[FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 164, Issue 29
Jon Zingale
jonzingale at gmail.com
Thu Feb 16 01:09:32 EST 2017
yeah you guys are all right, fluorescent
lights forever. They feel totally great and
gee whiz, we can even think under them.
best idea of the 20th century.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, <friam-request at redfish.com> wrote:
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Na?ve physics question (Nick Thompson)
> 2. Re: Why depth/thickness matters (glen ?)
> 3. Re: Na?ve physics question (Barry MacKichan)
> 4. Re: Why depth/thickness matters (Vladimyr Burachynsky)
> 5. FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Nick Thompson)
> 6. Re: Na?ve physics question (Steven A Smith)
> 7. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Steven A Smith)
> 8. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
> (Vladimyr Burachynsky)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:20:31 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
> Frank, ‘n all.
>
>
>
> It looks like I am… not to put too fine a point on it… *WRONG* about
> this. I hate when that happens. It seems WILDLY counter intuitive to me,
> but so, I should admit, does most of physics.
>
>
>
> You are all going to have to explain it to me VERY patiently, perhaps over
> coffee, perhaps on Friday.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Over the last 2 or 3 years I have replaced most of our incandescent light
> bulbs with equivalent (light output) LED bulbs. Our electric bill has gone
> down about 20% summer and winter.
>
>
>
> When I worked in the Robotics Institute I was leader of a project to put
> sensors all over a fluorescent lamp factory to increase yield. That is, to
> reduce the number of defective bulbs (out of millions). The Westinghouse
> engineers told us that certain large office buildings were optimized for
> minimum energy use for lighting and heat in a method that involved keeping
> the lights on all night. This, however, caused a public relations problem
> in that people who saw them lit up complained about their wasting energy.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> All—
>
>
>
> Can I piggy back on to Gary’s question with one of my own. Much more
> naïve. Even tho I am an ardent conservationist, I believe that claims for
> energy saving from light bulbs that don’t spill heat only approach truth in
> the warmest parts of our country. Where yearly annual temperature average
> is less than human comfort, the cost from heat loss from incandescent bulbs
> is compensated by a diminishment in the cost of heating by other means.
> This works particularly well with a reading lamp, which is warming you
> while it lights you. Now in summer, the loss of heat from bulbs is
> actually a very bad thing because it has to be compensated for with
> airconditioning. But summers in most of the country are way shorter than
> winters.
>
>
>
> I am sure I am going to get some sort of a lecture on the second law,
> here. Spilled heat from inefficiently deployed light sources is STILL more
> expensive than heat directly extracted from gas or oil. Not sure how to
> think about that.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
> Cordingley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
>
>
> Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of having
> two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless one of the
> systems is capable of storing energy in some form differently from the
> other the equilibrium temperatures should be the same.
>
> Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since the
> containers are transparent (presumably to the same light that's emitted,
> visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily. Incandescents generate a
> lot of heat for the same energy input which may not escape as easily as the
> light energy. It will depend on the thermal conductivity of the container's
> materials etc. If the CFB were 100% efficient all it's energy will leave
> immediately in a container that is 100 % transparent to its 'light' and
> show no temperature increase. If the incandescent's heat is transmitted as
> infrared energy at 100% efficiency along with any light then its
> temperature will show no increase either. So the answer may have more to
> do with the properties of the containers than the properties of the lights.
> Practically, I'd expect A to warm up more than B because B's light energy
> will escape more easily with materials we are familiar with.
>
> If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR) and have
> the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to the first paragraph.
>
> 2c
>
> Robert C
>
>
>
> On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>
> Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists, as well as
> just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the following fun question.
> Given: two transparent, sealed containers filled with air - one contains an
> incandescent light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of energy; the other
> container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that also *consumes* 100
> watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient design, it will produce
> more light than A. Assuming the same color temperature light is produced by
> A and B, and ignoring any feedback effects of rising temperatures inside
> the respective containers, will the temperatures inside the containers
> reach the same temperature? Naïve physicist G (me) thinks that since more
> light is escaping from the container containing B, that its temperature
> will rise less. G also thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the
> temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged with doubts.
> Please help G.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cirrillian
>
> Web Design & Development
>
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> http://cirrillian.com
>
> 281-989-6272 <(281)%20989-6272> (cell)
>
> Member Design Corps of Santa Fe
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "glen ☣" <gepropella at gmail.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:10:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
> On 02/14/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> > Thanks for the reorientation! If you want to discuss complexity, I think
> an interesting question regarding perception-action systems is how much of
> the complexity has to be inside the organism, and how much of it can be
> encapsulated in the larger organism-environment system. The more the
> complexit is spread across the system, the more the organism can get by
> with much less "mental" complexity that it might originally seem. That
> tension is at the heart of Gibson vs. traditional theories, though, of
> course, Gibson described the tension in different terms.
>
> Yes, and that's exactly what the Hoffman article is about, too, with their
> exploration of simpler or more complex environments. Your criticism of
> their (rather common) concept that seeing more takes more energy also
> exists in the "fly ball" and locomotive examples. And the well-kept or
> poorly-kept radio metaphor simply raises the spectre of "adaptation" and
> the target of selection pressures.
>
> In other words, the boundary between the organism, the environment, and
> the organizational relationship between them is nowhere near as crisp as we
> assume. It's that assumption that is the target of Hoffman's
> (anti-realism) project.
>
> And that brings me back to my original point about loopiness. We not only
> have the problem of distributing the logic beetween organism and
> environment. We also have the problem of how to grade/categorize the
> spectrum _between_ the two. E.g. to what extent is, say, a pair of
> eyeglasses a part of the organism? E.g. to what extent is the eye's cornea
> part of the environment?
>
> Computations over the organism strike me as one layer. Computations over
> an objectively extant landscape are another layer, perhaps of similar
> complexity than those over the organism. Computations over both are
> another layer. Computations over a collection of organisms, with a purely
> co-constructed "environment", is another. Computations over all 4 (each
> organism, extant environment, organism-extant-env couplings, multiple
> organisms in extant environment) is yet another layer. Loops within loops.
>
> > However, that doesn't necessarily speak to our ability to jettison
> "representation" and replace it with dynamic-systems accounts more
> generally.
> > [...]
> > So, to recap: The questions for the list are 1) Where will we look for
> the complexity in question? In the organism, in the environment, or in the
> system that includes both? 2) Once we have a decent account of that
> complexity, is anything added by inserting representation-talk in the
> middle of it?
>
> It's not clear to me why you focused on a juxtaposition of representation
> vs. dynamical systems. It sounds a lot like Marcus' argument in the
> loopiness thread. You seem to be arguing that we can "flatten" the system
> to a dynamical systems account, with some exogenous accuracy and precision
> or error. (By "exogenous", I mean typical sources like however we measure
> it or purely mechanical noise caused by a kind of "simple" uncertainty ...
> things like how well a nut fits a bolt, etc.)
>
> By arguing that some types of loops within loops are only amenable to
> lossy compression, I'm asserting that _some_ of the loss is due to
> non-isomorphic mappings across boundaries. The interfaces between actors
> are somehow smaller than what's on either side of the interfaces. (Hence
> my comments about the holographic principle.) In that sense, the question
> isn't merely about _where_ the complexity is (organism, environment, both),
> but also to what extent that complexity would be invariant if it were a)
> moved or b) modeled by something on the other side of a (smaller, lossy)
> interface.
>
> This raises questions like: to what extent do organisms model their
> environment or vice versa? Or to what extent are co-constructed scientific
> theories validated? How to falsify them? Etc.
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Barry MacKichan <barry.mackichan at mackichan.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
> An old North Carolina farmer (later confirmed by an advanced amateur
> astronomer) to put two incandescent bulbs in series. The halving of the
> voltage lowers the temp of the bulbs significantly, and at the lower
> voltage, the bulbs last essentially forever. I have no idea what happens if
> you do the same with CF bulbs.
