|
Motorcycles » rec.motorcycles.tech » WTD: clear plastic gas tank
| WTD: clear plastic gas tank [message #466570] |
Thu, 06 October 2005 21:00 |
|
Any out there?
Needed to fit on an old Suzuki enduro
Thanks
Greg
orange [at] the-spa.com
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #466573 ] |
Thu, 06 October 2005 21:55 |
|
"orange" <orange [at] the-spa.com> wrote in message
news:W6CdnSVG8b3S6djeRVn-iA [at] crocker.com...
> Any out there?
> Needed to fit on an old Suzuki enduro
> Thanks
> Greg
> orange [at] the-spa.com
>
>
I don't know anything, but I wonder whether direct sunlight would break down
or otherwise affect gasoline at all.
Richard
05 VN1500 Classic Fi
|
|
|
| Re: WTD: clear plastic gas tank [message #466575 ] |
Thu, 06 October 2005 23:08 |
|
orange wrote:
> Any out there?
> Needed to fit on an old Suzuki enduro
How old is "old"? The Chaparral catalog shows Acerbis and IMS plastic
tanks going back to the mid-1980's...
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475511 ] |
Mon, 10 October 2005 19:25 |
|
Richard <not [at] an.eml> wrote:
> >
> >
> I don't know anything, but I wonder whether direct sunlight would break down
> or otherwise affect gasoline at all.
>
Nice thought! No idea.
I *do* know that you can microwave petrol with no ill effects, though.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475513 ] |
Mon, 10 October 2005 19:42 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Richard <not [at] an.eml> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > I don't know anything, but I wonder whether direct sunlight would break down
> > or otherwise affect gasoline at all.
> >
> Nice thought! No idea.
>
> I *do* know that you can microwave petrol with no ill effects, though.
>
Please reassure us there was a paycheck involved in learning that.
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475515 ] |
Mon, 10 October 2005 20:03 |
|
Charlie Gary <cgary [at] modelwerks.com> wrote:
> >
> > I *do* know that you can microwave petrol with no ill effects, though.
> >
>
> Please reassure us there was a paycheck involved in learning that.
Nope. The question arose on ukrm a year or two ago, because apparently
the molecules in petrol mean it doesn't get hot when m/waved[1]. So a
couple of resident lunatics, armed with an old microwave, a generator
for powering same, and a wide open space, tried it for real.
And it's true. It doesn't get hot. Strange.
[1] IANA chemist or fizzy cyst, but you know what I mean.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475522 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 00:44 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Charlie Gary <cgary [at] modelwerks.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > I *do* know that you can microwave petrol with no ill effects, though.
> > >
> >
> > Please reassure us there was a paycheck involved in learning that.
>
> Nope. The question arose on ukrm a year or two ago, because apparently
> the molecules in petrol mean it doesn't get hot when m/waved[1]. So a
> couple of resident lunatics, armed with an old microwave, a generator
> for powering same, and a wide open space, tried it for real.
>
> And it's true. It doesn't get hot. Strange.
>
>
> [1] IANA chemist or fizzy cyst, but you know what I mean.
>
>
Well, as long as the extension cord is long enough....:-)
I wonder what you get if you microwave gas with ethanol mixed in?
Later,
Charlie
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475530 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 06:36 |
|
should have put it in an aluminum pie pan ,but probably why it didnt
ignite is probably it got cooler ,you'll notice that if you ever got
gasoline spilled on your hand that it cooled your skin as it evaporated
,and another thing crazy about gasoline is in its full liquid form it
rarely ignites
the danger comes from the fumes ,a guy told me one time some buddies
tried to take a 5 gallon metal gas can (military style) years ago filled
it with gas and took it an empty field where him and his buddies shot at
it with rifles nothing happened ,so to say they were disappointed well
one of their dads showed up right then and asked what they were doing
they told him and he said well wait about an hour and leave it out there
and come back and try it then ,well they did and on the first shot the
can blew itself in half ,it seems that as the gas had leaked out it left
an empty space where the fumes filled it in
and when they shot into it the second time it ignited the fumes .
