On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 1:37:02 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
>
> 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.

That's going to depend heavily on how it happens

Strength training is basically damaging the muscles and then they get built back stronger to reduce the chance of future damage
If the muscles don't get damaged they're not going to get stronger

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 4:49:49 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 1:37:02 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> That's going to depend heavily on how it happens
>
> Strength training is basically damaging the muscles and then they get built back stronger to reduce the chance of future damage
> If the muscles don't get damaged they're not going to get stronger
That comes down to the fact that muscles are one of several forms of tissue that don't multiply or regenerate on their own. "Enhancement" would mean increasing the rate at which new muscle mass is generating. By my own assessment, against the effects of low gravity, it would be like fighting a fire that was burning your house by building more house. Thus, I don't see it making anyone superhumanly strong unless they were moved to a different environment. Of course, something else could go horribly, horribly wrong, but that could take a bit of time to manifest itself.

On 11/13/2022 5:32 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> 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

My experience with the 64 bit Fortran compilers with my 700,000+ lines
of my old F77 code and my 50,000+ lines of C++ code is not good. Others
may have a better experience.

Lynn

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 02:37:02 UTC, David Brown wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-7, peterw...@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.

There come to mind Peter Parker, bitten by a radioactive
spider and gifted with its reflexes and proportionate
strength (not strictly true) - subject to revision as a
genetically engineered spider invented for the purpose
of bestowing these powers - and John Carter of Mars
but formerly of Earth, who can leap around on Mars like
Spider-Man because he still has his Earth muscles.
Atrophy isn't considered in his case.

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:39:06 AM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:56:18 AM UTC+11, peterw...@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?

Not in the sudden and irreversible way he mentions. Also, the problem does not
seem to involve muscle loss. The Lunar residents are not described as physically
weak and do not seem to be at any physical disadvantage in their encounters
with Earthmen, for example when Manual leads a task group to take over the
observatory after the revolution, and when United Nations forces try invading
Lunar cities. Heinlein never describes the physiological problems in detail.
During Manual and the professor's diplomatic mission to Earth it seems
that they might be having difficulty with blood pressure regulation.

> > 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.

_Space Cadet_ and _The Rolling Stones_ do seem to share continuity;
a Space Patrol research base in the Saturn system is mentioned in
_The Rolling Stones_. Nominally, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
is in the same future history, although some readers have said
that the timelines are incompatible with respect to Hazel's age
during the revolution. At the end of the story Manual mentions that
new drugs allow lunar residents to safely visit Earth, I do not recall
that drugs are mentioned in the other stories except for the
sedative given to Lowell which causes some problems, and
of course "happy dust".

_Podkayne of Mars_ is a separate continuity with, for example, different
intelligent species on Venus.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> on Sat, 12 Nov
2022 14:56:15 -0800 (PST) typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>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.
>
As the saying goes "It all depends on the needs of the plot."
--
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)

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 02:16:09 GMT
typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>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.

Hmmm. I'd labeled it "thrust" but I was also thinking in terms of
as the mass of a space ship decreases due to fuel consumption, then
the ability of the rocket to push the spaceship "improves".
I was manning a band saw to cut titanium stock to size, two
minutes making the changes, and five minutes watching it run.
Calculator and "number problems". (Did you ever think how the speed
of light in meters per second looks a lot like the speed of light in
kilometers per second on a calculator display?)
--
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 Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-7, 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.

Oh, my. That is, no doubt, a lot of work.
I would have thought, though, that since C offers much better string-handling
features than Fortran 77 did - C has actual strings, with an indication of their
length, while Fortran 77 only had CHARACTER*n variables of fixed length -
the conversion would be "downhill".
Of course, though, that depends on what you are _using_ the Fortran strings
for. One thing people often did in Fortran, which won't work in C, would be to
EQUIVALENCE an INTEGER or REAL variable to a CHARACTER variable, so that
fields within the character variable would contain binary data.
That might work in Pascal, where there's a length byte at the start of the string,
but not in C, where a character containing X'00' marks the end of a string.
So converting Fortran code doing _that_ sort of thing would be very difficult.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 12:47:42 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> And of course, people outside the USA are using
> Unicode in their file names and file paths now.

