Backward, turn backward, O Time in your Flight

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 11, 12:15?am, "Jeff R." concluded:

You are the Walter Mitty of this NG, Reid, just without the humour and
the
sincerity.

--
Jeff R.

Does this mean you're not going to explain the Law of Conservation of
Mass and it's theoretical exceptions to him? ---- ;-)

(I'm not volunteering)


Just a sec'...

I'll go and read: a book; a Classics Illustrated comic; two Wiki posts; a
Google page; and an email from an eggspurt -THEN- I'll astound everyone with
my newly-acquired and perfectly-understood mastery of the subject.

(but I am still wondering how one person can have a discussion)
There's a line I could use there, but my (still present) sense of decency
prevents me from doing so.

--
Jeff R.
(not *quite* tired of shooting fish in a barrel)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:37:50 -0700, Phil DeMayo
wrote:

You can extract hydrogen from water but you are not creating or making
the hydrogen, it's always been there.

You're creating elemental hydrogen, separating it out. But point well
taken about how the hydrogen element, the proton and electron, has
always been there.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:15:49 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Yes, you're right, Reid.
Pointing out your inconsistencies, inadequacies and inaccuracies probably is
"disruptive" and I shall attempt to cease shortly.

You've done no such thing. In this thread you left several dim-witted
attempts at ridicule, implying I didn't like a book because it wasn't
a picture book, then lamely tried to deny you did this, and referring
to a Goldsborough bingo. That's very clever. You don't even approach
the repartee of somebody like Anka, who like you hasn't offered
anything of substance to this discussion but at least comes close to
being clever.

And then you dredge up the idiocy of that whizzing debate. As I recall
you conducted some dim-witted amateurish experiment and then argued,
argued, argued. Again: People who create the kinds of whizzed coins
that fool people aren't like you. They're skilled and knowledgeable.
They don't just whiz one coin. The deceptions they create have the
same weight as authentic coins. This is one PROOF that the metal is
displaced, not removed. The other PROOF is the way that such deception
is detected. It's not by weight. Under magnification you can *see*
that metal has been pushed around, that metal from the fields has been
pushed up against the legends and the devices.

Is some miniscule amount of metal lost, measured in the tens of
thousandths of a gram? No doubt. But that's not what you were arguing
with your amateurish experiment. The bottom line remains that
magnification, not weight, is the best way to detect expert whizzing,
again not the amateur whizzing you did.

If history repeats, you'll just argue this more. But I won't. Try
admitting you're wrong some time. It's not hard. It doesn't make you
foolish, like the arguing you do and the ridicule you attempt. Better
yet: Add something substantive to the discussion. Instead of trying to
destroy, try to create.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

One of the remaining quandaries: Many sources you read, and many of
the people I've talked to, believe that all of the heavy metals in the
Universe, including the gold, silver, and copper of coins, were in
fact created by supernovae. I thought this, from an earlier book I had
read, as well. Yet others believe differently, pointing to the
s-process, which is a much slower process than the r-process that
happens in supernova collapses but like the r-process also forms
metals heavier than iron through neutron capture. The quandary is, Do
people simply not know about the s-process (it was theorized from at
least 1957), or is it a theory that many people don't agree with? I
haven't yet found anything about any such controversy if one exists
but have only done a cursory search thus far.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Here's something else of substance that hasn't been discussed
regarding coins and origins, the subject of this thread. I've been
exploring where the metals that make up coins were originally created.
What about the first uses of gold, silver, and copper? I've previously
looked in detail at the first uses of gold and silver for coinage,
details of which can be found at the same Web page I pointed to
earlier in this thread. What about the first uses of gold and silver
for money and the first uses in general (ornamentation, etc.), uses
which go back further. I've looked only briefly at this before.
Anybody look at this closely?

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Jun 10, 11:15?pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:55:04 -0400, Reid Goldsborough

There's no helium in humans...


There was when I sounded like Donald Duck the other day. ;-)


~Anka

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

And then you dredge up the idiocy of that whizzing debate. As I recall
you conducted some dim-witted amateurish experiment and then argued,
argued, argued. Again: People who create the kinds of whizzed coins
that fool people aren't like you. They're skilled and knowledgeable.
They don't just whiz one coin. The deceptions they create have the
same weight as authentic coins. This is one PROOF that the metal is
displaced, not removed. The other PROOF is the way that such deception
is detected. It's not by weight. Under magnification you can *see*
that metal has been pushed around, that metal from the fields has been
pushed up against the legends and the devices.

For those who aren't sure, Reid is referring to a debate we had back in
April of '04. Much more info he
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html

Reid forgets that he graciously complimented me on the info presented on
that site at that time, but he appears to have become a little more
curmudgeonly since then. :-(

Fact is, Reid, you don't understand the mechanism(s) of plastic flow of
metal. I do. It's part of my profession, my professional training, my
career and 30+ years of practical experience.

The only possible plastic flow achieved by whizzing is accounted for he
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/gif/ridges-1.gif ,
which should be viewed in context, he
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html

Reid, I'm not about to go through your erroneous conclusions one-by-one
*AGAIN* (been there - done that). They are all covered in the site linked
above.

Just answer this one, simple (!) question:

================================================== ==========================
How is it possible to achieve the plastic flow of metal under the conditions
of (very) low pressure and (relatively) low temperature which are provided
by the mechanism of "whizzing"?
================================================== ==========================


I've already answered the above question.

I'll give you one hint so that you don't waste too much time stumbling down
that particular blind alley: Weight loss through abrasion is negligible, and
to all intents and purposes, immeasurable. Certainly within the usual
margin for error.

Your turn, Reid.

--
Jeff R.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:15:49 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Yes, you're right, Reid.
Pointing out your inconsistencies, inadequacies and inaccuracies probably
is
"disruptive" and I shall attempt to cease shortly.

You've done no such thing. In this thread you left several dim-witted
attempts at ridicule, implying I didn't like a book because it wasn't
a picture book, then lamely tried to deny you did this, and referring
to a Goldsborough bingo.

Oh the shame!
The ignominy!

I referred to a Goldsborough "bingo"!

g


Obviously my taunts strike home, Reid, since you expend so much space trying
to counter them.

It's a shame you still _don't_get_it_, you annoying little man.

--
Jeff R.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:40:09 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Obviously my taunts strike home, Reid, since you expend so much space trying
to counter them.

It's a shame you still _don't_get_it_, you annoying little man.

You're another of those who's always right, to whom others don't get
it, not you, who seek to tear down, not build up, who offer nothing of
substance to this discussion, who should simply not be engaged. Have
the last word here if you like here, and continue your harassment here
and elsewhere if you like. You won't hear from me again.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:17:13 -0700, Anka wrote:

There was when I sounded like Donald Duck the other day. ;-)

If it quacks like a duck...

I know you're intrigued with this subject matter, where the gold,
silver, copper, tin, and so on of our coins originated, ultimately.
Otherwise why else were you were the first to respond in this thread.
So here's where I'm at right now in exploring this. No charge for any
of this.

The main dilemma, again, is why so many sources, online and offline,
discuss the creation of metals heavier than iron by referring only to
supernova explosions, involving massive stars at the end of their
life, called the r-process (for rapid). The alternative, complementary
explanation involves mid-size stars such as the Sun at the end of
their life as they shed their mass non-explosively, called the
s-process (for slow). Both processes were postulated in a famous
paper, frequently cited in articles in science journals as well as
more popular publications, titled "Synthesis of the Elements in
Stars," published in the October 1957 Reviews of Modern Physics, and
written by Burbridge, Burbridge, Fowler, and Hoyle, a paper that won
one of its authors, William Fowler, a Nobel Prize.

A number of Web sites about the subject of element formation don't
mention the s-process. What's more, a program that aired the other
night on the National Geographic Channel titled "The Birth of the
Universe" referred only to supernovae in discussing the creation of
metals heavier than iron. A lot of ordinary, educated laypeople with
an interest in this subject also seem to know only about supernovae.

My (tentative) conclusions: Part of it is that a supernova is such a
gripping, fascinating phenomenon that knowledge of the less dramatic
s-process hasn't filtered down. So, there's ignorance out there.

But part of it may be that some of those close to this don't accept
that the s-process could have created these heavy elements to any
significant extent. I've found no debate thus far. But John Gribben,
an astrophysics from the University of Cambridge, in his 2000 book
Stardust: Supernovae and Life -- the Cosmic Connection, mentions
briefly the s-process, discussing only the r-process (supernovae) as
accounting for the bulk of heavy elements. He says that heavy elements
created by the s-process "would, in many cases, decay." Yet others
have written that half of all heavy metals in the Universe, heavier
than iron, were created by the s-process.

And here's yet another part: Some elements, such as gold, appear to
have been formed more by one process than the other. The 1995 book The
Alchemy of the Heavens by astronomer Ken Croswell, apparently,
mentions that most gold and silver have been formed by the r-process
(supernovae), while most lead and zirconium have been formed by the
s-process. This is according to a posting in an astronomy forum --
I'll try to get and read through this book in the library later today.
Also, at this Web page in Australia titled Astrophysics of Gold
(http://www.sparkie.net.au/Astronomy/.../Default.aspx),
the author says that about 95 percent of the gold in the Universe was
created through supernovae, though he doesn't cite his source for this
statistic. Email just went out to him about this.

One important consideration is that we're talking about computer
models here, theories, that are based only in part on observational
studies and laboratory work.

So, Anka, where did the gold in the coins in your collection
ultimately come from? If you don't do gold, what about the silver in
your silver coins? Hint: Think source. Paper is due tomorrow. It's OK
to use Web resources. Neatness counts regarding the evidence or logic
you present in the unlikely event that you present any. Deductions in
your grade will be made for sarcasm, abstruse allusions, snide
comments in foreign languages, and other attempts to duck the issue.

Others may present papers as well. Constructive corrections will be
responded to, as will clever or even semi-clever repartee. Dim-witted
attempts at ridicule, sophomoric name calling, vapid ill-informed
criticism, and other junk that too frequently appears in online
messaging will be ignored.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos