Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #580701 > unrolled thread

Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:17 -0700
    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-26 12:27 -0500
      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:18 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:55 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 22:32 -0700
    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 13:26 -0500
      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:55 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:01 -0500
      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 22:25 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 03:00 -0400
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:33 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:14 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 12:13 -0500
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 14:04 -0500
              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 15:10 -0500
                Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:46 -0500
                  Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 18:37 -0500
                    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:08 -0500
                      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 00:07 -0500
                        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:38 -0500
                          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 12:22 -0500
                            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:34 -0500
                              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 22:52 -0500
                                Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:11 -0500
                                  Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 12:07 -0500
                                    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:20 -0500
                                      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:04 -0500
                                        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:19 -0500
                                      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:31 -0700
                                    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:24 -0700
                                  Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-03 20:22 -0500
                          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-03 12:11 -0700
                            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-03 20:58 -0500
    Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:17 -0700
      Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:52 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:14 -0700
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:13 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:45 -0700
              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:39 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:30 -0700
              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:40 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:44 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:18 -0700
              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:01 -0700
                Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:29 -0700
                Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 10:56 -0500
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-28 07:27 -0500
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 10:50 -0700
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:31 -0700
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:06 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:18 -0700
              Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 10:57 -0500
                Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 10:58 -0700
                  Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 13:15 -0500
        Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:51 -0700
          Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:04 -0700
            Re: A lot of mud on a lot of faces James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 09:35 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#582327

On 6/2/2016 12:07 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> So was your physics education useful for your job?
>> >
> Indirectly yes of course. It made me a detail oriented
> person and made any job I had easier and quality of my
> work higher. But I stayed very humble about it no
> matter where I was and what I did. I could do that
> because I did not have a PhD, so nobody gave a damn
> about my physics background :-)

And my education was similarly useful for my vocation.

As for PhDs, I know a few who are working outside the realm of their 
doctoral work. From what I understand, PhDs are often recognized for 
being self-driven, able to quickly come up to speed on subjects they 
aren't familiar with, highly analytical problem-solvers, good at 
collaboration and communication, and having a number of ancillary skills 
that can be applied broadly -- all traits that are prized in the 
marketplace.

>
>>> >>
>>> >> George Gamow layman physics books aren't popular in
>>> >> USA. I wonder if you've even read one of them.
>> >
>> > I've read a Mr. Tomkins book or two.
>> >
> Which ones? Did you read the originals (from 1940s) or
> the ones Penrose had edited in 1990s?

I don't have them any longer to look. I would suspect the latter.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582354

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:38:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> As for PhDs, I know a few who are working outside the realm of their 
> doctoral work. From what I understand, PhDs are often recognized for 
> being self-driven, able to quickly come up to speed on subjects they 
> aren't familiar with, highly analytical problem-solvers, good at 
> collaboration and communication, and having a number of ancillary skills 
> that can be applied broadly -- all traits that are prized in the 
> marketplace.
> 

Of course. Ideal entry level employees for tough jobs
in large companies who aren't too greedy. The greedier
ones opt for someone who's had similar jobs for years
with nice record to show. But what about pay?

In USA the pay, in almost all cases, is not
proportional to the amount of time and effort the
holder of a PhD has put in. I believe if someone is
interested in spending 10 years of his best time of
life in university then he must at least choose a
subject that later would bring in a lot of money, like
a medical field. Physics PhD in USA will get you a job
making very modest amount of money doing someone
else's projects and ideas, not your own. It is not
worth it. 

In my school, department, center, I saw that just
about anybody who got his or her PhD became "data
analyzer". It didn't need a PhD at all. A 4 year
engineering degree would've more than sufficed to get
such jobs. A couple of them taught college and were
always in need of money. Something was wrong. 
--
    "Wall Banger: A kiky headbanging rock&roller
     with/or without drugs."
	 
	              - Simon Beik 

 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582369

On 6/2/2016 12:22 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:38:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> As for PhDs, I know a few who are working outside the realm of their
>> doctoral work. From what I understand, PhDs are often recognized for
>> being self-driven, able to quickly come up to speed on subjects they
>> aren't familiar with, highly analytical problem-solvers, good at
>> collaboration and communication, and having a number of ancillary skills
>> that can be applied broadly -- all traits that are prized in the
>> marketplace.
>>
>
> Of course. Ideal entry level employees for tough jobs
> in large companies who aren't too greedy. The greedier
> ones opt for someone who's had similar jobs for years
> with nice record to show. But what about pay?
>
> In USA the pay, in almost all cases, is not
> proportional to the amount of time and effort the
> holder of a PhD has put in. I believe if someone is
> interested in spending 10 years of his best time of
> life in university then he must at least choose a
> subject that later would bring in a lot of money, like
> a medical field. Physics PhD in USA will get you a job
> making very modest amount of money doing someone
> else's projects and ideas, not your own. It is not
> worth it.
>
> In my school, department, center, I saw that just
> about anybody who got his or her PhD became "data
> analyzer". It didn't need a PhD at all. A 4 year
> engineering degree would've more than sufficed to get
> such jobs. A couple of them taught college and were
> always in need of money. Something was wrong.
> --
>     "Wall Banger: A kiky headbanging rock&roller
>      with/or without drugs."
> 	
> 	              - Simon Beik


I'm not sure what department you come from that so many PhDs ended up in 
jobs below their training level. This to me smacks of either a field of 
study or a university that has no capacity gating sensibilities, where 
they take on as many grad students (cheap labor) as want to come and 
then leave them to the wolves of a saturated labor market.