And so IBM, on their zSystem computers, have actually added special
character string instructions that work on character strings in
UTF-8 code!

John Savard

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 07:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-7, 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.
>
>Oh, my. That is, no doubt, a lot of work.
>I would have thought, though, that since C offers much better string-handling
>features than Fortran 77 did - C has actual strings, with an indication of their
>length, while Fortran 77 only had CHARACTER*n variables of fixed length -
>the conversion would be "downhill".
>Of course, though, that depends on what you are _using_ the Fortran strings
>for. One thing people often did in Fortran, which won't work in C, would be to
>EQUIVALENCE an INTEGER or REAL variable to a CHARACTER variable, so that
>fields within the character variable would contain binary data.
>That might work in Pascal, where there's a length byte at the start of the string,
>but not in C, where a character containing X'00' marks the end of a string.
>So converting Fortran code doing _that_ sort of thing would be very difficult.

Yes and no.

Yes, for the most part, and it is very convenient to be able to use
0x00 as a stopping-point to prevent overruns.

But it is not entirely necessary. Something like this:
struct myData {
size_t length;
size_t next;
char * text;
};
where 'text' is allocated as 'length' bytes can be used to store up to
'length' bytes with any value desired. 'next' is used to record where
the next byte can be placed in the buffer to put it at the end of the
valid text; it can also be used to halt processing when the last valid
byte has been processed.

But, of course, that is a bit more complicated than a normal C string.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <tkk40s$l5ac$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>Keeping dimensional units correct is the hardest thing to do in our
>software. The old portion of the software is lbmol, R, psia, feet, etc.
> Other portions are kgmol or gmmol, K, kg/cm2 or pascal, meter, etc.
>Things can get dicey in a hurry.

(Hal Heydt)
Assuming I'm reading that correctly, it's quite rare to see
someone actually measuring temperatures in degrees Rankine.

On 11/14/2022 10:07 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tkk40s$l5ac$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keeping dimensional units correct is the hardest thing to do in our
>> software. The old portion of the software is lbmol, R, psia, feet, etc.
>> Other portions are kgmol or gmmol, K, kg/cm2 or pascal, meter, etc.
>> Things can get dicey in a hurry.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Assuming I'm reading that correctly, it's quite rare to see
> someone actually measuring temperatures in degrees Rankine.

Engineering software is usually written in absolute values such as R or
K. Offset values such as F and C can cause severe problems if the
programmer forgets to add the base value.

Our software routinely deals with cryogenic mixtures such as liquid
helium or LNG (liquefied natural gas). And we started writing the
software in 1965 so R was chosen for the default temperature unit.
Nowadays, I would choose K.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 11/13/2022 5:32 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> 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
>
> My experience with the 64 bit Fortran compilers with my 700,000+ lines
> of my old F77 code and my 50,000+ lines of C++ code is not good. Others
> may have a better experience.

What is a 64-bit Fortran compiler?

Typical compilers have a four-byte integer, but it is possible to
select different kinds of integer via the selected_int_kind
intrinsic, telling the compiler how many digits you need.

For REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION, those are (on relevant architectures
today) 32 and 64 bit IEEE floats, respectively.

There is no need to know things like the length of a pointer in
Fortran (like some people do in C).

On 14/11/2022 22.07, Hal Heydt wrote:
> In article <tkk40s$l5ac$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keeping dimensional units correct is the hardest thing to do in our
>> software. The old portion of the software is lbmol, R, psia, feet, etc.
>> Other portions are kgmol or gmmol, K, kg/cm2 or pascal, meter, etc.
>> Things can get dicey in a hurry.
>
> Assuming I'm reading that correctly, it's quite rare to see
> someone actually measuring temperatures in degrees Rankine.

Rankine is common practice (in the US) for boilers and turbines.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 11/14/2022 10:07 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tkk40s$l5ac$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Keeping dimensional units correct is the hardest thing to do in our
>>> software. The old portion of the software is lbmol, R, psia, feet, etc.
>>> Other portions are kgmol or gmmol, K, kg/cm2 or pascal, meter, etc.
>>> Things can get dicey in a hurry.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Assuming I'm reading that correctly, it's quite rare to see
>> someone actually measuring temperatures in degrees Rankine.
>
>Engineering software is usually written in absolute values such as R or
>K. Offset values such as F and C can cause severe problems if the
>programmer forgets to add the base value.
>
>Our software routinely deals with cryogenic mixtures such as liquid
>helium or LNG (liquefied natural gas). And we started writing the
>software in 1965 so R was chosen for the default temperature unit.
>Nowadays, I would choose K.

Weren't you four years old in 1965?

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>David Brown <davidnbrown80@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>
> <snip long physics lesson>
>
>>> > crew many times over. What am I missing here???
>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
>>>
>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > David N. Brown
>>> > Mesa, Arizona
>>I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
>>chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
>>is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
>>rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
>> style ring for artificial gravity.
>
>So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
>cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
>
>For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
>is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
>and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
>
>The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
>saucer section.

Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
and unobtainium.

I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
committed, you have to "stick the landing".

I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
plot" dictates.

In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
the longest is the last few meters to docking."
--
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 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 07:09:32 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> On 11/13/2022 5:32 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> My experience with the 64 bit Fortran compilers with my 700,000+ lines
>> of my old F77 code and my 50,000+ lines of C++ code is not good. Others
>> may have a better experience.
>
>What is a 64-bit Fortran compiler?

Presumably, it would be one that generates 64-bit code, using features
that would not work on a 32-bit computer.

Such as native 64-bit multiplcation. Which a 32-bit compiler can only
emulate, even if running on 64-bit hardware.

>Typical compilers have a four-byte integer, but it is possible to
>select different kinds of integer via the selected_int_kind
>intrinsic, telling the compiler how many digits you need.

I would expect a 64-bit C compiler to have an 8-byte 'int', since
'int' is intended to be the largest value the hardware can handle as a
unit. But perhaps that ended with 32-bit compilers, and their 64-bit
brethren are doing something different.

>For REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION, those are (on relevant architectures
>today) 32 and 64 bit IEEE floats, respectively.

That is unlikely to change. But floats are not always precise enough.

>There is no need to know things like the length of a pointer in
>Fortran (like some people do in C).
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 11/15/2022 1:09 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> On 11/13/2022 5:32 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> My experience with the 64 bit Fortran compilers with my 700,000+ lines
>> of my old F77 code and my 50,000+ lines of C++ code is not good. Others
>> may have a better experience.
>
> What is a 64-bit Fortran compiler?
>
> Typical compilers have a four-byte integer, but it is possible to
> select different kinds of integer via the selected_int_kind
> intrinsic, telling the compiler how many digits you need.
>
> For REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION, those are (on relevant architectures
> today) 32 and 64 bit IEEE floats, respectively.
>
> There is no need to know things like the length of a pointer in
> Fortran (like some people do in C).

I have pointers in my Fortran code since I started using malloc, free,
and realloc thirty plus years ago. You don't really want the details
unless you really want them.

I have been converting my integers and logicals in my Fortran code to
integer*8 and logical*8 for my f2c transformation to C++.

Lynn

On 11/15/2022 11:11 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 07:09:32 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
> <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> On 11/13/2022 5:32 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> My experience with the 64 bit Fortran compilers with my 700,000+ lines
>>> of my old F77 code and my 50,000+ lines of C++ code is not good. Others
>>> may have a better experience.
>>
>> What is a 64-bit Fortran compiler?
>
> Presumably, it would be one that generates 64-bit code, using features
> that would not work on a 32-bit computer.
>
> Such as native 64-bit multiplcation. Which a 32-bit compiler can only
> emulate, even if running on 64-bit hardware.
>
>> Typical compilers have a four-byte integer, but it is possible to
>> select different kinds of integer via the selected_int_kind
>> intrinsic, telling the compiler how many digits you need.
>
> I would expect a 64-bit C compiler to have an 8-byte 'int', since
> 'int' is intended to be the largest value the hardware can handle as a
> unit. But perhaps that ended with 32-bit compilers, and their 64-bit
> brethren are doing something different.
>
>> For REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION, those are (on relevant architectures
>> today) 32 and 64 bit IEEE floats, respectively.
>
> That is unlikely to change. But floats are not always precise enough.
>
>> There is no need to know things like the length of a pointer in
>> Fortran (like some people do in C).

