December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Response to ticket 012398-6918-403
by kozmo killah 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Interesting Chemical Reaction
by ichudov＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An interesting experiment is to mix the ordinary ammonium nitrate (a fertilizer) with room temp. water. Try to put in as much ammonium nitrate as it is possible to dissolve. You will see the temperature of the mixture DROP to below the freezing point (for pure water that is). Wow. I did that 12 years ago and was amazed. A really easy way to get cold water if no freezer is available. - Igor.

3 3

Re: State of the Union Address
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I guess those high school students aren't the only ones with no clear >idea of the way the world works. While salt water does not ordinarily >explode, in this case salt water is the ultimate product -- but massive >heat released when acids and bases join and recombine to produce salts >(in this case table salt) and water. Interesting thread. While we're on the topic of chemistry and heat: Does anyone happen to know how to figure the energy requirements or yields for a reaction? My college chemistry book doesn't say a whole lot about it. In fact it doesn't say enough to actually be useful at all; it gives energies for four or five different bonds in a table and then launches into a really bad explanation of how to calculate this. If I have to use a table of bond energies is there one available online? Or is there a simpler way to just calculate the bloody things? I really ought to take more chemistry courses before I get my diploma. Or at the very least audit them.

2 1

Re: State of the Union Address
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Another Anonymous writes: >>Does anyone happen to know how to figure the energy requirements or yields >>for a reaction? > >Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, I mean how much energy is required >or is liberated by a given reaction. I don't mean "...figure the energy, >requirements, or yields," or "figure the energy requirements or products it >yields." It has been fifteen years since I even opened a chemistry book, but I think what you're looking for is called the "heat of enthalpy." You could find this in most any intro-level chem book, and there's probably a whole shitload of reactions listed in the _CRC Handbook Of Chemistry & Physics_. Since HCl+NaOH is an acid-base reaction, you could also use something called the "heat of neutralization." IIRC, that's something like 57 KJ/mol for strong acids. But don't take my word for it; I'm Not A Chemist Any More. P-Chem gave me a great appreciation for math and computers.

1 0

Re: Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)wire.insync.net> > Subject: Re: Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 (fwd) > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:58:28 -0600 (CST) > > Of course one needn't stop there. If entangled states could be stored > > for several years, instantaneous communication with neighbooring stars > > is a real possibility. > > And in whose local Lorentz frame would such communication be > "instantaneous"? Actualy, if we are talking about instantanious events the event itself is not frame relevant, thought exactly when and where the event occurred may be. Consider an electron when it changes orbitals does so in zero time. So the question that the photon was emitted is not at issue, now where that photon came from and at what clock tick may in fact be. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Steve, Can I forward your questions to another technology list I support as well as the local high performance rocketry group I'm involved in? I believe they would be intriqued by your questions. Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:56:33 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <schear(a)lvdi.net> > Subject: Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 (fwd) > > >ANOTHER VERSION OF QUANTUM TELEPORTATION is [text deleted] > I wonder how far off use of this technique for interplanetary rovers might > be (10 years, 20 years)? Remote (Earth) rover manipulation is tedious at > best due to several minutes (or an hour or more to the outer planets) of > propagation delay. As I understand the process you don't get around the speed-of-light issue because the control channel still needs to be sent via radio or laser or whatever. This was discussed in the in the original teleportation announcement. However, I don't see anything that would keep you from syncing two atomic clocks and then using them to make the changes in sync, this should allow the imposition of the speed of light only on initiation and occassion syncronization. I'll have to beg ignorance on specifics as I haven't had the time to really dig into specifics. I haven't even read the primary references to date. > Autonomous rovers need enough smarts built-in to handle > unexpected situations, a non-trivial problem. An alternative is to > establish a link using entangled photons. If a simple approach to saving > these entangled states during signal transit, in both directions, were > found instantaneous communication and simplified remote control would be a > reality. Agreed. It would also solve many terrestrial problems as well. > Of course one needn't stop there. If entangled states could be stored for > several years, instantaneous communication with neighbooring stars is a > real possibility. Coupled with advances in mind-machine science it might > someday be possible to explore, first-hand, our local portion of the galaxy > without leaving earth, or upload/download one's consciouness to vessels in > remote locations. True, but it would be boring compared to being there first person. I do support robot exploration as a precursor to manned exploration. > Speaking of which, do the current SETI programs check for signal modulation > using polarization. >From what little I have delved into this, most signals coming in from 'out there' as well as from satellites are circularly polarized. This is the reason that the antennas have those curly-ques on them (look like a cork-screw sorta). The last time I even messed with extra-terrestrial signals was the SL-9 impacts. I worked with several amateur groups using plane (flat rectangular) loop antennas to measure the increase in the background noise in various bands (we used a HP spectrum analyzer at my site) during the impacts. What we saw was a 'jump' across the band of several db's just at the time-of-flight times we expected. The assumption being this was caused by the impacts. We monitored 1MHz to 10MHz. I found it pretty impressive. We got, if memory serves, around 6 of the large impacts. > If we've discovered this trick, sure so have other > intelligent life forms. Most natural sources of radiation tend to > unpolarized, so a rapidly flucuating polar modularion might easily appear > to be noise. I'll have to disagree, all forms of E-M radiation that I am aware of are polarized to some frame of reference. The E-M fields after all are orthogonal. The question is which field you want to pick as a reference and the relationship of source to sensor. Circularly polarized (ie the fields rotate around the axis of transmission at some rate) are about the only sort that would appear essentialy the same irrespective of reference frame. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: sat survailience
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:06 PM 1/27/98 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > >--- begin forwarded text > > >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:55:09 -0500 >From: Somebody >Subject: sat survailience >To: rah <rah(a)shipwright.com> >MIME-version: 1.0 > >Bob - something else to be paranoid about! ><somebody's .sig> ><snip> > >When Is a Satellite Photo An Unreasonable Search? > >By <some reporter> IMPORTANT INFORMATION RESTORED AFTER INEXPLICABLE DELETION: >Staff Reporter of WALL STREET JOURNAL> ... ETC ...