To be sure, I know that there are many departments (like history or 
classical studies or theology or philosophy) where PhDs really can only 
go into academia and the number of jobs are abysmally (and rightfully) low.

But I do not agree that salaries should be based on effort and time 
needed to get the qualification or degree. Salary should be based on the 
value that person brings to the organization, and how much effort they 
spent in coming to that point is irrelevant. People who go to school for 
a long time to get a degree in physics do it because all they want to do 
for a living is physics, and getting the degree is a requirement of 
doing that for a living -- period. If you want to be a master 
electrician, you're going to spend a lot of time getting there through 
the apprenticeship organization, just about as much time as a PhD in 
mathematics will invest: four years as an apprentice, at least four 
years as a journeyman. Last I looked, average apprentice salary was 
about $43k, with a journeyman making about the same, and master 
electricians making about $60k.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582499

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:34:46 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:


> 
> I'm not sure what department you come from that so many PhDs ended up in 
> jobs below their training level. This to me smacks of either a field of 
> study or a university that has no capacity gating sensibilities, where 
> they take on as many grad students (cheap labor) as want to come and 
> then leave them to the wolves of a saturated labor market.
> 

That was one of the issues, but only one among a few
other. 

> [...] People who go to school for 
> a long time to get a degree in physics do it because all they want to do 
> for a living is physics, and getting the degree is a requirement of 
> doing that for a living -- period. 

This has to change. University set up the way it is
should be overhauled. 

> If you want to be a master 
> electrician, you're going to spend a lot of time getting there through 
> the apprenticeship organization, just about as much time as a PhD in 
> mathematics will invest: four years as an apprentice, at least four 
> years as a journeyman. 

I knew someone who got his electrician's certificate
in one year, and the next year was making $26/hr.
Again, a company would find him assignments and would
take some of his money in return for the service but
he was still left with $26/hr pay. On days that no
work could be found, that company automatically paid
him unemployment money which was less than $26 but
more than the money I was making at that time! He just
stayed in his room playing some computer game all day,
making more money than I was making with a physics
degree in my pocket. 

I don't know where you've got your electricians'
information from but what I just told you I saw with
my own eyes. 

> Last I looked, average apprentice salary was 
> about $43k, with a journeyman making about the same, and master 
> electricians making about $60k.
> 

$43k is about right if you count in days that he was
only being paid unemployment check. And for this he
had only invested one year of his life (and money). 
--
     "ebAdat bejoz khedmate khalgh nist
      be tasbiho sajjAdeho dalgh nist"

                        - Sa'di

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582533

On 6/2/2016 10:52 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:34:46 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm not sure what department you come from that so many PhDs ended up in
>> jobs below their training level. This to me smacks of either a field of
>> study or a university that has no capacity gating sensibilities, where
>> they take on as many grad students (cheap labor) as want to come and
>> then leave them to the wolves of a saturated labor market.
>>
>
> That was one of the issues, but only one among a few
> other.
>
>> [...] People who go to school for
>> a long time to get a degree in physics do it because all they want to do
>> for a living is physics, and getting the degree is a requirement of
>> doing that for a living -- period.
>
> This has to change. University set up the way it is
> should be overhauled.

I don't think that's a university set-up matter. That's true of ANY 
profession. If you want to become a commercial airline pilot, then you 
do a number of steps required of you to certify you to do that for a 
living, and you'll note that there is no university degree in airline 
piloting. If you want to become a symphony orchestra musician, then 
there are also a number of steps you have to do for that to become a 
vocation and they aren't contingent on a university degree. Same for 
being a certified diesel mechanic, a plumber, an architect, a court 
judge, a US Senator, or an elementary school teacher. In NONE of those 
cases are you recruited with a fat paycheck to support your interest in 
the field. Instead, they are filters that come with a significant load 
of effort and hardship so that only the most talented and committed will 
get to mastery level. I really don't see a problem with it.

>
>> If you want to be a master
>> electrician, you're going to spend a lot of time getting there through
>> the apprenticeship organization, just about as much time as a PhD in
>> mathematics will invest: four years as an apprentice, at least four
>> years as a journeyman.
>
> I knew someone who got his electrician's certificate
> in one year, and the next year was making $26/hr.
> Again, a company would find him assignments and would
> take some of his money in return for the service but
> he was still left with $26/hr pay. On days that no
> work could be found, that company automatically paid
> him unemployment money which was less than $26 but
> more than the money I was making at that time! He just
> stayed in his room playing some computer game all day,
> making more money than I was making with a physics
> degree in my pocket.
>
> I don't know where you've got your electricians'
> information from but what I just told you I saw with
> my own eyes.

