| "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net>: Dec 22 10:55PM -0500 Does this activity found accidentally in my home broadband wireless router log seem suspicious to you? Here is a screenshot of the suspicious log entries: https://i.imgur.com/iZm1CCq.jpg When "I" log into my router, I see a line like this: [Admin login] from source 192.168.1.16, Tuesday, Dec 22,2015 19:16:15 But, I see the following (suspicious?) activity in my log file: [LAN access from remote] from 93.38.179.187:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:42:41 [LAN access from remote] from 177.206.146.201:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:41:54 [LAN access from remote] from 101.176.44.21:1026 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:19 [LAN access from remote] from 181.164.218.29:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:19 [LAN access from remote] from 2.133.67.47:11233 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:19 [LAN access from remote] from 186.206.138.72:62531 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:19 [LAN access from remote] from 148.246.193.87:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:19 [LAN access from remote] from 195.67.252.183:49076 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:16 [LAN access from remote] from 1.78.16.174:47891 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:16 [LAN access from remote] from 178.116.59.223:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:16 [LAN access from remote] from 82.237.141.86:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:16 [LAN access from remote] from 107.223.217.54:9000 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:34:11 [LAN access from remote] from 216.98.48.95:11020 to 192.168.1.5:9000, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:32:31 I don't know what this really means: "LAN access from remote". Looking at the router wired & wireless list of devices, 192.168.1.5 seems to not be attached at the moment. But, looking back, I can determine (from the MAC address) that it's my child's Sony Playstation (which has "UPNP events" whatever they are): [UPnP set event: Public_UPNP_C3] from source 192.168.1.5, Saturday, Dec 19,2015 06:32:28 [DHCP IP: (192.168.1.5)] to MAC address F8:D0:AC:B1:D4:A3, Monday, Dec 21,2015 12:26:18 [DHCP IP: (192.168.1.5)] to MAC address F8:D0:AC:B1:D4:A3, Tuesday, Dec 22,2015 16:17:47 [UPnP set event: Public_UPNP_C3] from source 192.168.1.5, Tuesday, Dec 22,2015 16:46:15 ***************************************************************** Can you advise me whether I should be worried that there are many LAN accesses from a remote IP address to a kid's Sony Playstation? ***************************************************************** |
| ng_reader <wilgrow_co@hotmail.com>: Dec 22 11:11PM -0500 <snip> > Can you advise me whether I should be worried that there are many > LAN accesses from a remote IP address to a kid's Sony Playstation? > ***************************************************************** Are you afraid of, what, exactly? |
| "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net>: Dec 22 11:21PM -0500 On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:11:38 -0500, ng_reader wrote: > Are you afraid of, what, exactly? To answer why I ask about these activities, it's that I did not elicit these transactions, nor do I understand them. The IP addresses seem to belong to the following (from a whois): -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 93.38.176.0 - 93.38.183.255 netname: FASTWEB-DPPU descr: Infrastructure for Fastwebs main location descr: NAT POOL 7 for residential customer POP 4106, country: IT -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 177.204/14 aut-num: AS18881 abuse-c: GOI owner: Global Village Telecom country: BR -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 101.160.0.0 - 101.191.255.255 netname: TELSTRAINTERNET50-AU descr: Telstra descr: Level 12, 242 Exhibition St descr: Melbourne descr: VIC 3000 country: AU -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 181.164/14 status: allocated aut-num: N/A owner: CABLEVISION S.A. ownerid: AR-CASA10-LACNIC responsible: Esteban Poggio address: Aguero, 3440, address: 1605 - Munro - BA country: AR -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 2.133.64.0 - 2.133.71.255 netname: TALDYKMETRO descr: JSC Kazakhtelecom, Taldykorgan descr: Metro Ethernet Network country: KZ -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 186.204/14 aut-num: AS28573 abuse-c: GRSVI owner: CLARO S.A. ownerid: 040.432.544/0835-06 responsible: CLARO S.A. country: BR -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 148.246/16 status: allocated aut-num: N/A owner: Mexico Red de Telecomunicaciones, S. de R.L. de C.V. ownerid: MX-MRTS1-LACNIC responsible: Ana María Solorzano Luna Parra address: Bosque de Duraznos, 55, PB, Bosques de las Lomas address: 11700 - Miguel Hidalgo - DF country: MX -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 195.67.224.0 - 195.67.255.255 netname: TELIANET descr: TeliaSonera AB Networks descr: ISP country: SE -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 1.72.0.0 - 1.79.255.255 netname: NTTDoCoMo descr: NTT DOCOMO,INC. descr: Sannno Park Tower Bldg.11-1 Nagatacho 2-chome descr: hiyoda-ku,Tokyo Japan country: JP -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 1.72.0.0 - 1.79.255.255 netname: MAPS descr: NTT DoCoMo, Inc. country: JP -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 178.116.0.0 - 178.116.255.255 netname: TELENET descr: Telenet