Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Vol 105, Issue 7 less expensive vendor for Interactive Physics

When considering the exchange rate our price for Interactive Physics is about 10% cheaper here in the US

Peter Rea



Arbor Scientific
PO Box 2750, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-2750
T 734 477-9370 ext 101     F 866 477-9373

http://www.arborsci.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of phys-l-request@phys-l.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:00 PM
To: phys-l@phys-l.org
Subject: Phys-l Digest, Vol 105, Issue 7

Send Phys-l mailing list submissions to
phys-l@phys-l.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@phys-l.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@phys-l.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. A domestic application of physics Was: Re: [tap-l] myth of
oil change every 3, 000 miles (Bernard Cleyet)
2. Interactive Physics (Bob Sciamanda)
3. Re: A domestic application of physics Was: Re: [tap-l] myth
of oil change every 3, 000 miles (Bennett)
4. refereeing (Carl Mungan)
5. Refereeing (William Maddox)
6. Re: refereeing (Richard Tarara)
7. Re: refereeing (John Denker)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:43:32 -0700
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
To: Forum Physics Educators <phys-l@phys-l.org>
Subject: [Phys-L] A domestic application of physics Was: Re: [tap-l]
myth of oil change every 3, 000 miles
Message-ID: <ED4537B4-680B-40F7-B103-98D36CA0BBCF@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252


On 2008, Jun 17, , at 07:29, Santos Ramirez <ramirez@physics.tamu.edu> wrote:

Read this in the yahoo news, concerning the myth of changing the oil
in a vehicle every 3,000 miles.

Idea for new experiment in the physics labs or something already being
done?

SR

*******************************************

Because of the many external conditions and parameters that have to be
taken into account, calculating the precise maximum service interval
using mathematical models alone is difficult. Now, Daimler AG has
developed a more direct and precise way to monitor oil quality
directly on board a vehicle.

Daimler uses a special sensor integrated into the oil circuit to
monitor engine oil directly. Oil doesn?t wear out, but rather dirt and
impurities cause oil to lose its ability to lubricate properly,
dictating the need for a change. Daimler uses the oil?s
?permittivity,? that is, the ability to polarize in response to the
electric field. If the engine oil is contaminated by water or soot
particles, it polarizes to a greater extent and its permittivity increases.

To evaluate the quality of the oil, permittivity is measured by
applying an AC potential between the interior and exterior pipes of an
oil-filled sensor to determine how well the oil transmits the applied electric field.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/586/the-30
00-mile-oil-change-myth/;_ylc=X3oDMTE0cnVqb3Q4BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2Zw
LXRvZGF5BHNsawMzMDAwLW9pbA--







------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:22:21 -0400
From: "Bob Sciamanda" <treborsci@verizon.net>
To: "PHYS-L" <phys-l@phys-l.org>
Subject: [Phys-L] Interactive Physics
Message-ID: <C36926955E1047E6AE05349F702A8118@Bob>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I just ran across a new (and less expensive) vendor for Interactive Physics, across the pond ==>

http://www.interactivephysics.co.uk/

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
treborsci@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/res12merh/



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:51:35 -0400
From: Bennett <bennett@oakland.edu>
To: Phys-L@phys-l.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] A domestic application of physics Was: Re:
[tap-l] myth of oil change every 3, 000 miles
Message-ID:
<CAD=JFuvemXJoDCrqSKSpMMGmmPgeTtjtCZk76tV4bw6O3LRpjw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

My first new car, a '58 Opal , the first change was at 1,000 M.

The Diesel jetta I bought in June, it will be at 10,000. with synthetic

On 9/9/13, Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com> wrote:

On 2008, Jun 17, , at 07:29, Santos Ramirez <ramirez@physics.tamu.edu>
wrote:

Read this in the yahoo news, concerning the myth of
changing the oil in a vehicle every 3,000 miles.

Idea for new experiment in the physics labs
or something already being done?

SR

*******************************************

Because of the many external conditions and parameters that have to be
taken into account, calculating the precise maximum service interval
using
mathematical models alone is difficult. Now, Daimler AG has developed a
more direct and precise way to monitor oil quality directly on board a
vehicle.

Daimler uses a special sensor integrated into the oil circuit to monitor
engine oil directly. Oil doesn?t wear out, but rather dirt and impurities
cause oil to lose its ability to lubricate properly, dictating the need
for a change. Daimler uses the oil?s ?permittivity,? that is, the ability
to polarize in response to the electric field. If the engine oil is
contaminated by water or soot particles, it polarizes to a greater extent
and its permittivity increases.