I got it from documentation from electrical worker unions.

I sense a little bit of sour grapes, where you were hoping for more bang 
for your investment in your university education, and that hasn't panned 
out. So maybe there's more to it than just the degree, eh?

>
>> Last I looked, average apprentice salary was
>> about $43k, with a journeyman making about the same, and master
>> electricians making about $60k.
>>
>
> $43k is about right if you count in days that he was
> only being paid unemployment check. And for this he
> had only invested one year of his life (and money).
> --
>      "ebAdat bejoz khedmate khalgh nist
>       be tasbiho sajjAdeho dalgh nist"
>
>                         - Sa'di
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582632

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:11:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:


>>
>> This has to change. University set up the way it is
>> should be overhauled.
> 
> I don't think that's a university set-up matter. That's true of ANY 
> profession. 

The set up for any profession should change (and is
changing gradually already). I talked about it in
other threads. If you want me to repeat, pay for it
first.

> 
> [...] I really don't see a problem with it.
> 

Well, I do. I'm certain we could do better than this
set up and some enterprises already are doing better
than this. I talked about it before, so..


> 
> I got it from documentation from electrical worker unions.
> 

Where I live we don't have worker unions. Perhaps
things are different over there. But the guy I was
talking about was originally from Chicago and got his
certificate there, where I think they have workers
union. 

> I sense a little bit of sour grapes, where you were hoping for more bang 
> for your investment in your university education, and that hasn't panned 
> out. So maybe there's more to it than just the degree, eh?
> 

Nothing worse than rare instants of thought and
reflections about it, BodBod. I don't really fret it
cause everything I did was my own decision. Nobody
forced me into doing anything. 

The matter here is not how my personal life turned out
to be. The matter here is the same shit me and you
encountered before. I'm not your type. That's the
issue here. Here, I repeat it here for the last time
free of charge: I'm a scientist, you're a scholar. 

A scientist can see beyond his own issues the overall
existing problems, and a scholar "doesn't see a
problem with it." A scholar seems to be an "as is"
guy. Happy with whatever it is in front of him. If he
was born in 1910 Germany he'd be a happy Nazi in
1930s. If he was born in 1950's Iran, he'd be a happy
family man living in Tehran right now. Happy with what
is available for him. I'm not that kind! I left a
country for what I saw and pondered upon. Have you?
We're different, BodBod! 
-- 
     "ne'mat az donyA khorad Aghel na gham"

                        - Mowlana

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582641

On 6/3/2016 12:07 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:11:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> This has to change. University set up the way it is
>>> should be overhauled.
>>
>> I don't think that's a university set-up matter. That's true of ANY
>> profession.
>
> The set up for any profession should change (and is
> changing gradually already). I talked about it in
> other threads. If you want me to repeat, pay for it
> first.

Well, at least we've gotten to the point where it's clear it's not a 
university issue.

>
>>
>> [...] I really don't see a problem with it.
>>
>
> Well, I do. I'm certain we could do better than this
> set up and some enterprises already are doing better
> than this. I talked about it before, so..

Yes, you've talked about it. I gather you think the untrained should be 
hired by companies who will then pay the untrained to become trained. 
You also believe that anyone who spends more than 6 years in college 
education should earn enough to buy a house with cash, just because 
they've paid their dues with those 6 or more years.

Of course, why companies would pay to train the untrained when they can 
just canvas the market for those already trained and hire them, remains 
an open question.

>
>
>>
>> I got it from documentation from electrical worker unions.
>>
>
> Where I live we don't have worker unions. Perhaps
> things are different over there. But the guy I was
> talking about was originally from Chicago and got his
> certificate there, where I think they have workers
> union.

OK, so you have a personal one-off case. My stats come from averages 
over large numbers of electricians.

>
>> I sense a little bit of sour grapes, where you were hoping for more bang
>> for your investment in your university education, and that hasn't panned
>> out. So maybe there's more to it than just the degree, eh?
>>
>
> Nothing worse than rare instants of thought and
> reflections about it, BodBod. I don't really fret it
> cause everything I did was my own decision. Nobody
> forced me into doing anything.
>
> The matter here is not how my personal life turned out
> to be. The matter here is the same shit me and you
> encountered before. I'm not your type. That's the
> issue here. Here, I repeat it here for the last time
> free of charge: I'm a scientist, you're a scholar.

For YOUR definition of "scientist" and "scholar". Which, as we've 
already talked about, I don't agree with. So your assessment of our 
differences is also dubious, according to what I've read.

>
> A scientist can see beyond his own issues the overall
> existing problems, and a scholar "doesn't see a
> problem with it."

Uh-huh. Riiiiight.

> A scholar seems to be an "as is"
> guy. Happy with whatever it is in front of him. If he
> was born in 1910 Germany he'd be a happy Nazi in
> 1930s. If he was born in 1950's Iran, he'd be a happy
> family man living in Tehran right now. Happy with what
> is available for him. I'm not that kind! I left a
> country for what I saw and pondered upon. Have you?
> We're different, BodBod!
>

And so, just to be clear, you believe that anyone looking for change is 
a scientist, and anyone who doesn't perceive a problem where others 
might is NOT a scientist. Got it. Thanks for your your elucidation of 
your opinion.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582652

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:20:02 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 6/3/2016 12:07 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:11:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> This has to change. University set up the way it is
>>>> should be overhauled.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's a university set-up matter. That's true of ANY
>>> profession.
>>
>> The set up for any profession should change (and is
>> changing gradually already). I talked about it in
>> other threads. If you want me to repeat, pay for it
>> first.
> 
> Well, at least we've gotten to the point where it's clear it's not a 
> university issue.
> 

!.. Hehe :) Sure if you insist not to look. 


>>
>>>
>>> [...] I really don't see a problem with it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I do. I'm certain we could do better than this
>> set up and some enterprises already are doing better
>> than this. I talked about it before, so..
> 
> Yes, you've talked about it. I gather you think the untrained should be 
> hired by companies who will then pay the untrained to become trained. 
> You also believe that anyone who spends more than 6 years in college 
> education should earn enough to buy a house with cash, just because 
> they've paid their dues with those 6 or more years.
> 
> Of course, why companies would pay to train the untrained when they can 
> just canvas the market for those already trained and hire them, remains 
> an open question.
> 

In the set up I pointed at there aren't any of "those
already trained" available to hire. They're all
employed. They were employed before even becoming
highly trained. Read carefully, don't get confused by
this: Great fighter jets to be had are sometimes found
in junk yards _only_ in the present system. But,
although actual fighter jets are made and used
profitably by businesses already following what I
pointed to, "already trained" individuals like
university graduates are plenty scattered around in
junk yards. Do you understand this? I've begun to
doubt it. 

> 
> OK, so you have a personal one-off case. My stats come from averages 
> over large numbers of electricians.
> 

I took a look and I didn't believe your stats. 


>>
>>> I sense a little bit of sour grapes, where you were hoping for more bang
>>> for your investment in your university education, and that hasn't panned
>>> out. So maybe there's more to it than just the degree, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing worse than rare instants of thought and
>> reflections about it, BodBod. I don't really fret it
>> cause everything I did was my own decision. Nobody
>> forced me into doing anything.
>>
>> The matter here is not how my personal life turned out
>> to be. The matter here is the same shit me and you
>> encountered before. I'm not your type. That's the
>> issue here. Here, I repeat it here for the last time
>> free of charge: I'm a scientist, you're a scholar.
> 
> For YOUR definition of "scientist" and "scholar". Which, as we've 
> already talked about, I don't agree with. So your assessment of our 
> differences is also dubious, according to what I've read.
> 
>>
>> A scientist can see beyond his own issues the overall
>> existing problems, and a scholar "doesn't see a
>> problem with it."
> 
> Uh-huh. Riiiiight.
> 
>> A scholar seems to be an "as is"
>> guy. Happy with whatever it is in front of him. If he
>> was born in 1910 Germany he'd be a happy Nazi in
>> 1930s. If he was born in 1950's Iran, he'd be a happy
>> family man living in Tehran right now. Happy with what
>> is available for him. I'm not that kind! I left a
>> country for what I saw and pondered upon. Have you?
>> We're different, BodBod!
>>
> 
> And so, just to be clear, you believe that anyone looking for change is 
> a scientist, and anyone who doesn't perceive a problem where others 
> might is NOT a scientist. Got it. Thanks for your your elucidation of 
> your opinion.
> 

That's not "being clear" :) It's being a scholar...

--
     "vAnche khod dAsht ze bigAne tamannA mikard"

                        - Hafez

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582657

On 6/3/2016 1:04 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> In the set up I pointed at there aren't any of "those
> already trained" available to hire. They're all
> employed. They were employed before even becoming
> highly trained. Read carefully, don't get confused by
> this: Great fighter jets to be had are sometimes found
> in junk yards _only_ in the present system. But,
> although actual fighter jets are made and used
> profitably by businesses already following what I
> pointed to, "already trained" individuals like
> university graduates are plenty scattered around in
> junk yards. Do you understand this? I've begun to
> doubt it.

So in one breath you say that "those already trained" are all employed. 
Then you say that "already trained" individuals are scattered around 
junk yards. Sounds like there's plenty available for companies to hire 
and train if they need them. Hell, there must be THOUSANDS of already 
trained physicists bagging groceries that companies needing physicists 
can easily pluck up and use to good advantage. So why don't they, do you 
suppose? Why do you suppose those who are already-trained physicists are 
bagging groceries or doing technician jobs below their training, rather 
than doing good company work commensurate with their skills and being 
paid handsomely for it? Hmmm? Might there be a glut of the "already 
trained" so that those who are only average aren't attractive to those 
companies?