that is also why you cant start an engine when you flood it and why you
have to wait awhile before trying to start it again
I apologize if this was long winded
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475533 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 07:19 |
|
badaztek [at] webtv.net (badaztek) wrote in news:9517-434B4166-1035 [at] storefull-
3215.bay.webtv.net:
> should have put it in an aluminum pie pan ,but probably why it didnt
> ignite is probably it got cooler ,you'll notice that if you ever got
> gasoline spilled on your hand that it cooled your skin as it evaporated
> ,and another thing crazy about gasoline is in its full liquid form it
> rarely ignites
> the danger comes from the fumes ,a guy told me one time some buddies
> tried to take a 5 gallon metal gas can (military style) years ago filled
> it with gas and took it an empty field where him and his buddies shot at
> it with rifles nothing happened ,so to say they were disappointed well
> one of their dads showed up right then and asked what they were doing
> they told him and he said well wait about an hour and leave it out there
> and come back and try it then ,well they did and on the first shot the
> can blew itself in half ,it seems that as the gas had leaked out it left
> an empty space where the fumes filled it in
> and when they shot into it the second time it ignited the fumes .
> that is also why you cant start an engine when you flood it and why you
> have to wait awhile before trying to start it again
> I apologize if this was long winded
>
>
>
You are correct. Gas fumes burn, the liquid does not.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475535 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 08:26 |
|
badaztek <badaztek [at] webtv.net> wrote:
> probably why it didnt
> ignite is probably it got cooler
Wrong.
There's a chemical reason, a molecular reason. There's something out
there on the web about it but ICBA to google for it.
You are right about the fumes being the tricky bit, though.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475538 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 12:29 |
|
chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
news:1h49b3i.966h1s1qg3e9sN%chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com:
> badaztek <badaztek [at] webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> probably why it didnt
>> ignite is probably it got cooler
>
> Wrong.
>
> There's a chemical reason, a molecular reason. There's something out
> there on the web about it but ICBA to google for it.
Off the top of my head:
Microwave ovens emit a very select frequency of photons. Only molecules
that have modes of excitation that match this frequency are heated by
these "microwave" photons. IIRC, microwave ovens are tuned to
frequencies that heat water. It seems entirely possible that gasoline
wouldn't have any modes of excitation around those frequencies.
--
Mike Freeman
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475539 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 13:52 |
|
Michael J. Freeman wrote:
> chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
> news:1h49b3i.966h1s1qg3e9sN%chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com:
>
>> badaztek <badaztek [at] webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> probably why it didnt
>>> ignite is probably it got cooler
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> There's a chemical reason, a molecular reason. There's something out
>> there on the web about it but ICBA to google for it.
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Microwave ovens emit a very select frequency of photons. Only molecules
> that have modes of excitation that match this frequency are heated by
Wrong- it's not that water has a particular frequency. Microwave ovens
are indeed tuned to emit a specific frequency of radio waves, but it is
*NOT* chosen because of water's properties:
http://www.amasci.com/weird/microexp.html#myth
> these "microwave" photons. IIRC, microwave ovens are tuned to
> frequencies that heat water. It seems entirely possible that gasoline
Again, this is wrong. Water absorbs radio waves over a very broad range
of frequencies. As the above link points out 10GHz would have been a
better choice than 2.4GHz for heating water.
> wouldn't have any modes of excitation around those frequencies.
The fact that a microwave oven fails to heat gasoline (liquid/vapor
ignition is a separate issue) has nothing to do with the particular
frequency and everything to do with gasoline being composed primarily
of nonpolar molecules.
