|
|
| Author |
Message |
russ
|
|
Science conference glossary
| 
Aug 26 21:42 UTC 1996 |
The Science conference can use a glossary of terms for the
uninitiated to use for reference. I've started one, based on the
Mars items, but I'm open to requests for definitions and
complete glossary entries. I'll act as editor. I am not
sure where to keep the glossary; the conference index, perhaps?
Suggestions appreciated.
|
| 21 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 1 of 21:
|
Aug 26 22:04 UTC 1996 |
why not set it up as a BBS command like the other confs.. There must be a
method to do this..
a simple !glossary is nice, too
|
russ
|
|
response 2 of 21:
|
Aug 26 23:26 UTC 1996 |
To do "!glossary" I'd have to put a command in the default path,
and it wouldn't be nice to put the Science glossary as a system-wide
feature; the scope should just be this conference. Making it a
BBS command is feasible.
Do I hear any suggestions for topics or submissions for entries?
|
russ
|
|
response 3 of 21:
|
Aug 26 23:35 UTC 1996 |
I started this during the Mars discussion. Here's what I've got
so far:
Glossary of terms for the Science conference:
Rocketry
Isp: see specific impulse
specific impulse (abbrev: Isp): The impulse (force*time) available from
a given amount of propellant. Units are specified in seconds, which is not
entirely correct. A propellant with an impulse of 300 seconds yields 300
lb-seconds thrust per pound-mass of propellant. To convert specific impulse
to exhaust velocity in any desired units, multiply specific impulse by g
(32.2 ft/sec^2 or 9.81 m/sec^2).
As you can see, there's a lot left to go. ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 21:
|
Aug 27 05:56 UTC 1996 |
Using English units doesn't help much. Specific impulse has units of
newton-seconds/kilogram. It is only *confusion* between pound force and
mass that allows one to say specific impulse has the units of time - which
is simply incorrect. To convert specific impulse to exhaust velocity one
multiplies NOT by g, the acceleration of gravity, but by the conversion
factor from force to mass, such as 32.186 lbm-f/lbf-s^2, or 1.000
Kg-meter/newton-s^2.
But, I'm not sure such detail and exactness is needed for a science
glossary here. Most use of one would be for non-specialists to get a rough
idea of the meaning of the term. Definitions can therefore be less precise
and shorter. For specific impulse, for example, one could define it as the
"thrust produced per unit mass expelled in a rocket exhaust".
|
russ
|
|
response 5 of 21:
|
Aug 27 15:37 UTC 1996 |
That's rather vague. I'd want the definition to be sufficiently
comprehensive that someone reading it would be able to participate
in any related discussion more or less on equal terms, including being
able to use the definition to analyze statements correctly.
"It's an educational thing, I insist that you understand." ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 21:
|
Aug 27 18:56 UTC 1996 |
If the participant is a sufficiently well trained scientist to understand
such a glossary, he/she is not likely to need it except rarely. The
glossary then also tends to become a tutorial in science. This seems to me
to be too big a task for this conference. I have a fat _Encyclo. of
Science and Technology_, which is essentially a glossary, and it glosses
over the details (and yet has 1839 pages, but no mention of specific
impulse). Still, we could scan that in... 8^{.
|
russ
|
|
response 7 of 21:
|
Aug 27 20:01 UTC 1996 |
I expect this to be an ad-hoc effort, not comprehensive. This should
keep it down to size while still giving the neophyte a worthwhile resource.
The tutorial aspect is the goal of the effort. Someone who can get
by without the detailed information doesn't need the glossary in the
first place.
I have come up with a few good subjects for glossary entries:
Category of thermodynamics: entropy, enthalpy, internal energy, cycle
Category of physics: energy, work, power, force
Category of nuclear physics: isotope, (radio)nuclide, half-life, alpha
particle, alpha decay, beta particle, beta decay, gamma ray.
|
pfv
|
|
response 8 of 21:
|
Aug 28 17:43 UTC 1996 |
Hopefully, the glossary you are proposing will operate somewhere
between a 'man' and 'appropos' program..
Sometimes you have a term, but it's merely associated with a
topic (appropos), and sometimes you have the topic (man).
Sounds like a good reason to donate/acquire a r/w CD drive (or
two) and would then involve merely the access programs? Aren't at
least the CDROM-drives cheaper than a HD now (per meg)?
Certainly *sounds* akin to a Windoze HLP file with significant
cross-indexing, russ..
I like this concept, russ - we'll talk later ;-)
|
russ
|
|
response 9 of 21:
|
Aug 28 20:27 UTC 1996 |
I don't think we'll eever get up to a megabyte, Pete.
|
pfv
|
|
response 10 of 21:
|
Aug 28 23:22 UTC 1996 |
I was thinking that installing an encyclopedia CD would be nice ;-)
|
ajax
|
|
response 11 of 21:
|
Aug 29 18:11 UTC 1996 |
That would be quite a cool addition to Grex! I think they all
have rules about publishing them on on-line services, though.
I wonder if there are any published on the web.
|
russ
|
|
response 12 of 21:
|
Aug 29 20:23 UTC 1996 |
I've added to the glossary and installed it in the conference index.
|
raven
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Sep 4 02:51 UTC 1996 |
How about catagories on biology, biophysics, ecology,
geology, molecular biology, statistics, chemestry (both stochastic
and non stochastic), etc, etc. I mean the world doesn't revolve
around physics, and astrophysics, even if those discplnes describe
the path the world revolves within. :-)
|
russ
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Sep 4 15:09 UTC 1996 |
My knowledge in those areas isn't as solid and I wouldn't try writing
glossaries myself. However, if we start having discussions on those
issues, I'd happily accept glossary entries where they pertain to
things being discussed. Nobody should be unable to follow along just
because they don't already know the terminology, and IMHO every
discussion should be an opportunity to learn something.
|
tsty
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Sep 4 20:30 UTC 1996 |
perhaps as science.cf grows toinclude more items, the inclusion of
the specific terminology could be added. certainly, contributions from
all (accurately) would do a lot of good.
that way, ppl with different expertise(s) contribute to the growing
vocabulary.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Sep 5 23:28 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
Sep 5 23:40 UTC 1996 |
Done. Anyone want to submit some glossary entries?
Any volunteeers for an HTML version with tags on keywords for
quick-searching? I have been thinking about making something
that's very Lynx-friendly.
|
srw
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Sep 6 01:41 UTC 1996 |
I like the idea of a glossary, and will happily define terms I know, but I
think it should be ad hoc. I'm not interested in submitting glossary entries
out of the blue.
|
baliyan
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Jun 15 10:36 UTC 1999 |
Hi I am a new user. Its first day today
talk
hi
|
russ
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Jun 16 01:13 UTC 1999 |
This item is for reference use. It is not for greetings.
|
i
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Jun 16 02:38 UTC 1999 |
This is grex. Drift happens. Welcome new users to the system & the
conference like a nice fairwitness! :)
WELCOME!!!
|