You're right, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582694

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:20:07 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> And so, just to be clear, you believe that anyone looking for change is 
> a scientist, and anyone who doesn't perceive a problem where others 
> might is NOT a scientist. Got it. Thanks for your your elucidation of 
> your opinion.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Real scientists are extremely rare.  Most people that call themselves scientists are actually just science scholars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582691

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:07:40 AM UTC-7, ClutterFreak wrote:

> A scientist can see beyond his own issues the overall
> existing problems, and a scholar "doesn't see a
> problem with it." A scholar seems to be an "as is"
> guy. Happy with whatever it is in front of him. 

Write.  And most of academia is dominated by scholars, some of which wear the title of scientist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582740

On 6/3/2016 7:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/2/2016 10:52 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:34:46 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> This has to change. University set up the way it is
>> should be overhauled.

> I don't think that's a university set-up matter. That's true of ANY
> profession. If you want to become a commercial airline pilot, then you
> do a number of steps required of you to certify you to do that for a
> living, and you'll note that there is no university degree in airline
> piloting. If you want to become a symphony orchestra musician, then
> there are also a number of steps you have to do for that to become a
> vocation and they aren't contingent on a university degree. Same for
> being a certified diesel mechanic, a plumber, an architect, a court
> judge, a US Senator, or an elementary school teacher. In NONE of those
> cases are you recruited with a fat paycheck to support your interest in
> the field. Instead, they are filters that come with a significant load
> of effort and hardship so that only the most talented and committed will
> get to mastery level. I really don't see a problem with it.
>

agree with your "filters" idea.
  and even if you pass them, and become a master,

you can still get derailed by life events
or that project you worked on so hard gets stopped
or that company you worked for 5 years goes belly up
or that woman you married goes nuts
or your boss aggravates upper management
or you get Lasic surgery and they screw your eye up and you have no 
depth perception
or ......

point is it takes a lot of "luck" besides doing all the right things

     but everyone knows that

the universities I went to are excellent, and are still excellent, no 
overhaul needed in the science and engeneering.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582686

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:38:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/2/2016 12:07 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> >> So was your physics education useful for your job?
> >> >
> > Indirectly yes of course. It made me a detail oriented
> > person and made any job I had easier and quality of my
> > work higher. But I stayed very humble about it no
> > matter where I was and what I did. I could do that
> > because I did not have a PhD, so nobody gave a damn
> > about my physics background :-)
> 
> And my education was similarly useful for my vocation.
> 
> As for PhDs, I know a few who are working outside the realm of their 
> doctoral work. From what I understand, PhDs are often recognized for 
> being self-driven, able to quickly come up to speed on subjects they 
> aren't familiar with, highly analytical problem-solvers, good at 
> collaboration and communication, and having a number of ancillary skills 
> that can be applied broadly -- all traits that are prized in the 
> marketplace.
> 
Maybe that's true, but my experience of PhD's is different.
(Maybe because the PhD's I worked with are working in their field.)

I have found them:
* unwilling to do "grunt" work, basically to get dirty.
* unwilling to listen to suggestions from those with less education
* and then presenting those suggestions later as their own
* when they disagree but have no useful argument, will tend
     to reply with "you don't understand"
* focusing on high tech solutions to side problems
     (e.g. building automated test systems) without
     moving toward the goal (building a widget that works).

I have met exceptions like the ones you describe (PhD's outside
their primary field) and they are more humble.

I have a BS Physics and Master Computer Engineering and my career
has been primarily Software Engineering in a variety of environments.

I have found the Physics training has proved very useful over
the years.

Last thought:
in general I have a higher opinion of PhD's than I do of MBAs

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582742

On 6/3/2016 2:11 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:38:27 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/2/2016 12:07 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>>> So was your physics education useful for your job?
>>>>>
>>> Indirectly yes of course. It made me a detail oriented
>>> person and made any job I had easier and quality of my
>>> work higher. But I stayed very humble about it no
>>> matter where I was and what I did. I could do that
>>> because I did not have a PhD, so nobody gave a damn
>>> about my physics background :-)

>> And my education was similarly useful for my vocation.
>>
>> As for PhDs, I know a few who are working outside the realm of their
>> doctoral work. From what I understand, PhDs are often recognized for
>> being self-driven, able to quickly come up to speed on subjects they
>> aren't familiar with, highly analytical problem-solvers, good at
>> collaboration and communication, and having a number of ancillary skills
>> that can be applied broadly -- all traits that are prized in the
>> marketplace.

> Maybe that's true, but my experience of PhD's is different.
> (Maybe because the PhD's I worked with are working in their field.)
>
> I have found them:
> * unwilling to do "grunt" work, basically to get dirty.
> * unwilling to listen to suggestions from those with less education
> * and then presenting those suggestions later as their own
> * when they disagree but have no useful argument, will tend
>      to reply with "you don't understand"
> * focusing on high tech solutions to side problems
>      (e.g. building automated test systems) without
>      moving toward the goal (building a widget that works).

agree with most of that, and I think that 1/2 of all the PhDs in Physics 
are crazy/nuts/lala  and the other 1/2 are brillient

I also worked for 2 startups started up by PhDs (they were brillient, 
focused, had great customer skills, and well connected. PhD in EE, and 
Software.   Both companies tanked after about 5 years, mostly due to 
changing market - external causes.