>
> --Barry
>
>
> On 15 Feb 2017, at 9:18, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>
> Re: conservation, I was partly asking the question from a different
>> perspective: at times, I need to heat small spaces (like under cabinets) in
>> order to keep them dry. Incandescent bulbs are nearly impossible to get
>> here, plus they get really hot right at the bulb, thus presenting more of a
>> fire hazard. So, as long as I keep the cabinets closed, the CF bulbs should
>> work because the interior surfaces should absorb the light energy and be
>> converted to heat.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <vburach at shaw.ca>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:51:39 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
> I am an iconoclast as a consequence of trying to use statistical modelling
> during earlier stages of my life. zThese statistical models were generally
> very poor when applied to field work in animal distributions until someone
> accepted that truth and started admitting "clumpiness in distributions".
>
> Then after a time in engineering studying simulations of material
> behaviour and failure I realized that the models we were using were based
> on unreal assumptions again.
>
> In FEM studies we used convenient algorithms to model stress distribution
> across discreet very small elements based on older concepts and only
> approximated reality
> to various levels. These approximations were often mistakenly assumed to
> constitute a "reality" by novices. In part because no engineer was prepared
> for Quantum Mechanics. They still used Hooke's laws where ever possible.
>
> Representation is simply a tool to facilitate exploration of Dynamical
> systems. Representation should always be prepared to adapt when needed.
> Like sharpening a steel blade every so often.
> The iconoclast in me loves sharp tools and every Monday morning I
> instructed my team to clear their benches and methodically sharpen tools.
> Just because you sharpened a tool on Monday don't expect it to be sharp on
> Thursday unless it was idle.
> Eventually all knives wear down and need to be replaced. Representation is
> only an ideal target used only as long as it is functional.
> I do not dispute the value of good representational models but accept that
> they may not always be appropriate.
>
> I look to biology and its solutions as having a temporal legacy far back
> in time but even evolution fails occasionally. Death seems the reward for
> guessing wrong.
>
> Biology does seem to be a cheapskate recycling shitty solutions very often
> and does not seem to care about occasional extinctions.
>
> As long as the advocates of representational models acknowledge their
> place in the real world we can tolerate each other.
> vib
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
> Sent: February-15-17 1:11 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
>
> On 02/14/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> > Thanks for the reorientation! If you want to discuss complexity, I think
> an interesting question regarding perception-action systems is how much of
> the complexity has to be inside the organism, and how much of it can be
> encapsulated in the larger organism-environment system. The more the
> complexit is spread across the system, the more the organism can get by
> with much less "mental" complexity that it might originally seem. That
> tension is at the heart of Gibson vs. traditional theories, though, of
> course, Gibson described the tension in different terms.
>
> Yes, and that's exactly what the Hoffman article is about, too, with their
> exploration of simpler or more complex environments. Your criticism of
> their (rather common) concept that seeing more takes more energy also
> exists in the "fly ball" and locomotive examples. And the well-kept or
> poorly-kept radio metaphor simply raises the spectre of "adaptation" and
> the target of selection pressures.
>
> In other words, the boundary between the organism, the environment, and
> the organizational relationship between them is nowhere near as crisp as we
> assume. It's that assumption that is the target of Hoffman's
> (anti-realism) project.
>
> And that brings me back to my original point about loopiness. We not only
> have the problem of distributing the logic beetween organism and
> environment. We also have the problem of how to grade/categorize the
> spectrum _between_ the two. E.g. to what extent is, say, a pair of
> eyeglasses a part of the organism? E.g. to what extent is the eye's cornea
> part of the environment?
>
> Computations over the organism strike me as one layer. Computations over
> an objectively extant landscape are another layer, perhaps of similar
> complexity than those over the organism. Computations over both are
> another layer. Computations over a collection of organisms, with a purely
> co-constructed "environment", is another. Computations over all 4 (each
> organism, extant environment, organism-extant-env couplings, multiple
> organisms in extant environment) is yet another layer. Loops within loops.
>
> > However, that doesn't necessarily speak to our ability to jettison
> "representation" and replace it with dynamic-systems accounts more
> generally.
> > [...]
> > So, to recap: The questions for the list are 1) Where will we look for
> the complexity in question? In the organism, in the environment, or in the
> system that includes both? 2) Once we have a decent account of that
> complexity, is anything added by inserting representation-talk in the
> middle of it?
>
> It's not clear to me why you focused on a juxtaposition of representation
> vs. dynamical systems. It sounds a lot like Marcus' argument in the
> loopiness thread. You seem to be arguing that we can "flatten" the system
> to a dynamical systems account, with some exogenous accuracy and precision
> or error. (By "exogenous", I mean typical sources like however we measure
> it or purely mechanical noise caused by a kind of "simple" uncertainty ...
> things like how well a nut fits a bolt, etc.)
>
> By arguing that some types of loops within loops are only amenable to
> lossy compression, I'm asserting that _some_ of the loss is due to
> non-isomorphic mappings across boundaries. The interfaces between actors
> are somehow smaller than what's on either side of the interfaces. (Hence
> my comments about the holographic principle.) In that sense, the question
> isn't merely about _where_ the complexity is (organism, environment, both),
> but also to what extent that complexity would be invariant if it were a)
> moved or b) modeled by something on the other side of a (smaller, lossy)
> interface.
>
> This raises questions like: to what extent do organisms model their
> environment or vice versa? Or to what extent are co-constructed scientific
> theories validated? How to falsify them? Etc.
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: Friam <Friam at redfish.com>, "'Kim Sorvig'" <sorvig at cybermesa.com>
> Cc: <friam-owner at redfish.com>, <alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl>, "'Jenny
> Quillien'" <jquillien at cybermesa.com>, David West <
> davew at transcendencecorporation.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:57:36 -0700
> Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
> Helloooo, List,
>
>
>
> I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in
> the communication below). I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded
> a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song. I noticed
> that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A
> landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in
> fractals!” And I was right. So please welcome him. Steve please note?
>
>
>
> The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion
> that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose?
> fractality in another. So is there a relationship between the fractality
> which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the
> fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed.
>
>
>
> I particularly wonder what Kim Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave
> think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar
> in.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Alberto Jose Alaniz [mailto:alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
> *To:* nthompson at clarku.edu
> *Subject:* Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Dear Nick
>
>
>
> I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate
> of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this
> types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact
> with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my
> oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and
> i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.
>
>
>
> My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology,
> the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and
> International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem
> conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika
> virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss
> in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of
> Florida).
>
>
>
> *Alberto Alaniz Baeza*
>
> Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación
>
> Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados
>
> Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile
>
> Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas
>
> Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile
>
> Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA
>
> +56996097443
>
> https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:54:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
> Nick -
>
> The thing that might not be obvious is that Frank's *electric* bill went
> down. If he were heating *with* electricity, the difference might not be
> as significant... I suspect his (gas?) heating bill is a similar number of
> BTUs down, they are just cheaper BTUs than ones coming out of electric
> resistive elements (including incandescent bulbs).
>
> Also, ceiling fixture lighting tends to heat the *ceiling* which only
> helps much with the overall heating of the space if you have a 2 story
> house and you are talking about the ground floor lights. Unless you use
> *heat lamps* with good reflectors directing the IR into the room (not
> dissipating it in the fixture).
>
> I actually buy 125W infrared bulbs to go into certain fixtures in my house
> for the very reason you describe earlier... one of these as a reading light
> over my shoulder (or hanging from my first floor ceiling) not only adds
> BTUs to my house in general but increases the comfort in the chair I am
> sitting in, allowing me to be comfortable even if the space is lower than
> usual. My solar system works pretty well throughout all the months except
> Dec/Jan and a little Nov/Feb, so during those months I crank a lot of
> firewood through my woodstoves and put in my IR bulbs in a few choice
> locations. I used to use an electric mattress pad as well... The net
> cost of these was pretty small compared to using electric space heating...
>
> The rules of conservation of energy (physics not sociopolitical) are
> pretty simple, but the detailed implications of *comfort* and *economics*
> are a bit more subtle.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 2/15/17 10:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Frank, ‘n all.
>
>
>
> It looks like I am… not to put too fine a point on it… *WRONG* about
> this. I hate when that happens. It seems WILDLY counter intuitive to me,
> but so, I should admit, does most of physics.