N.V. Residentials remarks: INFRA-AW country: BE -------------------------------------------------- inetnum: 82.237.140.0 - 82.237.143.255 netname: FR-PROXAD-ADSL descr: Proxad / Free SAS descr: Static pool (Freebox) descr: deu95-3 (mours) descr: NCC#2005090519 country: FR -------------------------------------------------- NetRange: 107.192.0.0 - 107.223.255.255 NetName: SIS-80-4-2012 NetHandle: NET-107-192-0-0-1 Parent: NET107 (NET-107-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: AS7132 Organization: AT&T Internet Services (SIS-80) City: Richardson StateProv: TX -------------------------------------------------- NetRange: 216.98.48.0 - 216.98.63.255 CIDR: 216.98.48.0/20 NetName: UBICOM NetHandle: NET-216-98-48-0-1 Parent: NET216 (NET-216-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Assignment OriginAS: Organization: Ubisoft Entertainment (UBISOF-2) -------------------------------------------------- |
| Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>: Dec 22 08:53AM -0800 On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 11:39:49 AM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote: > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 > hobbs at electrooptical dot net > http://electrooptical.net I've used an RTA, but those hadn't been invented yet. Before my time, but wasn't there something called octave filters? The experimenter wasn't real detailed but supposedly he could tell from looking at the scope that it was a pure sine without harmonics. I was very skeptical that 1950s technology allowed that. He is a believer that the material a trumpet is made from determines the sound, whereas many of us believe it is the shape of the air column. I will quote the article: ****** At one time we ran an experiment in which we used steel, aluminum, various plastics, glass, silver, various combinations of brass and the last one we used was lead. To demonstrate results as quickly as possible, I will choose the two extremes. The steel bell, which we tempered so it was extremely hard, gave possibly one of the most interesting results. Many people test a bell by tapping it with their finger or knuckle and in tapping the steel bell, it would emit a very ringing sound, truly like a bell. However, when we played this instrument, the quality of sound was extremely dead. On searching for the reason for this, we looked at the oscilloscope when the performer played on the instrument and found the sine pattern very faint but the distortion pattern, coming from the vibration of the bell itself, going through at a very jagged and rapid rate, killing the brilliance of sound of the true tone. At the other extreme was the lead bell. This bell, if rapped with your knuckle, emitted an extremely dead sound like rapping on a piece of wood. However the sound that emanated when it was blown was extremely brilliant, brilliant to the point of being mechanical. This showed up on the oscilloscope as a perfectly true sine pattern, there being no distortions in the harmonics either above or below, and, as a result, the sound was absolutely pure but not usable musically, except for a general effect such as a percussion instrument would give. The voice, you know, registering on an oscilloscope, gives harmonics both above and below the note. These distortions, if we may call them such, give warmth to the tone. We have to have that "distortion" in order to have the sound acceptable to our ears as a musical sound. |
| Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Dec 22 12:04PM -0500 On 12/22/2015 11:53 AM, Tim R wrote: > time, but wasn't there something called octave filters? > The experimenter wasn't real detailed but supposedly he could tell > from looking at the scope that it was a pure sine without harmonics. Well, he was wrong about that. Even 10% third harmonic isn't easy to spot unless you have a comparison sine wave on the screen at the same time. (I'm thinking about zero degrees relative phase, so the peaks are symmetrical. It's a bit easier to see at other phases.) > I was very skeptical that 1950s technology allowed that. Unless he had a really expensive ribbon mic, his 1950s microphone had a heavy diaphragm and rolled off really badly above about 5 kHz. (One of the audio guys will correct this, but it's roughly right.) None of the nice 40-kHz piezo film mics you can get nowadays. (I have a matched set of Earthworks omni mics from about 15 years ago--their impulse response is about 15 microseconds wide.) > He is a believer that the material a trumpet is made from determines > the sound, whereas many of us believe it is the shape of the air > column. It's both. > from the vibration of the bell itself, going through at a very > jagged and rapid rate, killing the brilliance of sound of the true > tone. Changing the material also moves all the mechanical resonances, which will have a huge effect. > both above and below the note. These distortions, if we may call them > such, give warmth to the tone. We have to have that "distortion" in > order to have the sound acceptable to our ears as a musical sound. Cheers Phil "Not an audio guy" Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |
| amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: Dec 22 11:53AM -0600 On 12/22/2015 7:59 AM, Tim R wrote: > There is an old paper where a musician claims to have used an oscilloscope to measure a particular trumpet tone and proved it was a pure sine wave. There is no date available but probably late 50s, the company was started in 1956. So we're talking whatever scope technology would have been available then. > I've always been a bit skeptical about the claims because there are some other aspects that don't make sense to me. > However, my question is about how you would use a 1950s era scope to determine a sine wave or the degree of harmonics present. Most musical tones have a series of harmonics above the fundamental that add the characteristic tone. To do that you need to know the shape of a sine wave... perfectly. You could use a dual trace and compare a sine wave to your trumpet note. Or use your computer sound card and see what you really have. Free sound card spectrum analyzers. > http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/fft.html?gclid=CMuPysOD8MkCFdgHgQodztEKYA > http://www.qsl.net/pa2ohh/04audio.htm > http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html Mikek |
| Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>: Dec 22 10:48AM -0800 On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:53:50 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote: > To do that you need to know the shape of a sine wave... perfectly. > You could use a dual trace and compare a sine wave to your trumpet note. > Or use your computer sound card and see what you really have. Yes, in 2015 I can do this, and have. My suspicion was that it was not really possible in 1956 to have done what he claimed to have done. I figured in the time domain the most you would see is a tiny ripple on a scope trace, maybe not detectable. But I asked the question here because you all actually know how to use scopes (and some of you may be old enough to remember 1950s scopes). |
| Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>: Dec 22 10:52AM -0800 On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:04:12 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote: > It's both. > Changing the material also moves all the mechanical resonances, which > will have a huge effect. I agree the material will have a huge effect on the mechanical resonances. It is not so clear that the mechanical resonances have any appreciable effect on the contained wind column resonances. There is no obvious theory why they should, and a couple of centuries of experiments have really failed to show much in the way of effect, whether done with listening tests or lab measurements. |
| Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll>: Dec 22 08:02PM +0100 On 22.12.15 19:48, Tim R wrote: >> Or use your computer sound card and see what you really have. > Yes, in 2015 I can do this, and have. > My suspicion was that it was not really possible in 1956 to have done what he claimed to have done. I figured in the time domain the most you would see is a tiny ripple on a scope trace, maybe not detectable. But I asked the question here because you all actually know how to use scopes (and some of you may be old enough to remember 1950s scopes). Just use a signal generator on the second scope channel, switch to x/y mode, and produce an ellipse/circle slowly rotating. Distortions will show up quite well. Even in 1950. |
| Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>: Dec 22 11:15AM -0800 On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 2:02:19 PM UTC-5, Sjouke Burry wrote: > rotating. > Distortions will show up quite well. > Even in 1950. I wondered about that. There was a long ago physics lab where we made Lissajous figures, but so long ago I didn't remember details. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Dec 22 12:31PM -0800 On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:48:39 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com> wrote: >My suspicion was that it was not really possible in 1956 to have done what he claimed to have done. I figured in the time domain the most you would see is a tiny ripple on a scope trace, maybe not detectable. But I asked the question here because you all actually know how to use scopes (and some of you may be old enough to remember 1950s scopes). Heathkit intoduced its first oscilloscope, the O-1, in 1947 (for $50). <http://www.nostalgickitscentral.com/heath/products/test.html#o> The "O" series went from O-1 to O-12 with the bandwidth going from about 150Khz to 5 MHz. I couldn't find a time line, but here's an O-2 schematic dated Jan 1948. <http://www.nostalgickitscentral.com/heath/schematics/heathkit_schema_o2.pdf> Offhand, I would say that it would have been possible in 1956. Back in the stone age of signal analysis, the usual method of looking at harmonics was to notch out the fundamental, and look at what was left. At audio, notch filters are fairly easy to build with bug discrete parts. In effect, an early distortion analyzer. I don't have a date, but looking at the schematic of the first Heathkit distortion analyzer, the HD-1, methinks the choice of tubes puts it in the same time frame as the O-1: <http://www.nostalgickitscentral.com/heath/schematics/heathkit_schema_hd1.pdf> So, it might also have been possible to inspect the horns harmonic content, if the player could hold a steady note. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Dec 22 12:39PM -0800 On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:31:21 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: No brain today (especially while talking on the phone). The dates are on the web page, right two columns: <http://www.nostalgickitscentral.com/heath/products/heathkit_test.html> The Heath O-1 was sold from 1947 to 1947. By 1956, there were probably a dozen scopes produced by Heathkit. The HD-1 distortion analyzer went from 1948 to probably 1948. My guess(tm) is that Howard Anthony ran out of WWII surplus parts and was forced to design a modern replacement. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Dec 22 09:26PM In article <i1cj7bhpur6bafo0i83h6eba1muf81bt2p@4ax.com>, jeffl@cruzio.com says... > So, it might also have been possible to inspect the horns harmonic > content, if the player could hold a steady note. Which reminds me that in a holiday job between school and college I spent some time chatting up the test engineers who were checking an audio amplifier. They just used a sine wave signal and listened on speakers. So I leant on the speaker and whistled a beating note. The technician spent a minute or two hunting for the source of the beats until I ran out of breath and got chased out of the test bay... Mike. |
| whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>: Dec 22 02:07PM -0800 On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 8:39:49 AM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote: > > That should be considered adequate to inspect audio signals. > The eyeball is a really lousy detector of harmonics, though, especially > odd harmonics. Not always; I have no trouble looking at a filtered triangle-wave type "sine" and seeing the distortion, which is presumably under 1%. "Pure" to the ear doesn't require a spectrum analyzer with parts-per-million resolution and logarithmic display. I think the researchers were applying a loose definition. > Plus he had to use a 1950s-era microphone, so the scope bandwidth is > irrelevant. Carbon microphone, maybe, but dynamic microphones were very well developed by then. A lot of early recordings were transcribed onto DVD, and the sound quality improved because the SINAD of microphone and tape were better than the rest of the phonograph process. |
| Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Dec 22 05:21PM -0500 On 12/22/2015 05:07 PM, whit3rd wrote: >> odd harmonics. > Not always; I have no trouble looking at a filtered triangle-wave type "sine" > and seeing the distortion, which is presumably under 1%. You're looking at the residual cusp, though, not the smooth details of the peak, right? >> irrelevant. > Carbon microphone, maybe, but dynamic microphones were very well > developed by then. Sure, but they have big heavy diaphragms and coils, so their high frequency response stinks. (Velocity sensitivity helps, but low resonant frequency wins.) A lot of early recordings were transcribed onto DVD, > and the sound quality improved because the SINAD of microphone and tape were better > than the rest of the phonograph process. I don't doubt that one bit. Record cutters especially. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |
| Bennett Price <bjprice@cal.berkeley.edu>: Dec 22 03:21PM -0800 On 12/22/2015 8:53 AM, Tim R wrote: > I will quote the article: > ****** > At one time we ran an experiment in which we used steel, aluminum, various plastics, glass, silver, various combinations of brass and the last one we used was lead. To demonstrate results as quickly as possible, I will choose the two extremes. The steel bell, which we tempered so it was extremely hard, gave possibly one of the most interesting results. Many people test a bell by tapping it with their finger or knuckle and in tapping the steel bell, it would emit a very ringing sound, truly like a bell. However, when we played this instrument, the quality of sound was extremely dead. On searching for the reason for this, we looked at the oscilloscope when the performer played on the instrument and found the sine pattern very faint but the distortion pattern, coming from the vibration of the bell itself, going through at a very jagged and rapid rate, killing the brilliance of sound of the true tone. At the other extreme was the lead bell. This bell, if rapped with your knuckle, emit ted an extremely dead sound like rapping on a piece of wood. However the sound that emanated when it was blown was extremely brilliant, brilliant to the point of being mechanical. This showed up on the oscilloscope as a perfectly true sine pattern, there being no distortions in the harmonics either above or below, and, as a result, the sound was absolutely pure but not usable musically, except for a general effect such as a percussion instrument would give. The voice, you know, registering on an oscilloscope, gives harmonics both above and below the note. These distortions, if we may call them such, give warmth to the tone. We have to have that "distortion" in order to have the sound acceptable to our ears as a musical sound. Could you give a citation, reference (or even a URL) to the article. I'd love to read it. Thanks |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Dec 22 05:16PM -0800 On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:26:20 -0000, MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote: >technician spent a minute or two hunting for the source of the beats >until I ran out of breath and got chased out of the test bay... >Mike. You're evil. I like that. In roughly 1968, I worked in a shop that did warranty repairs on various consumer audio equipment, mostly tape recorders. The owner was rather cheap and decided we could do without much test equipment. We had one ancient DuMont scope, which was only rarely used. <http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/dumont_la_oscilloscope_304_a304.html> When it came time to check for distortion or other audio anomalies, instead of test equipment, we had Mario. Mario had zero mechanical ability. Give him a soldering iron and he was as likely to burn himself as solder the connection. If there was a cable on the floor, he would find it and trip over it. If he tried to fix anything, it was usually cosmetically ruined. Most of the vehicles in the parking lot had dents from his futile attempts to park his car. By all reason and logic, Mario was not suitable for working in a repair shop. However, Mario had amazing hearing. Not only could he detect and identify many forms of audio distortion, but he could identify which components were likely to be the cause. At one point, we hired a clueless student, who knew little about electronics except how to solder, to just replace the components that Mario identified. The batting average was amazingly high. I even tried to trick Mario by creating problems. He did quite well with up to four simultaneously failed components. More was considered not worth repairing. When Mario caught a cold or flu, we all took a short vacation, as nothing was getting fixed using what little test equipment we had. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Dec 22 08:21PM -0800 Tim R wrote: > There is an old paper where a musician claims to have used an oscilloscope to measure a particular trumpet tone and proved it was a pure sine wave. There is no date available but probably late 50s, the company was started in 1956. So we're talking whatever scope technology would have been available then. > I've always been a bit skeptical about the claims because there are some other aspects that don't make sense to me. > However, my question is about how you would use a 1950s era scope to determine a sine wave or the degree of harmonics present. ** The same way you might use a modern scope. A sine wave has a distinct shape and the addition of harmonics visibly alters that shape. Instruments like the clarinet produce near square waves when playing most notes. Guitar strings vibrate with a series of harmonic frequencies, depending how the string is struck. You can clearly see them on a scope screen if you plug an electric model into the vertical input. Check out U-Tube vids. > Most musical tones have a series of harmonics above the > fundamental that add the characteristic tone. ** Scopes show the time domain picture of a wave. .... Phil |
| "taxed and spent" <pleasedonot@spamme.com>: Dec 22 09:39AM -0800 "Poutnik" <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n5buih$4bn$1@dont-email.me... > There are too strong forces, fast current speeds > and random turbulent processes > for Coriolis force to have any effect. When I was in Ecuador, I did my own test. Quite a bit north of the equator, I filled a wash basin with water and pulled the plug. The water swirled one way. AT the equator, I did the same thing, and the water just drained. A bit south of the equator, I did the same thing, and there wasn't much of interest. Further south of the equator, I did the same thing, and the water swirled the opposite way. I eliminated water current, toilet bowl rim jet patterns, etc. Q.E.D. |
| jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: Dec 22 07:05PM > tale. Those who didn't get sucked down, and survived, would be > counter-examples. > Sylvia. Ever heard of WWI and WWII? Lots of ships sunk and lots of detailed records. -- Jim Pennino |
| "M. Stradbury" <mstradbury@example.com>: Dec 22 09:50PM On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much > smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship... What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat, for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested). To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak). What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up). I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest so far were: a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a very "tiny" ship. b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging, falling objects, etc. So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of sinking. I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific' evidence yet, either way. But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants and toy ships or something). I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find out the answer. |
| Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>: Dec 22 11:06PM +0100 Dne 22/12/2015 v 22:50 M. Stradbury napsal(a): > But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound > plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants > and toy ships or something). Be aware of surface tension. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. |
| MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Dec 22 11:07PM In article <n5chck$gu4$1@dont-email.me>, poutnik4nntp@gmail.com says... > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Related to the familiar word "sputnik"? Mike. |
| Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca>: Dec 22 04:25PM -0700 M. Stradbury wrote: > But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound > plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants > and toy ships or something). If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it. |
| thekmanrocks@gmail.com: Dec 22 03:44PM -0800 Tony Hwang wrote: - show quoted text - "Basic fluid mechanics. You know that the swirl direction of opposite of Southern hemisphere. CCW and CW. Rotating earth. " Coriolis does not apply to toilets. The direction of rotation in a toilet bowl is determined by how the jets(holes underneath the rim) are angled. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment