steve@monu6.cc.monash.oz (Steve Balogh) (05/24/90)
In article <1990May21.022720.4768@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> forbes@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) writes: >commercially and it is not very toxic. Sodium metal reacts violently >with water and is stored under kerosene or mineral oil. Which kind of makes it hard for it to get TO THE FISH. Fish tend to live in water. Unless, of course, the fish saw this this lump of sodium metal dropping towards it from above the water, lept out of the water, and then swallowed the sodium. (which would probably burn the fish's guts out at that very moment) Steve ----_--_-_-_--_-__-_------_-__---_-___-_----_-____-_-_--__-_--_--___-_-_-_--__-_ Steve Balogh (Network Manager) VK3YMY | steve@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au Chisholm Institute of Technology | steve%monu6.cc.monash.oz@uunet.UU.NET PO Box 197, Caulfield East | ICBM: 37 52 38.8 S 145 02 42.0 E Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 3145 | +61 3 573 2266
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/25/90)
In article <367@eslvcr.UUCP>, ted@eslvcr.UUCP (Ted Powell) writes:
: into a wire. (Years ago, moving into a new--to me--apartment, I found a
: length of twisted lamp cord that emerged from the woodwork, ran along a
: few feet, and disappeared under the wallpaper. I went to remove it with
: a kitchen knife...)
When I was helping my dad put in a wall airconditioner at my parents old
place (well, more of him doing it and me watching), we had to disconnect
power from an outlet in the wall just as a precaution in case we ran over
its power line. So we found the wire in the basement and disconnected it.
On went the saber saw, cutting a hole in the wall, then *ZAP*. The breaker
to the saw blew and we heard something underneath the wall. A good
inches was missing from the saw blade, which we never found. The idiot
that wired up the place had *TWO* possible paths for power to get there.
One set of wires came from below, which makes sense since the house power
panel was right underneath. The other set of wires got power from the
second floor above us! So from that point on, we checked the power to
make sure it goes out, which I guess we really should have done in the
first place.
--
Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102
uucp !andromeda!galaxy!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp ***
bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet or ken@orion.njit.edupeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/25/90)
In article <LOTTO.90May19083135@lamia.harvard.edu> lotto@lamia.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) writes: > Cold Fusion. Cod fusion. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.
ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) (05/25/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > lotto@lamia.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) writes: >> Cold Fusion. >Cod fusion. No, no, no... He means Cold Fishin'...
paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) (05/30/90)
>OK skeptics and scientists, please explain this event, which happened >here in New Zealand yesterday: >A women was preparing a flounder (a type of flatfish) for cooking. >She had cut off the head, and was slicing along the backbone with >a sharp knife on a wooden cutting board. >Suddenly, there was a loud bang and a flash of light! She called >the police, and investigation showed the following: > o There were burn marks INSIDE the fish > o A chunk of the metal of the knife had been taken out >The fish had been purchased recently from her normal supplier. >Explanations, anyone? This is *not* an urban myth. It happened. OK. I enjoy flexing my skeptical muscles, so here goes. First: evidence, sources. Where did you hear of this? local paper, radio news, friend of a friend? What evidence do you have that this was not an urban myth (I leave aside the possibility that this is your idea of a joke, or maybe hers. Some people will do anything to get on telly). Note that local and national media have been known to propogate urban myths, so having heard it on the news is no proof. Assuming it actually happened, here are some off-the-cuff theories: Flounders are bottom-dwellers, eating random garbage that sinks down from above. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this flounder ingested a chunk of explosive which detonated when it was cut open. Not knowing how to gut fish or anything about the anatomy of flounders, I cannot comment on whether this could place it near the backbone. The explosive could have come from military exercises, geological surveys or illegal fish dynamiting (to name three possible sources). Pressure, age and environment would combine to make it unstable and likely to go off at a touch. OR Perhaps the fish was not too fresh. Maybe some methane or something built up inside the fish. Ignition is a problem: I can't quite see a spark from the knife doing it. On the other hand there would be some pretty weird chemistry in a rotting fish, and maybe some minor component of the gas self-ignited on contact with air. UV from sunlight might do this as well. Thats two guesses to keep you going. Anyone actualy analyse the fish for residues from explosives? How big was the chunk of knife that went missing? Paul. -- Paul Johnson UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj --------------------------------!-------------------------|------------------- GEC-Marconi Research is not | Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331 responsible for my opinions. | Inet: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc | Fax: +44 245 75244
teexmmo@isis.educ.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (06/28/90)
In article <25025@mimsy.umd.edu> mjr@umiacs.umd.edu (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: >In article <1990Jun20.153345.18754@ccs.carleton.ca> mpg@doe.carleton.ca (Mike Gagnon) writes: > >>But this was never resolved! There was alot of speculation, alot of >>theories, alot of dumb jokes, but no substantial explanation! > >The simplest theory I can come up with is: > >"the whole thing was made up." > >I wonder if Occam's razor holds in this case ? >-- Occam's razor is a guide to scientific explanation, and was stated by one William of Ockham in the thirteenth century. I read somewhere that he originally said : "do not needlessly multiply entities". In other words, when seeking to explain natural phenomena, do _not_ invent or suggest causes due to extra beings or forces. In general, it is often stated as : "when choosing between explanations, it is sensible to choose the simplest." It should be noted that Ocamm's razor is only a guide, not a law. (As applied to the fish, all the warheads, build up of explosive gas inside the fish and so on are 'needlessly multiplied entities' in my view, whereas the electric cord is probably not).