To evaluate the quality of the oil, permittivity is measured by applying
an AC potential between the interior and exterior pipes of an oil-filled
sensor to determine how well the oil transmits the applied electric
field.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/586/the-3000-mile-oil-change-myth/;_ylc=X3oDMTE0cnVqb3Q4BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawMzMDAwLW9pbA--





_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



--
Clarence Bennett
Oakland University
Dept. of Physics, (retired)
111 Hannah
Auburn Hills MI 48309
248 370 3418


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:27 -0400
From: Carl Mungan <mungan@usna.edu>
To: phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
Subject: [Phys-L] refereeing
Message-ID: <a0624080bce54bd9903be@10.50.17.215>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Suppose you worked in a large research group. Suppose a subset of
members of the group (not including you) wrote a paper. Suppose the
journal asked you to review the paper (with no mention in the request
acknowledging they want your opinion even though you're part of the
research group). Suppose it might not be casually obvious you're part
of the group because you have a different address. Suppose other
members of the group found out you were sent the paper to review
(because you foolishly let it slip out). What would you do? -Carl

(And yes, I'll keep my big mouth shut next time.)
--
Carl E Mungan, Assoc Prof of Physics 410-293-6680 (O) -3729 (F)
Naval Academy Stop 9c, 572C Holloway Rd, Annapolis MD 21402-1363
mailto:mungan@usna.edu http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:29:35 +0000
From: William Maddox <MADDOWI@auburn.edu>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: [Phys-L] Refereeing
Message-ID: <8734FA1D383DBE4E91410BE9E5E475848E08A356@exmb3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: WC Maddox
RECUSE: to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest
End Message



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:39:25 -0400
From: Richard Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] refereeing
Message-ID: <522F210D.9080009@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I would think you would cite 'conflict of interest' and not review the
paper.



On 9/10/2013 8:20 AM, Carl Mungan wrote:
Suppose you worked in a large research group. Suppose a subset of
members of the group (not including you) wrote a paper. Suppose the
journal asked you to review the paper (with no mention in the request
acknowledging they want your opinion even though you're part of the
research group). Suppose it might not be casually obvious you're part
of the group because you have a different address. Suppose other
members of the group found out you were sent the paper to review
(because you foolishly let it slip out). What would you do? -Carl

(And yes, I'll keep my big mouth shut next time.)

--
Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics Saint Mary's College
free Physics educational software at
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:48:30 -0700
From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] refereeing
Message-ID: <522F313E.6040807@av8n.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 09/10/2013 05:20 AM, Carl Mungan wrote:
Suppose you worked in a large research group. Suppose a subset of
members of the group (not including you) wrote a paper. Suppose the
journal asked you to review the paper (with no mention in the request
acknowledging they want your opinion even though you're part of the
research group). Suppose it might not be casually obvious you're part
of the group because you have a different address. Suppose other
members of the group found out you were sent the paper to review
(because you foolishly let it slip out). What would you do?

Short version: Tell the editor what's going on.
*) If you think you can still give a fair review, upholding
the best interests of the journal and its readers, say so.
*) If not, say so.
*) The editor might want to take you off the job anyway,
just to avoid the /appearance/ of conflict of interest.
It's an unusual case, involving two mistakes:
-- Sending the manuscript to the same institution is not
the usual practice; even an anonymous reviewer might be
tempted to give his buddies a boost.
-- The breakdown of anonymity amplifies the downside potential.

Either way, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Anonymity is overrated.
The objective is to get a fair review. Sometimes anonymity helps
maintain fairness, but that's only in cases where the referee needs
to be protected from browbeating. If the paper is accepted, or if
it is rejected for well-documented objective reasons, the issue does
not arise. I've done plenty of non-anonymous reviewing, and there
have only been a few half-hearted and one serious attempt at browbeating.
These had no effect on me.

The worst case is if the paper is correct, but so unclear and/or
unimportant that it is not suitable for publication. Clarity and
importance are judgment calls, partly subjective. Reasonable
persons could have different opinions.

Even so, the referee's opinion is the one that counts. Hans Bethe
said "Never argue with the referee. He's representing the readership
of the journal. If the referee is too %@#= stupid to understand the
paper, the readership will be too %@#= stupid also."

IMHO he overstated it a little bit, but only a little. So I would
expect the authors to /want/ you to review it. If there's something
wrong with it, wouldn't they rather find out before publication
than after????

In the product-development world, testing proceeds in stages:
a) "Alpha" testing is done in-house.
b) "Beta" testing exposes the product to a smallish number
of outsiders
c) Then there is mass deployment

The same thing goes for papers:
a) You get your friends to critique a draft.
b) Then you send it to the journal, and they arrange for a
couple of formal reviews.
c) Then there is mass publication.

I'd rather do an alpha-review than a beta-review any day. That's
because at the alpha stage you can make constructive suggestions.
Most journals insist that their reviewers not do that; they're
supposed to be evaluators, not collaborators.

You can blur the distinction by sending out lots of preprints. On
more than one occasion I've gotten feedback from somebody who was
obviously reviewing my paper for the journal, but to maintain the
pretense of anonymity he pretended he was asking about the preprint.

========

There have been times in my life when I spent a huge part of my
work-week talking to people who wanted to bounce ideas off me.
Sometimes half-baked ideas, sometimes highly polished manuscripts.

I remember one paper where I said it's all fine, except you need
to make a slight change in the title. You need to add the word
"Not", because the paper pretty much proves the opposite of what
you set out to prove. That provoked a lot of yelling and screaming
and throwing things, all day every day for two weeks, but finally
they realized that indeed the data was good and the analysis was
good and the unexpected result was actually /more/ interesting
than the expected result, so they changed a few words and everybody
was happy. They wound up winning some sort of "best in conference"
award.

=========

Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about it too much. Anybody with
any sense would /want/ you to review the thing. But let the
editor know. Let him make the call.


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 105, Issue 7
**************************************