--
Mark '01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '86 GL1200A '81 CM400T
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475546 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 18:54 |
|
Mark Olson <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in
news:11kn9sn32ttmrcd [at] corp.supernews.com:
> The fact that a microwave oven fails to heat gasoline (liquid/vapor
> ignition is a separate issue) has nothing to do with the particular
> frequency and everything to do with gasoline being composed primarily
> of nonpolar molecules.
Eh, it was a SWAG. Apparently I was wrong.
--
Mike Freeman
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475547 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 19:10 |
|
Michael J. Freeman <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Olson <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in
> news:11kn9sn32ttmrcd [at] corp.supernews.com:
>
>> The fact that a microwave oven fails to heat gasoline (liquid/vapor
>> ignition is a separate issue) has nothing to do with the particular
>> frequency and everything to do with gasoline being composed primarily
>> of nonpolar molecules.
>
> Eh, it was a SWAG. Apparently I was wrong.
There's no animosity on my part whatsoever. I just don't like to see
misinformation propagated whether it's deliberate, inadvertent, an
honest mistake, or whatever. Of course correcting erroneous postings
on Usenet is like trying to empty the Pacific ocean with a teaspoon,
but it's the thought that counts. I'm sure if you google my postings
there's quite a number of howlers I've perpetrated over the years...
--
Mark '01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '86 GL1200A '81 CM400T
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475549 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 20:38 |
|
Mark Olson <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote:
> Michael J. Freeman <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Mark Olson <olsonm [at] tiny.invalid> wrote in
> > news:11kn9sn32ttmrcd [at] corp.supernews.com:
> >
> >> The fact that a microwave oven fails to heat gasoline (liquid/vapor
> >> ignition is a separate issue) has nothing to do with the particular
> >> frequency and everything to do with gasoline being composed primarily
> >> of nonpolar molecules.
> >
> > Eh, it was a SWAG. Apparently I was wrong.
>
> There's no animosity on my part whatsoever. I just don't like to see
> misinformation propagated whether it's deliberate, inadvertent, an
> honest mistake, or whatever. Of course correcting erroneous postings
> on Usenet is like trying to empty the Pacific ocean with a teaspoon,
> but it's the thought that counts. I'm sure if you google my postings
> there's quite a number of howlers I've perpetrated over the years...
<Googles for Olson errors>
<trips binary filter>
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #475565 ] |
Tue, 11 October 2005 23:36 |
|
"Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96EC41FEB88023141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
> chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
> news:1h49b3i.966h1s1qg3e9sN%chateauSPAMKILL.murray [at] dsl.pipex.com:
>
>> badaztek <badaztek [at] webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> probably why it didnt
>>> ignite is probably it got cooler
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> There's a chemical reason, a molecular reason. There's something out
>> there on the web about it but ICBA to google for it.
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Microwave ovens emit a very select frequency of photons. Only molecules
> that have modes of excitation that match this frequency are heated by
> these "microwave" photons. IIRC, microwave ovens are tuned to
> frequencies that heat water. It seems entirely possible that gasoline
> wouldn't have any modes of excitation around those frequencies.
>
>
No photons emitted in a microwave.
The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485224 ] |
Fri, 14 October 2005 21:55 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>
> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves. Or
are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or something?
--
Mike Freeman
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485225 ] |
Fri, 14 October 2005 23:56 |
|
"Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>
>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>
>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>
> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves. Or
> are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or something?
>
>
I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
photon a particle or packet of light.
Wikidepia says this:
Photons are commonly associated with visible light, but this is actually
only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All
electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons: that is, the smallest
amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one photon, whatever
its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum. Photons are fundamental
particles. They can be created and destroyed when interacting with other
particles, but are not known to decay on their own.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485226 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 00:13 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
>
>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>>
>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>>
>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>>
>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves. Or
>> are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or something?
>>
>>
>
> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
> photon a particle or packet of light.
>
> Wikidepia says this:
>
> Photons are commonly associated with visible light, but this is actually
> only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All
> electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons: that is, the smallest
> amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one photon, whatever
> its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum. Photons are fundamental
> particles. They can be created and destroyed when interacting with other
> particles, but are not known to decay on their own.
