On 11/11/2022 14:47, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 6:35:42 AM UTC+11, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 09/11/2022 10.21, David Brown wrote:
>>>> Here's something I've been working on for a retro future project with hard sci fi elements. It calls for a gigantic 300+ meter ship to accelerate to 250,000 miles for a trip to the outer solar system, which I arm waved to maybe +12,000 miles of acceleration per day. Here's the weird thing. Regular terrestrial cars can accelerate 0-60 in 10 seconds without even being considered that fast, which comes out at 1 mile per second. That means if all conventional limitations were removed (friction, cooling, controllability, fuel supply, etc), the car could accelerate to 86,400 mph in 24 hours. The monkey wrench is, 1 G of acceleration amounts to a change of only 35 kph or 21 miles per hour, and people aren't supposed to be able survive 10 G of acceleration for more than a few seconds. Therefore, a manned vehicle accelerating at +5040 miles per hour every 24 hours would already kill the crew many times over. What am I missing here???
>>> If you're going to try to do hard science, you need to start by understanding
>>> units of measure. One accelerates to a velocity (speed). You have your ship
>>> accelerating to a distance -- 250000 miles. That means that after it has gone
>>> that far it stops accelerating.
>>>
>>> I think that you probably want it to accelerate up to some speed, such as:
>>> - 250000 miles/year
>>> - 250000 miles/month
>>> - 250000 miles/day
>>> - 250000 miles/hour
>>> Something like one of those.
>>>
>>> For instance, let's take a look at your car example. When you discuss a car
>>> accelerating from 0-60, it means from 0 miles per hour to 60 miles per hour,
>>> two speeds. That change in speed, if spread out evenly over a ten-second
>>> interval, would not be one mile per second (as you stated), but six miles per
>>> hour per second.
>>>
>>> I think that you need to sit down with pencil and paper and work through all
>>> of this, making the units explicit throughout your work.
>>>
>>> Getting to your last question, the units are correct here (although I have
>>> no idea whether it's consistent with anything that went before).
>>>
>>> 5040 miles per hour per day works out to 210 miles per hour per hour, which
>>> means that over a period of one hour, you've sped up by 210 miles per hour.
>>> If you think about it, a commercial airliner speeds up from stopped on the
>>> tarmac to a speed speed of over 500 miles per hour in a matter of ten minutes
>>> or so, which is an acceleration of about 3000 miles per hour per hour, or
>>> much greater than what is mentioned here.
>>>
>>> By the way, this would be much less subject to error if you did your work
>>> exclusively in meters and seconds.
>> This reminds me of a story. Someone bought a high-performance Italian
>> sports car, and was showing it to her friend, another enthusiast, for the
>> first time. After riding as a passenger over some challenging roads it
>> was his turn to drive. Taking the driver's seat, he listened attentively to
>> her pointers. Before they started off she said, "And remember, the
>> speedometer is calibrated in metric units."
>>
>> He let in the clutch and accelerated cautiously to 60, getting the feel of
>> the car. After a short time he asked, "Have you checked the speedometer
>> with a stopwatch? I've driven in Europe, and it sure seems to me that
>> we're going faster than sixty kilometers per hour."
>>
>> She replied, "We are. That's meters per second."
>>
> 60 kmph is 16.67 mps
> 60 mps is 216 kmph
>
> I'll admit that a car can feel very different at speeds (I was badly fooled by a work car once) but that difference in speed should be readily apparent from visual cues

It's a joke, Joyce.[1]

Cheers,
Gary B-)

1 - Aging myself with that one - I doubt there are many here who
remember Gra-Gra and "In Melbourne Tonight".

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:35:48 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:7db26c10-a312-4300...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 6:35:42 AM UTC+11,
> > peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-6, Michael F.
> >> Stemper w
> > rote:
> >> > On 09/11/2022 10.21, David Brown wrote:
> >> > > Here's something I've been working on for a retro future
> >> > > project with
> > hard sci fi elements. It calls for a gigantic 300+ meter ship
> > to accelerate to 250,000 miles for a trip to the outer solar
> > system, which I arm waved to maybe +12,000 miles of
> > acceleration per day. Here's the weird thing. Regular
> > terrestrial cars can accelerate 0-60 in 10 seconds without even
> > being considered that fast, which comes out at 1 mile per
> > second. That means if all conventional limitations were removed
> > (friction, cooling, controllability, fuel supply, etc), the car
> > could accelerate to 86,400 mph in 24 hours. The monkey wrench
> > is, 1 G of acceleration amounts to a change of only 35 kph or
> > 21 miles per hour, and people aren't supposed to be able
> > survive 10 G of acceleration for more than a few seconds.
> > Therefore, a manned vehicle accelerating at +5040 miles per
> > hour every 24 hours would already kill the crew many times
> > over. What am I missing here???
> >> > If you're going to try to do hard science, you need to start
> >> > by underst
> > anding
> >> > units of measure. One accelerates to a velocity (speed). You
> >> > have your
> > ship
> >> > accelerating to a distance -- 250000 miles. That means that
> >> > after it ha
> > s gone
> >> > that far it stops accelerating.
> >> >
> >> > I think that you probably want it to accelerate up to some
> >> > speed, such
> > as:
> >> > - 250000 miles/year
> >> > - 250000 miles/month
> >> > - 250000 miles/day
> >> > - 250000 miles/hour
> >> > Something like one of those.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, let's take a look at your car example. When you
> >> > discuss a
> > car
> >> > accelerating from 0-60, it means from 0 miles per hour to 60
> >> > miles per
> > hour,
> >> > two speeds. That change in speed, if spread out evenly over a
> >> > ten-secon
> > d
> >> > interval, would not be one mile per second (as you stated),
> >> > but six mil
> > es per
> >> > hour per second.
> >> >
> >> > I think that you need to sit down with pencil and paper and
> >> > work throug
> > h all
> >> > of this, making the units explicit throughout your work.
> >> >
> >> > Getting to your last question, the units are correct here
> >> > (although I h
> > ave
> >> > no idea whether it's consistent with anything that went
> >> > before).
> >> >
> >> > 5040 miles per hour per day works out to 210 miles per hour
> >> > per hour, w
> > hich
> >> > means that over a period of one hour, you've sped up by 210
> >> > miles per h
> > our.
> >> > If you think about it, a commercial airliner speeds up from
> >> > stopped on
> > the
> >> > tarmac to a speed speed of over 500 miles per hour in a
> >> > matter of ten m
> > inutes
> >> > or so, which is an acceleration of about 3000 miles per hour
> >> > per hour,
> > or
> >> > much greater than what is mentioned here.
> >> >
> >> > By the way, this would be much less subject to error if you
> >> > did your wo
> > rk
> >> > exclusively in meters and seconds.
> >> This reminds me of a story. Someone bought a high-performance
> >> Italian sports car, and was showing it to her friend, another
> >> enthusiast, for the
> >
> >> first time. After riding as a passenger over some challenging
> >> roads it was his turn to drive. Taking the driver's seat, he
> >> listened attentively
> > to
> >> her pointers. Before they started off she said, "And remember,
> >> the speedometer is calibrated in metric units."
> >>
> >> He let in the clutch and accelerated cautiously to 60, getting
> >> the feel o
> > f
> >> the car. After a short time he asked, "Have you checked the
> >> speedometer
> >
> >> with a stopwatch? I've driven in Europe, and it sure seems to
> >> me that we're going faster than sixty kilometers per hour."
> >>
> >> She replied, "We are. That's meters per second."
> >>
> > 60 kmph is 16.67 mps
> > 60 mps is 216 kmph
> >
> > I'll admit that a car can feel very different at speeds (I was
> > badly fooled by a work car once) but that difference in speed
> > should be readily apparent from visual cues
> >
> Trying to analyze the punch line of a joke does not make you look
> smart.

I wouldn't really disagree with you, but humor can be a subject worthy
of discussion. Bob Mankoff is a cartoonist and was cartoon editor for
_The New Yorker_ magazine from 1997 to 2917. His caption for one of
his own cartoons, "How about never--is never good for you?" was put
into _Bartlet's Familiar Quotations_. In 2014 he wrote a popular book titled
_How About Never--Is Never Good for You? My Life In Cartoons_. This
is partly a memoir but the author also writes a lot about humor: different
types of cartoons, why he would choose one cartoon over another for
the magazine, and so forth. I found the book to be very interesting.
Here is a link to NPR that includes an interview he did with Terry Gross
on _Fresh Air_:

https://www.npr.org/2014/03/24/293761256/new-yorker-cartoon-editor-explores-what-makes-us-get-it

Here is another car joke, somewhat similar to the first. A young woman
had recently finished restoring a classic Corvette, and was showing it
off to her grandmother, who was herself a car enthusiast. When it was
the grandmother's turn to drive, she accelerated through the gears and
then glanced down at the instruments, saying in some disappointment,
"Hmph, only seventy."

Her granddaughter exclaimed, "That's the TACH!"

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 11/11/2022 8:01 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I wouldn't really disagree with you, but humor can be a subject worthy
> of discussion. Bob Mankoff is a cartoonist and was cartoon editor for
> _The New Yorker_ magazine from 1997 to 2917.

920 years you say? That's a pretty good run! :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 9:43:51 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <iftsmhtbf5n7t48om...@4ax.com>,
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
> >"function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
> >what I think.
> Based on what?

Since he put "function" in quotes, perhaps he is thinking of what is
needed to avoid having to deal with the issues of a zero-gravity
toilet.

John Savard

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:47:52 AM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 8:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:24:46 GMT
> > typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >>
> >> While a ship designed to remain in space permenently won't be subjected
> >> to pressurization cycles, a spherical shape will continue to be
> >> optimal to deal with stresses.
> >
> > A ship in space is not completely free of pressurization cycles.
> > Air locks for example. Atmospheric "sloshing" as it starts and stops
> > acceleration.
> >>
> >> Question: What affect does acceleration have on the atmosphere within
> >> the spaceship?
> >
> > It piles up at the "bottom" (along with the dust). Which in a
> > small compartment may not be all that much floor to ceiling. But an
> > open corridor the length of a ship may get some serious differential.
> > Depends on A) ship's environmental pressure and B) acceleration.
> >
> > Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
> > "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
> > what I think.
> I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
> long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
> rotations? Live there permanently?
>
> We already know from experience with the ISS that a year or less in
> micro-gravity can have permanent medical/health effects. I suspect that
> the longer one expects humans to stay there the closer to 1G the
> environment needs to be for them to remain "functional".
>
The International Space Station is equipped with a wide variety of
exercise devices, some using spring resistance, some using vacuum
cylinders, and I'm sure other types. Over the years they have reduced
muscle and bone loss in the crew to a considerable degree. One
device common in science fiction that I don't believe has been
tried is a centrifuge. In Heinlein's story _Waldo_ the title character
had a small centrifuge in his private space station to power and
display a pendulum type cuckoo clock. Later he used it to test his
own strength, but it was really too small to accommodate an adult.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 11:21:16 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 8:01 PM, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't really disagree with you, but humor can be a subject worthy
> > of discussion. Bob Mankoff is a cartoonist and was cartoon editor for
> > _The New Yorker_ magazine from 1997 to 2917.
> 920 years you say? That's a pretty good run! :P

That may be a typo; I'll check his entry in Wikipedia again.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
> lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
> Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
> difficult.

What do you mean by Fortran character strings?
If they're constants then is it possible to put together something to extract them and produce a C++ file of constants that you can reference elsewhere?

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:33:41 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:

> What do you mean by Fortran character strings?

Some dialects of FORTRAN permitted one to create a variable 80 bytes long,
for example, that could contain 80 characters of text (and, if shorter, would
have to be padded on the right with spaces) by declaring it CHARACTER*80,
and one could use other numbers for the length - anything from 1 to 255.

John Savard

On 11/11/2022 17.32, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
> news:42b6093e-4b8f-4de1-8e72-08fea528e309n@googlegroups.com:
>> On Thursday, 10 November 2022 at 19:24:51 UTC, Scott Lurndal
>> wrote:

>>> Question: What affect does acceleration have on the atmosphere
>>> within the spaceship?
>>
>> Logically (after Einstein), it's the same as the effect of
>> gravity. Considered as a "traditional" rocket, air pressure is
>> less at the "top" end than at the bottom. !I mean, if your
>> spaceship is big enough for this to be inconvenient, then you
>> have decks pressurized independently.
>
> For a very graphic example of how acceleration affects air inside a
> moving vehicle, go watch this video of a helium baloon tethered
> inside a van:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mzDvpKzfY

I had that happen to me (i.e., unplanned event) when my son was six
or eight years old. His helium-filled balloon was in the back of my
station wagon. We went turned the first corner and it went to the
*inside* of the turn. Blew my mind, and it gave us something to talk
about for several miles before we got it sorted out.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8d63ad78-dc6b-414c-90e7-a82532eb0903n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:35:48 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7db26c10-a312-4300...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 6:35:42 AM UTC+11,
>> > peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-6, Michael
>> >> F. Stemper w
>> > rote:
>> >> > On 09/11/2022 10.21, David Brown wrote:
>> >> > > Here's something I've been working on for a retro future
>> >> > > project with
>> > hard sci fi elements. It calls for a gigantic 300+ meter ship
>> > to accelerate to 250,000 miles for a trip to the outer solar
>> > system, which I arm waved to maybe +12,000 miles of
>> > acceleration per day. Here's the weird thing. Regular
>> > terrestrial cars can accelerate 0-60 in 10 seconds without
>> > even being considered that fast, which comes out at 1 mile
>> > per second. That means if all conventional limitations were
>> > removed (friction, cooling, controllability, fuel supply,
>> > etc), the car could accelerate to 86,400 mph in 24 hours. The
>> > monkey wrench is, 1 G of acceleration amounts to a change of
>> > only 35 kph or 21 miles per hour, and people aren't supposed
>> > to be able survive 10 G of acceleration for more than a few
>> > seconds. Therefore, a manned vehicle accelerating at +5040
>> > miles per hour every 24 hours would already kill the crew
>> > many times over. What am I missing here???
>> >> > If you're going to try to do hard science, you need to
>> >> > start by underst
>> > anding
>> >> > units of measure. One accelerates to a velocity (speed).
>> >> > You have your
>> > ship
>> >> > accelerating to a distance -- 250000 miles. That means
>> >> > that after it ha
>> > s gone
>> >> > that far it stops accelerating.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that you probably want it to accelerate up to some
>> >> > speed, such
>> > as:
>> >> > - 250000 miles/year
>> >> > - 250000 miles/month
>> >> > - 250000 miles/day
>> >> > - 250000 miles/hour
>> >> > Something like one of those.
>> >> >
>> >> > For instance, let's take a look at your car example. When
>> >> > you discuss a
>> > car
>> >> > accelerating from 0-60, it means from 0 miles per hour to
>> >> > 60 miles per
>> > hour,
>> >> > two speeds. That change in speed, if spread out evenly
>> >> > over a ten-secon
>> > d
>> >> > interval, would not be one mile per second (as you
>> >> > stated), but six mil
>> > es per
>> >> > hour per second.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that you need to sit down with pencil and paper
>> >> > and work throug
>> > h all
>> >> > of this, making the units explicit throughout your work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Getting to your last question, the units are correct here
>> >> > (although I h
>> > ave
>> >> > no idea whether it's consistent with anything that went
>> >> > before).
>> >> >
>> >> > 5040 miles per hour per day works out to 210 miles per
>> >> > hour per hour, w
>> > hich
>> >> > means that over a period of one hour, you've sped up by
>> >> > 210 miles per h
>> > our.
>> >> > If you think about it, a commercial airliner speeds up
>> >> > from stopped on
>> > the
>> >> > tarmac to a speed speed of over 500 miles per hour in a
>> >> > matter of ten m
>> > inutes
>> >> > or so, which is an acceleration of about 3000 miles per
>> >> > hour per hour,
>> > or
>> >> > much greater than what is mentioned here.
>> >> >
>> >> > By the way, this would be much less subject to error if
>> >> > you did your wo
>> > rk
>> >> > exclusively in meters and seconds.
>> >> This reminds me of a story. Someone bought a
>> >> high-performance Italian sports car, and was showing it to
>> >> her friend, another enthusiast, for the
>> >
>> >> first time. After riding as a passenger over some
>> >> challenging roads it was his turn to drive. Taking the
>> >> driver's seat, he listened attentively
>> > to
>> >> her pointers. Before they started off she said, "And
>> >> remember, the speedometer is calibrated in metric units."
>> >>
>> >> He let in the clutch and accelerated cautiously to 60,
>> >> getting the feel o
>> > f
>> >> the car. After a short time he asked, "Have you checked the
>> >> speedometer
>> >
>> >> with a stopwatch? I've driven in Europe, and it sure seems
>> >> to me that we're going faster than sixty kilometers per
>> >> hour."
>> >>
>> >> She replied, "We are. That's meters per second."
>> >>
>> > 60 kmph is 16.67 mps
>> > 60 mps is 216 kmph
>> >
>> > I'll admit that a car can feel very different at speeds (I
>> > was badly fooled by a work car once) but that difference in
>> > speed should be readily apparent from visual cues
>> >
>> Trying to analyze the punch line of a joke does not make you
>> look smart.
>
> I wouldn't really disagree with you, but humor can be a subject
> worthy of discussion.

Perhaps, but only if you recognize that it is, in fact, humor.

Hamish has always been an idiot.
> Here is another car joke, somewhat similar to the first. A young
> woman had recently finished restoring a classic Corvette, and
> was showing it off to her grandmother, who was herself a car
> enthusiast. When it was the grandmother's turn to drive, she
> accelerated through the gears and then glanced down at the
> instruments, saying in some disappointment, "Hmph, only
> seventy."
>
> Her granddaughter exclaimed, "That's the TACH!"
>
That's pretty much the same joke.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:35:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo discussion of basic physics terminology>

>I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
>lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
>Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
>difficult.

Brave man!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:43:47 -0000
(UTC) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>In article <iftsmhtbf5n7t48omgtr2nkhfpo24k6a8u@4ax.com>,
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
>>"function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
>>what I think.
>
>Based on what?

We managed to function on the moon. A) For some value of
"function" and B) we sent men in good health, C) for a "short" stays
of 2 to 3 days.
a) one can think of the moon trips as weekend camp out. One is
consciously aware of the differences all the time. But if a base is
set up, and you're not living and working out of a camper, what are
you going to do, forgetting that gravity is much much less than you
are used to? (Conversely: what moon habits are you likely to do on
earth which won't work? E.G., long time ISS crew will put their pen
"right there" expecting it to be there in a second. It doesn't work
that way in a 1 G environment)
B) We have no data for long term impacts. We have much data for
micro-G (space) from the Space Stations. But none for living on the
moon for extended periods. Or for females. Or for other critters.

We have demonstrated that humans can function in "zero" G. But at
what cost to the human body (bone density, strength, etc)? How much
gravity is necessary to minimize those health issues, as well as deal
with the mental issue related to orientation and "which way is up?" In
free-fall, "down is toward _my_ feet." In a perceivable minimal
acceleration, "down is that way - towards 'the floor'."
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:47:48
-0800 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>
>> Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
>> "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
>> what I think.
>
>I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
>long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
>rotations? Live there permanently?

Yes. B-)

in _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ the locals have made permanent
adaptations. Tourists can only stay six weeks (iirc) before the
changes prevent return. Earthsiders stationed there have their
centrifuge / exercise program.

>
>We already know from experience with the ISS that a year or less in
>micro-gravity can have permanent medical/health effects. I suspect that
>the longer one expects humans to stay there the closer to 1G the
>environment needs to be for them to remain "functional".

I suspect as well that one might be able to function at less than
1G for quite a long time, but at what point can one "adapt" so far
that returning to a 1G environment is difficult if not impossible?
(Manny could go, & Prof La Paz could return, to Earth with medical
support. But Manny had a lot of other problems with Earth, related to
having grown up & lived "inside" most of his life.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On 11/12/2022 6:33 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
>> lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
>> Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
>> difficult.
>
> What do you mean by Fortran character strings?
> If they're constants then is it possible to put together something to extract them and produce a C++ file of constants that you can reference elsewhere?

I would say that half of the 20,000+ F77 character strings are constants
but the other half are being manipulated constantly. The constant
strings are easy to port. The others are not.

Lynn

On 11/12/2022 7:29 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 5:33:41 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by Fortran character strings?
>
> Some dialects of FORTRAN permitted one to create a variable 80 bytes long,
> for example, that could contain 80 characters of text (and, if shorter, would
> have to be padded on the right with spaces) by declaring it CHARACTER*80,
> and one could use other numbers for the length - anything from 1 to 255.
>
> John Savard

My dialect of F77 allows character strings up to 1,024 characters in
size. With some of our customers propensity for large file names, they
have pushed that. And of course, people outside the USA are using
Unicode in their file names and file paths now.

Lynn

On 11/12/2022 10:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:35:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo discussion of basic physics terminology>
>
>> I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
>> lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
>> Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
>> difficult.
>
> Brave man!

I've got to have a 64 bit version of my calculation engine and soon. My
customers are clamoring for it with the new 64 bit version of Excel.

Thanks,
Lynn

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 9:17:30 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:16:40 PM UTC-5, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 2:22:01 PM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> I have found _Physics: volume 1_ by Robert Resnick, David Halliday, and Kenneth Krane to be useful. The first
> >> chapter is a good introduction to dimensions. Chapter 2 covers motion with constant acceleration.
> >
> >I second that. It's a very good high school text. Some universities used to use it as a first year text.
> Wiley wants USD203.95 for it. Sigh.

The Study Guide by the same authors also covers the subject. Available to borrow at openlibrary.org:
https://archive.org/details/studyguidetoacco0003will/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:47:48
> -0800 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >
> >> Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
> >> "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
> >> what I think.
> >
> >I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
> >long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
> >rotations? Live there permanently?
> Yes. B-)
>
> in _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ the locals have made permanent
> adaptations. Tourists can only stay six weeks (iirc) before the
> changes prevent return. Earthsiders stationed there have their
> centrifuge / exercise program.
> >
That was a plot device specific to _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_,
so that transportees were permanently exiled to space whatever
the nominal length of their sentence. It has no basis that I know
of in medical knowledge at that time or in Heinlein's own beliefs,
and was not used in any of his several other stories involving
humans moving from low gravity to higher gravity worlds.

In _Space Cadet_, one of the cadets is a colonist from Ganymede
who has some difficulty at first on Earth but who adapts. In
_The Rolling Stones_ the twins do not LIKE going to Earth but
they can do it. In _Podkayne of Mars_, Podkayne, Clarke, and
their uncle Tom, residents of Mars, with a surface gravity one
third that of Earth, travel to Venus, with a surface gravity about
seven-eighths that of Earth. The ship spins to provide artificial
gravity for the passengers and crew, and over the course of the
trip the spin is gradually increased from Mars normal gravity
to Venus normal. Podkayne and Clark make extensive use
of the ship's gym to assist in developing their musculature.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

In article <t0gomhtr2aqh1qqig3jd1ghv6083tspiha@4ax.com>,
pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> [I'm not sure if there is a term for change in acceleration over
>time, but it is there. I was really bored one night.]

(Hal Heydt)
Surge.

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-7, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:47:48
> > -0800 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> > >
> > >> Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
> > >> "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
> > >> what I think.
> > >
> > >I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
> > >long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
> > >rotations? Live there permanently?
> > Yes. B-)
> >
> > in _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ the locals have made permanent
> > adaptations. Tourists can only stay six weeks (iirc) before the
> > changes prevent return. Earthsiders stationed there have their
> > centrifuge / exercise program.
> > >
> That was a plot device specific to _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_,
> so that transportees were permanently exiled to space whatever
> the nominal length of their sentence. It has no basis that I know
> of in medical knowledge at that time or in Heinlein's own beliefs,
> and was not used in any of his several other stories involving
> humans moving from low gravity to higher gravity worlds.
>
> In _Space Cadet_, one of the cadets is a colonist from Ganymede
> who has some difficulty at first on Earth but who adapts. In
> _The Rolling Stones_ the twins do not LIKE going to Earth but
> they can do it. In _Podkayne of Mars_, Podkayne, Clarke, and
> their uncle Tom, residents of Mars, with a surface gravity one
> third that of Earth, travel to Venus, with a surface gravity about
> seven-eighths that of Earth. The ship spins to provide artificial
> gravity for the passengers and crew, and over the course of the
> trip the spin is gradually increased from Mars normal gravity
> to Venus normal. Podkayne and Clark make extensive use
> of the ship's gym to assist in developing their musculature.
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist
I've thought of mentioning, in the same project I've described here, I've been developing the idea of Martian colonist being enhanced to superhuman levels in vague ways. The biggest "real" problem is muscle decay, which could be countered in a variety of ways. If you then took the subject to normal gravity, they would end up far stronger than baseline humans.