>
>
>
> You are all going to have to explain it to me VERY patiently, perhaps over
> coffee, perhaps on Friday.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com
> <friam-bounces at redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Over the last 2 or 3 years I have replaced most of our incandescent light
> bulbs with equivalent (light output) LED bulbs. Our electric bill has gone
> down about 20% summer and winter.
>
>
>
> When I worked in the Robotics Institute I was leader of a project to put
> sensors all over a fluorescent lamp factory to increase yield. That is, to
> reduce the number of defective bulbs (out of millions). The Westinghouse
> engineers told us that certain large office buildings were optimized for
> minimum energy use for lighting and heat in a method that involved keeping
> the lights on all night. This, however, caused a public relations problem
> in that people who saw them lit up complained about their wasting energy.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> All—
>
>
>
> Can I piggy back on to Gary’s question with one of my own. Much more
> naïve. Even tho I am an ardent conservationist, I believe that claims for
> energy saving from light bulbs that don’t spill heat only approach truth in
> the warmest parts of our country. Where yearly annual temperature average
> is less than human comfort, the cost from heat loss from incandescent bulbs
> is compensated by a diminishment in the cost of heating by other means.
> This works particularly well with a reading lamp, which is warming you
> while it lights you. Now in summer, the loss of heat from bulbs is
> actually a very bad thing because it has to be compensated for with
> airconditioning. But summers in most of the country are way shorter than
> winters.
>
>
>
> I am sure I am going to get some sort of a lecture on the second law,
> here. Spilled heat from inefficiently deployed light sources is STILL more
> expensive than heat directly extracted from gas or oil. Not sure how to
> think about that.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert J.
> Cordingley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
>
>
>
> Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of having
> two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless one of the
> systems is capable of storing energy in some form differently from the
> other the equilibrium temperatures should be the same.
>
> Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since the
> containers are transparent (presumably to the same light that's emitted,
> visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily. Incandescents generate a
> lot of heat for the same energy input which may not escape as easily as the
> light energy. It will depend on the thermal conductivity of the container's
> materials etc. If the CFB were 100% efficient all it's energy will leave
> immediately in a container that is 100 % transparent to its 'light' and
> show no temperature increase. If the incandescent's heat is transmitted as
> infrared energy at 100% efficiency along with any light then its
> temperature will show no increase either. So the answer may have more to
> do with the properties of the containers than the properties of the lights.
> Practically, I'd expect A to warm up more than B because B's light energy
> will escape more easily with materials we are familiar with.
>
> If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR) and have
> the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to the first paragraph.
>
> 2c
>
> Robert C
>
>
>
> On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>
> Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists, as well as
> just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the following fun question.
> Given: two transparent, sealed containers filled with air - one contains an
> incandescent light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of energy; the other
> container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that also *consumes* 100
> watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient design, it will produce
> more light than A. Assuming the same color temperature light is produced by
> A and B, and ignoring any feedback effects of rising temperatures inside
> the respective containers, will the temperatures inside the containers
> reach the same temperature? Naïve physicist G (me) thinks that since more
> light is escaping from the container containing B, that its temperature
> will rise less. G also thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the
> temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged with doubts.
> Please help G.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cirrillian
>
> Web Design & Development
>
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> http://cirrillian.com
>
> 281-989-6272 <%28281%29%20989-6272> (cell)
>
> Member Design Corps of Santa Fe
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:05:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
> Nick -
>
> This is one of your (wonderfully, and I mean that seriously) naive
> questions, and the naive answer is yes, they are surely coupled. I'm very
> interested in "soundscapes" so am often very aware of both the complex
> passive structure of most soundscapes (especially landscape vs urbanscape)
> and the active (birdsongs, garbage trucks, wind in the willows, sirens,
> ice-floes, domestic disturbances) elements.
>
> You are likely to have a better idea than I do about whether bird's songs
> are likely to be *formulated* in a more or less complex manner when in a
> complex "landscape". I would guess yes to this. I would guess that the
> three most relevant scales are roughly the scale of the bird's body, it's
> food-source, and it's natural predators. How well can it hide, how well
> can it's food hide, and how well does it's predator hide. I"m sure this
> is an overly simplified model.