Changing my Fortran code to double precision for all floating point
twenty+ years ago solved a whole lot of problems and caused new ones.
We developed our software on a Univac 1108, a 36 bit machine, starting
back in 1965. 36 bits is 1 ppm (part per million) (6 digits of
precision) after roundoff. When we ported to the IBM 370, we lost
precision down to 32 bits. 32 bits is about 1.5 ppm (5.5 digits) after
roundoff. 64 bits is a wonderful 12 to 14 digits of precision after
roundoff.

Lynn

On 11/15/2022 8:43 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 11/14/2022 10:07 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <tkk40s$l5ac$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Keeping dimensional units correct is the hardest thing to do in our
>>>> software. The old portion of the software is lbmol, R, psia, feet, etc.
>>>> Other portions are kgmol or gmmol, K, kg/cm2 or pascal, meter, etc.
>>>> Things can get dicey in a hurry.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Assuming I'm reading that correctly, it's quite rare to see
>>> someone actually measuring temperatures in degrees Rankine.
>>
>> Engineering software is usually written in absolute values such as R or
>> K. Offset values such as F and C can cause severe problems if the
>> programmer forgets to add the base value.
>>
>> Our software routinely deals with cryogenic mixtures such as liquid
>> helium or LNG (liquefied natural gas). And we started writing the
>> software in 1965 so R was chosen for the default temperature unit.
>> Nowadays, I would choose K.
>
> Weren't you four years old in 1965?

Five. I use we in the group sense. My dad, our partner, another prof,
and a bunch of grad students started the work in 1965. I started
working on the software in 1975 when I was 15 as a keypuncher of
subroutines.

Lynn

On 11/15/2022 10:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
> typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>> David Brown <davidnbrown80@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>>
>> <snip long physics lesson>
>>
>>>>> crew many times over. What am I missing here???
>>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
>>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David N. Brown
>>>>> Mesa, Arizona
>>> I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
>>> chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
>>> is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
>>> rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
>>> style ring for artificial gravity.
>>
>> So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
>> cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
>>
>> For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
>> is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
>> and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
>>
>> The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
>> saucer section.
>
> Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
> looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
> and unobtainium.
>
> I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
> making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
> middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
> there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
> committed, you have to "stick the landing".
>
> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> plot" dictates.
>
> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> the longest is the last few meters to docking."

David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.

Lynn

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:54:26 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/15/2022 10:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
> > typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >> David Brown <davidn...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip long physics lesson>
> >>
> >>>>> crew many times over. What am I missing here???
> >>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
> >>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
> >>>>
> >>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David N. Brown
> >>>>> Mesa, Arizona
> >>> I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
> >>> chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
> >>> is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
> >>> rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
> >>> style ring for artificial gravity.
> >>
> >> So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
> >> cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
> >>
> >> For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
> >> is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
> >> and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
> >>
> >> The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
> >> saucer section.
> >
> > Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
> > looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
> > and unobtainium.
> >
> > I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
> > making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
> > middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
> > there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
> > committed, you have to "stick the landing".
> >
> > I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> > ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> > plot" dictates.
> >
> > In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> > We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> > the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> > Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
> > space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> > the longest is the last few meters to docking."
> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>
> Lynn
Xkcd did an analysis of what would happen to a submarine in space. I did a semi serious analysis of the fairly realistic scenario of a spaceship under water when I reviewed an awful movie called Planet of Dinosaurs. The upshot is that the prospects are pretty good. If the ship is intact enough to hold in air, it can keep water out as long as you don't hit crush depth. By extension, anyone with a space suit and sufficient oxygen could simply walk to shore.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
-0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>
>> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
>> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
>> plot" dictates.
>>
>> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
>> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
>> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
>> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
>> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
>> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
>
>David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.

