). A single word Spam in the report will suffice - Staff will then be able to investigate and act.

The price of keeping our forum spam free is

Perhaps I should have realised that someone might think he had a possible solution that was 1^n +2^n=10^n!

I thought the point was covered in the first line. To be clear I should have asked the reader to also satisfy themselves that in all possible candidates for A^n+B^n= C^n, C will be larger than A or B and smaller than A+B.

,

Yeah -- I go along with that; I was being a bit flippant

 

Heh in our offices they have motion detectors. However, someone decided to put the coat hangers just above it, with predictable results. I have them moved in my office, but apparently I do not move enough while reading papers.

I don't move enough either - but I have the master control unit so I set the time-off to 15mins; if I haven't moved enough in 15mins for the lights to have been re-triggered then it is probably a good idea to get up walk around the office a few times, get a glass of water etc

Nope. Three numbers 1 2 10 - draw the triangle

Unless Phi is hiding something, I'm pretty sure I'm the only female mod active.

Phi is always hiding something - but I don't think it is that. And can I take this opportunity to say come back Mooey!

One point - if you are looking to place a sensor then it should not be on the window measuring natural light coming in, it should be on the desk or maybe on the top of the monitor to measure total light arriving at work station.

A double sensor of total light and an LED specific band would allow simple troubleshooting and monitoring

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but aren't we talking about daylight harvesting? The controls for that are available now, and they're awesome. Lutron makes some commercial models that will dim on bright days and boost the light on cloudy days.

I was talking about that - not sure it wasn't a bit of a branch.

At my offices we couldn't use a dimmer system as the fluorescents we use don't do dimming. Not sure if LEDs do either - but with LEDs you could, I guess, turn on a limited number of the array

Glad you got an over-ride

 

http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-02-22

Gotta love cubicles

The over-rides are the best bit - little hand-held thingies; after a few days of turning other peoples lights off everybody tended to use natural light for whatever portion of the day allowed it and control their lights manually. People will not get up and turn off a light - but with a remote they do it regularly

The overall measure of light intensity was an option when I refitted my offices - to be honest we went for motion sensing with over-ride insteadd - but our prefered choice was a mixture of light intensity and motion; but we could not get both options merged together (ie turns on light if there is someone in the roon AND room is dark). We made a saving of around 40% on our electricty as it was - so an even more refined system would be fantastic.

Thank you for your insights. I think it has to be viewed as a relatively low-budget proof of concept experiment.

NASA have a bit of a reputation in this sphere - they were involved in various bits of the nickel/copper cold energy scam; I even think they had a hand in the arsenic based life-form farago.

One cannot tell from the paper but it seems as if the "tuning" and setting of frequencies which took a huge amount of time might be interpreted (by a hardhearted observer) as a set-up designed to allow confirmation bias; ie if you only measure when you have your tuning right, and your tuning is only right when you observe a desired thrust, then all your measurement will show a thrust - but you hve proved nothing.

And from all accounts this paper was the result of many years of work - not a quick proof of concept. The "proof of concept" was the previous paper which was so full of holes you could see straight through. Great leaps come from allowing guys like this to play - but we must be careful to not get carried away; mad experiments are brilliant but accepting insignificant results from sloppy metholdology is just silly.

If tuning is important to thrust generation then the method is simple. Build a double ended device - identical in every way except right hand side is tuned, left hand side is not tuned; hang it on a string such that when turned off it hangs straight - turn it on. No worries with thermals as both sides will be heated equally

Are you referring to these experiments, published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power by NASA-affiliated scientists? You might be referring to earlier experiments, since these were made in a vacuum.

They also have a theoretical basis, but I cannot judge the validity myself. I would be interested in your insights.

Sometimes you have to wonder about NASA.

That paper is a bit of a shambles; huge swathes of missing information (calculation of frequency and modes) , virtually no data (as far as I can tell they ran 18 tests - WTF? 1800 would be more like the number), still absolutely no real theory to back it up (there is no model let alone a theory which could be tied into to modern physics), bad technique (they use a hand held camera for thermal analysis - that thing is only gonna accurate to one part in a hundred or so!) , attempts to replicate at other places have drawn a null result.

They may be something going on - personally I doubt it because it requires a rewriting of the law of conservation of momentum - but this paper is not going to convince anyone. Hopefully, some real experimentalists can make it a project and either provide a good significant result or put it to bed (for all but the crackpots) for ever

I think that is a valid observation - although it should be borne in mind that if observations/measurements are obtained from sets of two entangled particles then the observed distributions can be shown not have come from a single, (even if hidden), joint distribution.

Are you referring to these experiments, published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power by NASA-affiliated scientists? You might be referring to earlier experiments, since these were made in a vacuum.

They also have a theoretical basis, but I cannot judge the validity myself. I would be interested in your insights.

You are correct - I was referring to older experiments. That's a lot of reading to do... will revert

The last set of experiments were pretty dreadful - these at least seem to be in vacuo and have a result that is different from the null.

1. It does violate conservation of momentum - if it is the one I have seen it is reactionless which means violation; this, in turn, means it does not work.

2. The empirical data is not just not conclusive it is clear where large errors have been made, proper techniques not followed, and failure to move above the level of confirmation bias.

3. Whilst experimental data is king - it is desirable that there is a theoretical basis; even more so that it doesn't upset the basis of all modern physics.

If you have data which are more conclusive then please post a link / abstract. But the level of "thrust" produced is just so minimal that you must be doing this in vacuo, your results must be properly significant, and it will be repeated (and must be repeatable) as this is Nobel Prize territory.

 

 

Prior to the definition of angular momentum, surely you would agree that radius and momentum could not reasonably have been described as related or interdependent.

 

Does the act of defining angular momentum as the cross product of these variables change their status?

No - nature is just that way. It was the case before we or our planet came into existence and it will still be the case be once we have gone. Just because characteristics and qualities of objects have independent methods of measurement, and we see them as distinct does not mean that they are independent.

Is mass connected to velocity? - yes; because momentum is conserved in the absence of an external force. Must we always be concerned about an object's velocity in order to obtain its mass (or vice versa)? - no; because in many circumstances we either don't care about momentum or we are exerting an external force.

OK so he is administrator of the EPA rather than a Senator - but Damn all the same

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html