>
> I think rather than fractal (literally), the more relevant concept is
> "with structure at many scales".
>
> IN any case, welcome to Alberto! My own daughter happens to be a
> researcher in Flaviviruses, traditionally West Nile and Dingue, but now is
> drawn into the Zika thing... I look forward to hearing more from you
> Alberto!
>
> - Steve
>
> On 2/15/17 3:57 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Helloooo, List,
>
>
>
> I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in
> the communication below). I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded
> a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song. I noticed
> that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A
> landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in
> fractals!” And I was right. So please welcome him. Steve please note?
>
>
>
> The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion
> that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose?
> fractality in another. So is there a relationship between the fractality
> which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the
> fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed.
>
>
>
> I particularly wonder what Kim Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave
> think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar
> in.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Alberto Jose Alaniz [mailto:alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl
> <alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
> *To:* nthompson at clarku.edu
> *Subject:* Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Dear Nick
>
>
>
> I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate
> of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this
> types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact
> with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my
> oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and
> i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.
>
>
>
> My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology,
> the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and
> International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem
> conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika
> virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss
> in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of
> Florida).
>
>
>
> *Alberto Alaniz Baeza*
>
> Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación
>
> Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados
>
> Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile
>
> Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas
>
> Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile
>
> Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA
>
> +56996097443
>
> https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <vburach at shaw.ca>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:20:29 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
> Nick or Glen,
>
>
>
> I have been mulling over the thread about Representation versus
> Dynamicism for a bit and the differences
>
> that language imposes whenever cross-disciplines attempt to converse.
> Today I was struggling with some code
>
> to create Voronoi Meshes nested within each other based on nested spheres.
> All look well enough until I introduced a
>
> primitive solid, a Cube and tried to make everything spin in space.
>
>
>
> I needed to decide which entity or sets were coupled to which… So thinking
> of FEM procedures I decided to make
>
> the Voronoi Sets occupy the Global Coordinate Position and attach the Cube
> as a Local Coordinate System. This is
>
> rather arbitrary and can go either way. The problem appears somewhat akin
> to our thread, but I am aware that these distinctions
>
> are contained within the same Simulation and neither reflects a reality
> except by coincidence. To cope with multiple coordinate systems one
> requires
>
> a pertinent transformation matrix but if one is reckless the results are
> meaningless. The appearance of coupled systems may be illusionary and
> mistaken
>
> as causative.
>
>
>
> I thought today there was also a mention in Science Daily of fractals in
> Rorsach tests the more fractals, the more imaginative the observer’s answer.
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170214162838.htm
>
>
>
> It will take a few days but will try and make a video out of the apparent
> incongruity of these objects. The Cube is lacking any distinctive edge
> embellishments and
>
> troubles the mind as unreal somehow.
>
> Language always hampers exchange of ideas.
>
> vib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
> Thompson
> *Sent:* February-15-17 4:58 PM
> *To:* Friam; 'Kim Sorvig'
> *Cc:* alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl; friam-owner at redfish.com; David West
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Helloooo, List,
>
>
>
> I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in
> the communication below). I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded
> a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song. I noticed
> that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A
> landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in
> fractals!” And I was right. So please welcome him. Steve please note?
>
>
>
> The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion
> that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose?
> fractality in another. So is there a relationship between the fractality
> which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the
> fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed.
>
>
>
> I particularly wonder what Kim Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave
> think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar
> in.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Alberto Jose Alaniz [mailto:alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl
> <alberto.alaniz at ug.uchile.cl>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
> *To:* nthompson at clarku.edu
> *Subject:* Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Dear Nick
>
>
>
> I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate
> of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this
> types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact
> with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my
> oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and
> i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.
>
>
>
> My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology,
> the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and
> International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem
> conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika
> virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss
> in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of
> Florida).
>
>
>
> *Alberto Alaniz Baeza*
>
> Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación
>
> Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados
>
> Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile
>
> Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas
>
> Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile
>
> Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA
>
> +56996097443
>
> https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170215/6470561a/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list