One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
normal.
If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
--
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 Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:29:40 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:54:19
> -0600 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >
> >> I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> >> ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> >> plot" dictates.
> >>
> >> In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> >> We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> >> the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> >> Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
> >> space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> >> the longest is the last few meters to docking."
> >
> >David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
> One of the issues involved though, is that submarines are designed
> to keep water out. Hatches open "out" That is, as the ship submerges
> water pressure presses in to keep the hatch sealed.
> In space, that hatch is going to have pressure on the inside. They
> are likely to leak. So airlock interior hatches should open inwards.
> Of course, you do have the issue of trying to design a exterior hatch
> which will hold air in against low exterior pressure, as well as
> preventing "contamination" by an exterior atmosphere above ship
> normal.
> If it is a hydrogen atmosphere - all bets are off.
> --

This is where "as useful as a screen door on a submarine" comes in.
Of course, your "screen" is going to have to be one of those energy-eating
"shields" strong enough to retain atmosphere and deflect space debris,
whatever vehicles The Other Side or the aliens use and asteroids. Good
luck with that.

--
Kevin R

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:54:26 AM UTC+11, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/15/2022 10:27 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) on Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:31:05 GMT
> > typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
> >> David Brown <davidn...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:21:59 PM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip long physics lesson>
> >>
> >>>>> crew many times over. What am I missing here???
> >>>> yes. You accel at, say, 1 gee, and you get to anywhere in the system in under
> >>>> a month and a half. One gee. You're mixing up velocity and acceleration.=20
> >>>>
> >>>> May I suggest a basic course on statics and dynamics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David N. Brown
> >>>>> Mesa, Arizona
> >>> I have ridiculously detailed and probably incoherent specs for the ship in =
> >>> chapters posted on my blog. It's called the Janus, and my head description =
> >>> is Tinker Toy ship. My specs have been 360 m long (cut down from my very fi=
> >>> rst ideas) and 40-60 meters wide at one or two places including a Von Braun=
> >>> style ring for artificial gravity.
> >>
> >> So many 'spaceship' designs follow terrestrial characteristics (i.e. typically
> >> cylindrical, or in the case of Star Wars, et. al., space-born aircraft carriers).
> >>
> >> For spaceships that never intend to fly -in- atmosphere, it would seem that the sphere
> >> is the optimal form factor (given structural loading from internal atomspheric pressure),
> >> and the movie form (e.g. star wars) would be far from optimal.
> >>
> >> The enterprise is pretty, but not particularly optimal, particularly the
> >> saucer section.
> >
> > Movie sets are dictated by "Needs of the Plot." as well as "What
> > looks cool." The physics are explained by liberal use of handwavium
> > and unobtainium.
> >
> > I'm thinking of the scene in 2001, where the Pan Am space plane is
> > making approach to the station. The docking bay is dead center in the
> > middle, and rotating. Okay, lining up the rotation is "trivial", but
> > there's not enough room to "go around", generate a miss. Once
> > committed, you have to "stick the landing".
> >
> > I have pondered layouts for air to ground shuttles and "space"
> > ships in regards to loading/unloading and docking. "needs of the
> > plot" dictates.
> >
> > In regards to docking: That's a lot of mass to be flinging around.
> > We've all seen the videos where the ship doesn't stop and runs into
> > the dock. Imagine that with a space station. "oops!"
> > Which kind of leads to "the shortest part of the trip is in hyper
> > space, the second shortest is from the station to the jump limit, and
> > the longest is the last few meters to docking."
> David Weber uses submarines as space ships in one of his books.
>
Is that Weber?
I think Ringo does in the Vorpal Blade series but I don't recall Weber doing it