On 11/12/2022 6:36 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-7, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:47:48
>>> -0800 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>
>>>>> Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
>>>>> "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
>>>>> what I think.
>>>>
>>>> I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
>>>> long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
>>>> rotations? Live there permanently?
>>> Yes. B-)
>>>
>>> in _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ the locals have made permanent
>>> adaptations. Tourists can only stay six weeks (iirc) before the
>>> changes prevent return. Earthsiders stationed there have their
>>> centrifuge / exercise program.
>>>>
>> That was a plot device specific to _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_,
>> so that transportees were permanently exiled to space whatever
>> the nominal length of their sentence. It has no basis that I know
>> of in medical knowledge at that time or in Heinlein's own beliefs,
>> and was not used in any of his several other stories involving
>> humans moving from low gravity to higher gravity worlds.
>>
>> In _Space Cadet_, one of the cadets is a colonist from Ganymede
>> who has some difficulty at first on Earth but who adapts. In
>> _The Rolling Stones_ the twins do not LIKE going to Earth but
>> they can do it. In _Podkayne of Mars_, Podkayne, Clarke, and
>> their uncle Tom, residents of Mars, with a surface gravity one
>> third that of Earth, travel to Venus, with a surface gravity about
>> seven-eighths that of Earth. The ship spins to provide artificial
>> gravity for the passengers and crew, and over the course of the
>> trip the spin is gradually increased from Mars normal gravity
>> to Venus normal. Podkayne and Clark make extensive use
>> of the ship's gym to assist in developing their musculature.
>>
>> Peter Wezeman
>> anti-social Darwinist
> I've thought of mentioning, in the same project I've described here, I've been developing the idea of Martian colonist being enhanced to > superhuman levels in vague ways. The biggest "real" problem is muscle decay, which could be countered in a variety of ways. If you then took > the subject to normal gravity, they would end up far stronger than baseline humans.

Which means they would be insanely "strong" on Mars.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 1:27:26 PM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <t0gomhtr2aqh1qqig...@4ax.com>,
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > [I'm not sure if there is a term for change in acceleration over
> >time, but it is there. I was really bored one night.]
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Surge.
Or Jerk

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 6:45:19 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 6:33 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 7:35:37 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >> I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
> >> lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
> >> Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
> >> difficult.
> >
> > What do you mean by Fortran character strings?
> > If they're constants then is it possible to put together something to extract them and produce a C++ file of constants that you can reference elsewhere?
> I would say that half of the 20,000+ F77 character strings are constants
> but the other half are being manipulated constantly. The constant
> strings are easy to port. The others are not.
>
Yeah, that sounds like a class (or hierarchy of classes depending on how many ways you manipulate them) in C++

Could be tough to produce automatically (depending on how easy it is to parse the Fortran) but it's still worth looking at because if you can automate it you'll save an incredible amount of programmer time and reduce human error

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 6:50:28 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 10:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:35:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snippo discussion of basic physics terminology>
> >
> >> I am in the beginning of converting my 5,000+ subroutines / 700,000+
> >> lines of F77 code to C++. I have converted 23,000 lines so far. The
> >> Fortran character strings to C strings or C++ STL strings are very
> >> difficult.
> >
> > Brave man!
> I've got to have a 64 bit version of my calculation engine and soon. My
> customers are clamoring for it with the new 64 bit version of Excel.
>

Pity there's not a 64 bit version of the Fortran

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:56:18 AM UTC+11, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:47:48
> > -0800 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> > >
> > >> Practical matters aside, how little acceleration do humans need to
> > >> "function". Somewhere less than the surface gravity of the moon is
> > >> what I think.
> > >
> > >I think that last depends on your definition of "function" and for how
> > >long. Just visit and work for a few days or weeks? Do yearly
> > >rotations? Live there permanently?
> > Yes. B-)
> >
> > in _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ the locals have made permanent
> > adaptations. Tourists can only stay six weeks (iirc) before the
> > changes prevent return. Earthsiders stationed there have their
> > centrifuge / exercise program.
> > >
> That was a plot device specific to _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_,
> so that transportees were permanently exiled to space whatever
> the nominal length of their sentence. It has no basis that I know
> of in medical knowledge at that time or in Heinlein's own beliefs,

Was it a reasonable interpolation from people losing muscle mass and bone mass if they're bedbound?

> and was not used in any of his several other stories involving
> humans moving from low gravity to higher gravity worlds.
>
> In _Space Cadet_, one of the cadets is a colonist from Ganymede
> who has some difficulty at first on Earth but who adapts. In
> _The Rolling Stones_ the twins do not LIKE going to Earth but
> they can do it. In _Podkayne of Mars_, Podkayne, Clarke, and
> their uncle Tom, residents of Mars, with a surface gravity one
> third that of Earth, travel to Venus, with a surface gravity about
> seven-eighths that of Earth. The ship spins to provide artificial
> gravity for the passengers and crew, and over the course of the
> trip the spin is gradually increased from Mars normal gravity
> to Venus normal. Podkayne and Clark make extensive use
> of the ship's gym to assist in developing their musculature.
>
I think they're all in the same chronology but later, I have a vague recollection that The Rolling Stones mentions improved drugs that make it easier.