2 1

Re: Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:34:48 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Planetary rovers, SETI and other musings, was Re: update.356 > (fwd) > Nothing in quantum teleportation has been shown to propagate signals faster > than light. (If you don't believe me, look into it. Start by reading the > FTL discussions about Bell's Theorem.) The actual transportation of the state is instantanious as it must be by quantum theory, just as the change in orbits of an electron occurs instantly. However, the catch is that the command/synchronization channel must be sent in parallel and it at some point can't use the quantum transportation technique and hence the speed-of-light comes back into play. This was specificaly discussed in the original quantum transportation announcement sent out by AIP. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

RE: Latest Clinton dodge?
by Jonathan Wienke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Years ago, when Clinton was primarily known for his frequent patronage of McDonalds, he was affectionately known as "Mr. JoeBlob." With the current sex scandal(s), you can turn that around and it still fits...

1 0

Re: State of the Union Address
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Well, if it was 40 grams of NaOH and 36.5 grams of HCl, then you >would have 18 grams of water and 58.5 grams of NaCl. With 1g HCl to >.5g NaOH, well, you have an acidic, salty, mess. However, HCl >is a gas at STP, and NaOH is a solid... > >Basically, it's an incredibly poorly worded question. It looks like the original poster grabbed two of the simplest acids and bases he could find and plugged them into the question. HCl is usually provided in an aqueous solution. NaOH is a solid. In those two states they'll combine quite well with each other. The "explosion and a big mess" would come from somebody just chucking a lot of both chemicals together without any regard what is going on. I think Anonymous was more interested in what products were produced and how much of each were produced, and then made the mistake of assuming that the chemist had enough brains not to go chuck two reactive chemicals together without the competence to run through the necessary calculations. Throwing together any amount of any chemicals without knowing what you're doing is a very bad idea. It's a good way to "accidentally" produce chlorine gas, carbon monoxide, or worse. If you don't know what you're doing or you aren't at least minimally competent and take appropriate safety precautions, keep it on paper. Personally, I steer clear of college and high school chemistry labs for this reason. I watched some idiot produce chlorine gas back in high school, though thankfully not in any really, really dangerous quantities. NaOH + HCl ---> NaCl + H O 2 It's a nice, simple reaction. To answer the question the student would have to know the atomic masses of chlorine, hydrogen, oxygen, and sodium, but that could easily be gleaned off a periodic table provided the student was competent enough to ask for one if he needed it. I doubt most college chemistry professors would analyze it that well either, to tell you the truth. They'd give the question and it's assumed that the necessary steps are taken to ensure a reaction (if any). Of course "normal circumstances" is kind of a wide area. The question should have been worded more like this: 11) Michelle mixes one gram of HCl and one half gram of NaOH. The HCl is dissolved in water. Assuming that Michelle is competent enough to avoid blowing herself across the room or destroying the lab, what are the products and in what quantities are they produced?

1 0