>
> I have met exceptions like the ones you describe (PhD's outside
> their primary field) and they are more humble.
>
> I have a BS Physics and Master Computer Engineering and my career
> has been primarily Software Engineering in a variety of environments.
>
> I have found the Physics training has proved very useful over
> the years.
>
> Last thought:
> in general I have a higher opinion of PhD's than I do of MBAs
>

agree with that, but MBAs tend to bring in more money/contracts, and the 
business degrees are very lousy at math, even their textbooks.
I have great respect for the PhDs that started the companies, they could 
do the very hard math too, Markov Chain etc...

but it is hard to generalize

checkout "Efficient Frontier" to see the *major sand* under the 
foundation of Wall Street.


> ed
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580808

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:17:06 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le lundi 4 avril 2016 06:05:02 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
> 
> > Let's say, for purposes of argument, that I am wrong.  
> > Where did I go 
> > wrong?  I can think of only one thing, that I had 
> > miscalculated the effect 
> > of air molecules on water clusters/droplets.  Do air 
> > molecules in the atmosphere--in contrast to what I am 
> > assuming--possess some ability to 
> > break up water clusters/droplets and force them to 
> > remain gaseous at ambient temps?  
> 
> You are looking in the wrong place. The ability is actually provided by the kinetic energy of the water molecules themselves. You might want to look up Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful.
> 
> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html

If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?

> As I indicated earlier, temperature is a measure of the AVERAGE kinetic energy in a system. Actual individual molecular kinetic energy levels vary considerably. Evaporation occurs when surface molecules exceed phase transition energy levels, . . . 

I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.

> . . . breaking the intermolecular bonds of a liquid. This energy can be provided from two sources: adding energy to the system (such as absorbed solar energy), or from the bulk of the liquid mass itself. This process occurs at virtually all temperatures, but more monomolecules are released as the temperature of the system increases.

You know this how?

> This is limited by the pressure of equilibrium (or saturation) between the gas and the liquid.

BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.

> Boiling is essentially a special case of evaporation. Notably, the difference is that transition is no longer limited to boundary molecules, but can occur anywhere within the liquid.

Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.

> I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.

I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
(Note: I was informed by Google that is is the most viewed post in the history of usenet.)

For hard copy:
https://zenodo.org/record/37224 

Assuming that electrostatic force from the air was responsible for liberating liquid mass: I certainly hope you do not deny that air is gaseous, and therefore operates as a collection of monomelocules...

Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?


> . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?

You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.

> A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds.

Right.  And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds.  Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse.  Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong.  Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak!  Read my paper (linked above) for details.

> Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules.

Nonsense.  Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation.  This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation).

> In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water.

Right.  This is explained by electrostatic forces.

> Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet?

I like the fact that you are asking the right questions.  But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms.  If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common.

> Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength?

I don't need to pretend.  I'm the one that figured it out.

My paper correctly explains surface tension.  My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface.  And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580994

Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful.
> > 
> > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html
> 
> If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?

Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly. It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes.


> 
> I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.
> 

You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing.


> 
> You know this how?
> 
By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. 


> 
> BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.
> 


No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented.


> 
> Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.

No. Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape.
Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids.


> 
> > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.
> 
> I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
> BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

I will read this.  


> 
> Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?

The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values.
> 
> 
> > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?
> 
> You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.

Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work?



> 
> > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds.
> 
> Right.  And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds.  Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse.  Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong.  Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak!  Read my paper (linked above) for details.

More or less correct, except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules

In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid.



> 
> > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules.
> 
> Nonsense.  Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation.  This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation).
> 
> > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water.
> 
> Right.  This is explained by electrostatic forces.

Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract.


> 
> > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet?
> 
> I like the fact that you are asking the right questions.  But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms.  If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common.
> 
> > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength?
> 
> I don't need to pretend.  I'm the one that figured it out.
> 
> My paper correctly explains surface tension.  My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface.  And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices.

We shall see if it does or not.
One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)?
Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581020

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 01:17:09 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
> ribution (in liquids). The site below might also be helpful.
> > > 
> > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html
> > 
> > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?
> 
> Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly.

Consider what?  You presented nothing.

 It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes.

I think you are FOS.

> 
> 
> > 
> > I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.
> > 
> 
> You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing.

You aren't scientific.  This isn't a political debate.

> 
> 
> > 
> > You know this how?
> > 
> By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. 


You got nothing.
> 
> 
> > 
> > BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.
> > 
> 
> 
> No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented.




> 
> 
> > 
> > Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.
> 
> No. 

You are a clueless idiot.


Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape.
> Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.
> > 
> > I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
> > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> 
> I will read this.  

You will need more than just that.  

> 
> 
> > 
> > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?
> 
> The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values.

Pure BS.


