The disappearance of darkness

On 2013.05.28 19:57 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-28 16:18:14 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Given some of the current (forgive me for that) power line discussion, I
thought you might find this Sunday morning event interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...00-4550070.php

Never heard of 'mud' as a short source! Must be coating the insulators
bridging the line to the wood cross beams/poles.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.29 06:21 , Whisky-dave wrote:

Energy needs to be propergated, and it's still not the sound of the
electricity flowing in the wires which is an important point.

All this has been covered already.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013-05-29 13:55:37 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.05.28 19:57 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-28 16:18:14 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Given some of the current (forgive me for that) power line discussion, I
thought you might find this Sunday morning event interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...00-4550070.php

Never

heard of 'mud' as a short source! Must be coating the insulators
bridging the line to the wood cross beams/poles.

It was a first for me. I guess that the wind borne dust (and it has
been pretty windy out here lately) might have been ionized in some way.
Add the drizzle to coat whatever PG&E equipment might have been
vulnerable.
Still it happened, and there is always the possibility the PG&E folks
are speculating as to the cause of the outages.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013.05.29 17:05 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-29 13:55:37 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.05.28 19:57 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-28 16:18:14 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Given some of the current (forgive me for that) power line discussion, I
thought you might find this Sunday morning event interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...00-4550070.php


Never

heard of 'mud' as a short source! Must be coating the insulators
bridging the line to the wood cross beams/poles.

It was a first for me. I guess that the wind borne dust (and it has been
pretty windy out here lately) might have been ionized in some way. Add
the drizzle to coat whatever PG&E equipment might have been vulnerable.
Still it happened, and there is always the possibility the PG&E folks
are speculating as to the cause of the outages.

It's perfect. "It's a rare set of natural conditions. Those lines are
_perfectly_ maintained," said, John T. Quiggly head of PR for the region.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:

Would you be kind enough to provide an example of an experiment in which
"assumptions and models" affect the outcome?

Experiment as in "the measured raw results" or as in "the
results after evaluating the measurements"?

As in the published paper.

Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
thing?

Give us your example if you have one.

The famous example is the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy, e.g.:

http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...n_Erenhaft.pdf

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:

Would you be kind enough to provide an example of an experiment in which
"assumptions and models" affect the outcome?

Experiment as in "the measured raw results" or as in "the
results after evaluating the measurements"?

As in the published paper.

Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
thing?

Give us your example if you have one.

The famous example is the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy, e.g.:

http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...n_Erenhaft.pdf

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

And the upshot of that is that Millikan fudged the data, which is a nono
in any experiment, regardless of the "assumptions and models".

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:

Would you be kind enough to provide an example of an experiment in which
"assumptions and models" affect the outcome?

Experiment as in "the measured raw results" or as in "the
results after evaluating the measurements"?

As in the published paper.

Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
thing?

Give us your example if you have one.

The famous example is the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy, e.g.:

http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...n_Erenhaft.pdf

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

And the upshot of that is that Millikan fudged the data, which is a nono
in any experiment, regardless of the "assumptions and models".

Quite so, but that doesn't invalidate the general point about how
assumptions and models affect the interpretation of experimental
results, which is why this particular example has been discussed so
much by historians and philosophers of science.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...
snip
http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...an_Erenhaft.pd
f

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

And the upshot of that is that Millikan fudged the data, which is a nono
in any experiment, regardless of the "assumptions and models".

Quite so, but that doesn't invalidate the general point about how
assumptions and models affect the interpretation of experimental
results, which is why this particular example has been discussed so
much by historians and philosophers of science.

Millikan, fudged experiments or not, was spectacularly right, and
Ehrenhaft was wrong. It should be noted that "assumptions and models"
has nothing to do with science, merely the history and sociology of the
practice of science. Millikan's oil drop experiment has been replicated
untold countless number of times. I've done it myself (gaack! 40 years
ago) in Physics I. It was part of getting us to think about errors and
how and when to ditch outliers. I can still remember the 'aha' of doing
the oil drop thing. It was a spectacular. The world really comes in
lumps.

You will also note that I could not bring myself to use "philosophy" in
the second sentence above. The Niaz article above was mostly a sales
pitch for the currently fashionable TomKuhnery. How that ever gets
classed as philosophy is beyond my comprehension.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:

Would you be kind enough to provide an example of an experiment in which
"assumptions and models" affect the outcome?

Experiment as in "the measured raw results" or as in "the
results after evaluating the measurements"?

As in the published paper.

Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
thing?

Give us your example if you have one.

The famous example is the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy, e.g.:

http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...n_Erenhaft.pdf

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

And the upshot of that is that Millikan fudged the data, which is a nono
in any experiment, regardless of the "assumptions and models".

Quite so, but that doesn't invalidate the general point about how
assumptions and models affect the interpretation of experimental
results, which is why this particular example has been discussed so
much by historians and philosophers of science.

The sort of interpretation you are discussing lies in the domain of
theoretical physics, not experimental. If you want to see a wonderful
example of a good experimentalist acting as a totally embarassing
theoretician, read "Creation's Tiny Mystery" by Robert V. Gentry.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:

Would you be kind enough to provide an example of an experiment in which
"assumptions and models" affect the outcome?

Experiment as in "the measured raw results" or as in "the
results after evaluating the measurements"?

As in the published paper.

Do those published papers count in which the authors later revised the
conclusions they originally drew from their experimental results? Or
those in which later reviewers, not the original authors, did the same
thing?

Give us your example if you have one.

The famous example is the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy, e.g.:

http://www.umich.edu/~chemstu/conten...n_Erenhaft.pdf

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/681.short

Both the above have many good further references.

And the upshot of that is that Millikan fudged the data,

BECAUSE he had "assumptions and models" he wanted to appease.
The measured raw results were ... interpreted and filtered in
the published paper.

which is a nono
in any experiment, regardless of the "assumptions and models".

So, according to our current knowledge, is charge quantized
(Millikan, fudged) or not (Ehrenhaft, not fudged)?

-Wolfgang