>
> pierce
>
>
Yeah, but when you think about it, this whole wave/particle duality thing is
just a construct that we humans fabricated in order to visualize what is
occurring. It has nothing to do with the way things really are. It is even
possible that it is entirely wrong, but just happens to conveniently work
for our present level of understanding.
What happens when sentient computers design better computers that are able
to perceive such phenomena directly, without the use of imaginary tools,
which we humans rely upon to manipulate such things?
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485229 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 00:44 |
|
"Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in
news:o4W3f.3559$mL4.1114 [at] fe06.lga:
>
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
>> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
>>
>>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>>>
>>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>>>
>>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>>>
>>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves.
>>> Or are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or
>>> something?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
>> photon a particle or packet of light.
>>
>> Wikidepia says this:
>>
>> Photons are commonly associated with visible light, but this is
>> actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All
>> electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons: that is, the
>> smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one
>> photon, whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum.
>> Photons are fundamental particles. They can be created and destroyed
>> when interacting with other particles, but are not known to decay on
>> their own.
>>
>> pierce
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, but when you think about it, this whole wave/particle duality
> thing is just a construct that we humans fabricated in order to
> visualize what is occurring. It has nothing to do with the way things
> really are. It is even possible that it is entirely wrong, but just
> happens to conveniently work for our present level of understanding.
>
> What happens when sentient computers design better computers that are
> able to perceive such phenomena directly, without the use of imaginary
> tools, which we humans rely upon to manipulate such things?
>
Ed,
Philosophy never was my strong suit. I will be happy when the develop the
direct to brain interface. One could go from functional idiot Phd in
minutes or less.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485232 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 03:34 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
>
>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>>
>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>>
>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>>
>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves.
>> Or are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or
>> something?
>
> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
> photon a particle or packet of light.
"Most" people? Did you take a poll?
Just admit you were mistaken and move on.
--
Mike Freeman
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485233 ] |
Sat, 15 October 2005 05:03 |
|
"Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96EFDB7B5156B3141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>
>> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
>>
>>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>>>
>>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>>>
>>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>>>
>>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves.
>>> Or are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or
>>> something?
>>
>> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
>> photon a particle or packet of light.
>
> "Most" people? Did you take a poll?
Yes as a matter of fact I did.
>
> Just admit you were mistaken and move on.
>
>
By virtue that I said he was right says that I was wrong.
The definition of photon being a packet of light is old school and since I
am not far away from being an official old fart I have an excuse.
Now get off my case.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485288 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 08:21 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EFB468E9B2Bmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
> "Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in
> news:o4W3f.3559$mL4.1114 [at] fe06.lga:
>
>>
>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
>>> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
>>>
>>>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
>>>>
>>>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
>>>>>
>>>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
>>>>
>>>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves.
>>>> Or are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or
>>>> something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
>>> photon a particle or packet of light.
>>>
>>> Wikidepia says this:
>>>
>>> Photons are commonly associated with visible light, but this is
>>> actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All
>>> electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons: that is, the
>>> smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one
>>> photon, whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum.
>>> Photons are fundamental particles. They can be created and destroyed
>>> when interacting with other particles, but are not known to decay on
>>> their own.
>>>
>>> pierce
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but when you think about it, this whole wave/particle duality
>> thing is just a construct that we humans fabricated in order to
>> visualize what is occurring. It has nothing to do with the way things
>> really are. It is even possible that it is entirely wrong, but just
>> happens to conveniently work for our present level of understanding.
>>
>> What happens when sentient computers design better computers that are
>> able to perceive such phenomena directly, without the use of imaginary
>> tools, which we humans rely upon to manipulate such things?
>>
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Philosophy never was my strong suit. I will be happy when the develop the
> direct to brain interface. One could go from functional idiot Phd in
> minutes or less.