> > 
> > 
> > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?
> > 
> > You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.
> 
> Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work?

You don't have an argument.

> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > A single molecule has a maximum of 2 h-bonds.
> > 
> > Right.  And what trips everybody up is that bonds neutralize the polarity that is the force that underlies the bonds.  Thus the relationship between bond completion and bond strength is inverse.  Single bonds (ie surface tension) are strong.  Dual bonds (ie. liquid water) are weak!  Read my paper (linked above) for details.
> 
> More or less correct, except that both the surface AND the interior have dual bonds. The difference is that the surface molecules do not have exterior molecules to bind to, so the second bond goes to reinforcing the connection with other surface molecules
> 
> In any case, even if your explanation of strong single bonds were correct, these surface tension bonds create a veritable wall. You can not extract interior water without breaking through the surface tension. No matter what, you have to break the strong surface tension bonds, no matter their nature, in order to liberate any water, monomolecular gas or multimoleculer liquid.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > Any such droplet would have to overcome at least the number of h-bonds equal to the number of surface molecules.
> > 
> > Nonsense.  Since H bonds neutralize polarity only if and when H2O molecules are clustered is polarity neutralized enough to achieve evaporation.  This explains the dichotomy between the high boiling point of H2O and the low temperatures of evaporation (including sublimation).
> > 
> > > In addition, each molecule of air will have to carry the multiple of mass of the total number of water molecules, as opposed to the mass of a single molecule of gaseous water.
> > 
> > Right.  This is explained by electrostatic forces.
> 
> Except that it isn't. If the polarity of the water were neutralised by being clusterd, as you say, then there would be no charge for electrostatic force of atmospherice gases to attract.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > Let's say that the air molecules manage to work together, sharing the energy cost of the task. How is it NOT easier for a given number of air molecules to liberate a single molecule of water than it is to liberate a droplet?
> > 
> > I like the fact that you are asking the right questions.  But the answer is very complex and requires an in-depth understanding of chemistry and even the nature of the electron cloud that surrounds the nucleus of atoms.  If you want to understand this--and it appears you do--then you will have to work very hard at it. My paper explains it, but it assumes a certain amount of understanding that isn't common.
> > 
> > > Do you pretend that surface tension is NOT influenced by the h-bond strength?
> > 
> > I don't need to pretend.  I'm the one that figured it out.
> > 
> > My paper correctly explains surface tension.  My paper explains why surface tension happens on the surface.  And it explain why if you maximize surface area you maximize surface tension, which is what happens in non-Newtonian fluids and atmospheric vortices.
> 
> We shall see if it does or not.
> One final question, however: you discuss this as a special case that only applies to water. However, the classical model applies to ALL liquids. The explanations for boiling and evaporation, transitions from liquid to gas, are explained for all liquids, whether elemental or molecular. How is it that water is immune to these, while still exhibiting virtually the same behaviours? How do you reconcile your special case for water with the rest of the classical model, which is applicable to real world situations? How does our model provide applicable utility (what is the practical use for your model in the real world)?
> Okay, more than one question. I should have said'one last SET of questions'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582104

Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :

> > > > 
> > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html
> > > 
> > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?
> > 
> > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly.
> 
> Consider what?  You presented nothing.

Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for.


> 
>  It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes.
> 
> I think you are FOS.

Your opinion does not matter.


> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.
> > > 
> > 
> > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing.
> 
> You aren't scientific.  This isn't a political debate.

No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy.


> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > You know this how?
> > > 
> > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. 
> 
> 
> You got nothing.

Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully.


> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.
> > 
> > No. 
> 
> You are a clueless idiot.


Pot and ceramic kettle.

> 
> 
> Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape.
> > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.
> > > 
> > > I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
> > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > 
> > I will read this.  
> 
> You will need more than just that.  

you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper.


> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?
> > 
> > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values.
> 
> Pure BS.

This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. 


> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?
> > > 
> > > You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.
> > 
> > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work?
> 
> You don't have an argument.

Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend.


> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582190

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:13:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html
> > > > 
> > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?
> > > 
> > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly.
> > 
> > Consider what?  You presented nothing.
> 
> Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for.

Anything inparticular?

> 
> 
> > 
> >  It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes.
> > 
> > I think you are FOS.
> 
> Your opinion does not matter.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing.
> > 
> > You aren't scientific.  This isn't a political debate.
> 
> No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy.

Flat earther's believe the flatness of the earth is, "well established."


> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You know this how?
> > > > 
> > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. 
> > 
> > 
> > You got nothing.
> 
> Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully.
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.
> > > 
> > > No. 
> > 
> > You are a clueless idiot.
> 
> 
> Pot and ceramic kettle.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape.
> > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.
> > > > 
> > > > I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
> > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > > 
> > > I will read this.  
> > 
> > You will need more than just that.  
> 
> you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?
> > > 
> > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values.
> > 
> > Pure BS.
> 
> This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. 

Your explanation is nonsense (especially for H2O which has such high heat conductivity).

> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?
> > > > 
> > > > You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.
> > > 
> > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work?
> > 
> > You don't have an argument.
> 
> Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend.
> 
> 
> >

Apparently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582833

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:45:51 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 2:13:21 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> > Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 20:14:52 UTC+2, James McGinn a écrit :
> > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/VaporPressure.html
> > > > > > http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/KMT-Gas-Laws.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > If it didn't help you what makes you think it will help me?
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, I don't think it will help you, because you will not consider it openly.
> > > 
> > > Consider what?  You presented nothing.
> > 
> > Consider the presentations provided by the site I provided the links for.
> 
> Anything inparticular?
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  It helped me to better understand the internal mechanism for evaporation... reminded me of things I had forgotten from my old physics classes.
> > > 
> > > I think you are FOS.
> > 
> > Your opinion does not matter.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think you are clueless.  I think you are just pretending to understand what you do not actually understand.  You are a believer, not a scientists, not a thinker.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You can think what you like. Your thoughts do not effect the truth. I AM a scientist, just not a physicist or chemist. As far as being a believer, perhaps, but I do not believe blindly. I review the arguemtns, the presented evidence, and I choose the arguemnt that is most convincing.
> > > 
> > > You aren't scientific.  This isn't a political debate.
> > 
> > No. It really isn't. Granted, there are politicians who attempt to obscure things for political reasons, but the science is well established. As far as water evaporation is concerned, there isn't even a political controversy.
> 
> Flat earther's believe the flatness of the earth is, "well established."
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You know this how?
> > > > > 
> > > > By researching the literature on the subject. By reading the research papers. By reviewing the various reported experiments. I do not have the means to conduct all the experiments on my own, so I am forced to rely on the published works presented by those who HAVE performed the experiments. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You got nothing.
> > 
> > Nothing that will sway your obtuse mind. Plenty that informed me more fully.

LOL. You got nothing but hearsay and useless nonsense.

Believers believe.  Believers use anecdote.  Scientist argue the reproducible evidence.  You got nothing.


> > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > BS.  You are pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > No, I am not. I have never made a claim to be an authority. My only claim is that I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific principles when I read them. In other words, I understand the concepts as they are presented.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Wrong.  Boiling and evaporation are categorically distinct processes, as I've explained.
> > > > 
> > > > No. 
> > > 
> > > You are a clueless idiot.
> > 
> > 
> > Pot and ceramic kettle.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Both are the result of molecules of a liquid attaining sufficient energy to break their intermoleculer bonds. The difference is that boiling does this on a large scale, allowing even interior water to become gaseous, rise, and break through the surface tension. Whereas evaporation only allows individual surface molecules to escape.
> > > > Incidentally, for water, you assign this as a special case that only aplies to water. In reality, the facts of boiling and evaporation apply to ALL liquids.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I find it rather curious that you believe a collective aggregate of water could be liberated more easily from a source than individual molecules.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was curious about this too.  That lead to me doing an investigation and the writing of this breakthrough paper:
> > > > > BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
> > > > 
> > > > I will read this.  
> > > 
> > > You will need more than just that.  
> > 
> > you are right. This paper does not provide the explanations I asked for. For that matter, it would not qualify as a scientific paper.

It's regrettable that you failed to dispute it.  Hmm.  I wonder why?  Hmm.


> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you deny that the boiling point of H2O is 212 F?  Do you deny that no part of the atmosphere is hotter than, maybe, 132 F?  So, do you deny any of this?
> > > > 
> > > > The boiling point is 212F at sea level, yes. It is quite a bit lower at altitude. No, I do not deny that the temperatur of the atmosphere is well below the boiling point of water. However, once again, temperature is defined as the AVERAGE kinetic energy within a system. The actual molecules themselves follow a very wide distribution of kinetic energy values.
> > > 
> > > Pure BS.
> > 
> > This has been long established in both chemistry and physics. The distribution has been demonstrated consistently through a wide sample of gases and liquids, including H2O. 
> 
> Your explanation is nonsense (especially for H2O which has such high heat conductivity).
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > . . . so how will a molecule of air be able to provide the energy to overcome the high surface tension of an aggregate (droplet) of liquid water if it can't overcome the force to liberate a single molecule?
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are not making sense here.  Read the paper I linked to above.  Unless and until you can first understand the molecular peculiarities of H2O you will be resigned to continue to pretend what you actually don't yet understand.  Pretending will only get you so far.  This is why meteorologists refuse to discuss any of this with the public.  They know that further discussion will only reveal their greater cluelessness.
> > > > 
> > > > Meteorologists have submitted a wealth of papers on the subjects discussed, as have physicists and chemists. I have understood their explanations quite well, and have done my best to lay out their arguments as I understand them. I would have thought the question simple: how can you perform a multitude of work without being able to perform a single unit of work?
> > > 
> > > You don't have an argument.
> > 
> > Apparently none that you are willing or able to comprehend.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> 
> Apparently.

So, uh, ultimately you expect us/me to take your word on it that they supported what you choose to believe.  Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web