>
> pierce
>
When I first obtained internet service, I stumbled upon a mailing list
(remember those?) about metaphysics at a large northeastern university.
Their version of metaphysics was not what most people think of when they
hear/see the word. It was about reality at its basest level, not magic, etc.
It was fascinating reading. This was in late 95, early 96. The group
dissolved, as has my memory of which university originated the mailing list.
There are few times when I cannot think of something to say via the
keyboard, but these folks outclassed my meager brain by such a huge margin
that it was all I could do to understand what they were talking about. It
was the best internet reading that I have ever come across, even after some
ten years has passed. I sure wish I could find something like that again.
Ed Cregger
|
|
|
| Re: clear plastic gas tank [message #485291 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 15:32 |
|
In article <TBl5f.864$0G6.662 [at] fe06.lga>,
"Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote:
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96EFB468E9B2Bmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
> > "Ed Cregger" <ecregger [at] homtail.com> wrote in
> > news:o4W3f.3559$mL4.1114 [at] fe06.lga:
> >
> >>
> >> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns96EFAC60EFEEAmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1...
> >>> "Michael J. Freeman" <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>> news:Xns96EFA20718CB83141593832666 [at] 63.223.7.251:
> >>>
> >>>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:Xns96ECA8DDE5A3Dmc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No photons emitted in a microwave.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The light bulb inside does but not the magnetron.
> >>>>
> >>>> All electromagnetic radiation involves photons, including microwaves.
> >>>> Or are you claiming that a microwave oven uses a neutron-beam or
> >>>> something?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think you are correct by definition. However most people consider a
> >>> photon a particle or packet of light.
> >>>
> >>> Wikidepia says this:
> >>>
> >>> Photons are commonly associated with visible light, but this is
> >>> actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. All
> >>> electromagnetic radiation is quantized as photons: that is, the
> >>> smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one
> >>> photon, whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum.
> >>> Photons are fundamental particles. They can be created and destroyed
> >>> when interacting with other particles, but are not known to decay on
> >>> their own.
> >>>
> >>> pierce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, but when you think about it, this whole wave/particle duality
> >> thing is just a construct that we humans fabricated in order to
> >> visualize what is occurring. It has nothing to do with the way things
> >> really are. It is even possible that it is entirely wrong, but just
> >> happens to conveniently work for our present level of understanding.
> >>
> >> What happens when sentient computers design better computers that are
> >> able to perceive such phenomena directly, without the use of imaginary
> >> tools, which we humans rely upon to manipulate such things?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > Philosophy never was my strong suit. I will be happy when the develop the
> > direct to brain interface. One could go from functional idiot Phd in
> > minutes or less.
> >
> > pierce
> >
>
>
> When I first obtained internet service, I stumbled upon a mailing list
> (remember those?) about metaphysics at a large northeastern university.
>
> Their version of metaphysics was not what most people think of when they
> hear/see the word. It was about reality at its basest level, not magic, etc.
> It was fascinating reading. This was in late 95, early 96. The group
> dissolved, as has my memory of which university originated the mailing list.
>
> There are few times when I cannot think of something to say via the
> keyboard, but these folks outclassed my meager brain by such a huge margin
> that it was all I could do to understand what they were talking about. It
> was the best internet reading that I have ever come across, even after some
> ten years has passed. I sure wish I could find something like that again.
Well, there's always the professional philosophy journals, though these
tend not to be quite so informal, nor informative.
If it's metaphysical questions about science that get you going, the
field of History and Philosophy of Science (my own) is probably a better
fit.
Incidentally, it turns out that most of the famous 19th and 20th century
physicists were quite interested in, and concerned about, metaphysics.
Names that come particularly to mind include: Poincare, Einstein, Bohr,
Heisenberg, Eddington. FWIW
--
Later,
John
johajohn [at] indianahoosiers.edu
'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Wed Jan 7 21:55:10 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.21505 Sekunden |
