|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2007 11:57:15 GMT -4
Actually, I believe Jay must have deleted a post. He had written a response to my post #36 that's not here anymore.
That is correct. My post explained the MMPI and illustrated a sample question that a conspiracist might answer differently than someone else to indicate possible schizophrenia. At first I interpreted your question to ask about the MMPI in general. After re-reading carefully I came to believe you were asking which specific MMPI questions might lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia, not what the MMPI was -- so my post seemed considerably off the mark.
Sorry if I misled anyone.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2007 12:03:59 GMT -4
Now could the temperature in the building be lowered enough to simulate the temperature of the moon.
No.
"The temperature" of the Moon is not an ambient in the same way atmospheric temperature on Earth is. When we say it's 70 F in Los Angeles, we mean that the temperature of the air slightly above Los Angeles is 70 F. As you go higher it gets colder. The temperature of the ground (or other surfaces) in or near Los Angeles may be considerably different -- it's not uncommon for the parking lot surfaces around Newport Beach to reach temperatures of 150 F or more.
When high or low temperatures are given for "the Moon," these are not air temperatures, obviously because there's no air. Those temperatures are given for the lunar surface (i.e., the rocks and dust) are are average temperatures taken over a suitably large area. Clearly each point on the surface will reach a different equilibrium temperature depending on its precise heat-transfer situation.
If you say the lunar surface temperature is -200 F, you cannot cool the helium in a building to -200 F and say that duplicates the lunar environment. The very cold helium will, in fact, draw heat away from any hotter object in it, completely unlike what happens to objects on the Moon.
Further, the mechanism to achieve and maintain a volume of several million cubic meters of helium at atmospheric pressure and near-cryogenic temperatures would be more impressive than the Moon landings.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 12, 2007 12:48:22 GMT -4
Would the effect of lowering the helium to this low temperature create a reduced gravity situation? Helium at low temperatures seems to defy gravity. If a room were to achieve the crtitical temp of Helium where it was a liquid and a gas at the same time? What would -173C Helium room simulate?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 12, 2007 13:27:38 GMT -4
It sounds like you're trying to formulate some kind of "magic helium" theory.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 12, 2007 13:33:18 GMT -4
Oh. I wasn't sure if you guys could delete your own posts or not... I can; I assume everyone else can as well. I'm surprised HB's haven't done that more often. Sssh, don't give them ideas. I believe that's why Showtime tried to re-register after he took his ball and went home; so he could delete all of his posts and erase the evidence of his public humiliation.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 12, 2007 14:06:30 GMT -4
Would the effect of lowering the helium to this low temperature create a reduced gravity situation? No, a lower temperature would increase the density of the helium. To lessen the effect of drag, which is what you are trying to accomplish, you'd want to increase the temperature. EDIT: Perhaps you need to better explain yourself, inconceivable. My answer is in reference to simulating the action of dust in a vacuum by using a low density gas, as indicated in your opening post. Now as I re-read your last post I don’t know what you are trying to imply. Are you talking about actually trying to reduce the effects of gravity? What would -173C Helium room simulate? At that temperature, helium is about 3 times denser than it is at normal room temperature. The drag force on particles moving through the helium is therefore three times greater. (edit) This assumes constant pressure.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2007 14:58:12 GMT -4
Would the effect of lowering the helium to this low temperature create a reduced gravity situation?
No. Gravity would remain the same. And as Bob noted, the increased density that resulted from lower temperature would increase the propensity to create aerosols, which is what you had hoped to avoid by using helium.
Helium at low temperatures seems to defy gravity.
What do you mean by this? And how does that affect the gravitational behavior of other objects in the helium?
What would -173C Helium room simulate?
A very cold but otherwise ordinary room.
The atmosphere would then be about half as dense as normal air at room temperature, so the aerosol problem partly returns.
Larger objects dominated by gravity behavior instead of aerodynamic behavior will behave no differently from a ballistic standpoint.
Every object in the room would be subject to tremendous chilling, reducing elasticity and resistance to unusable values. For example, the insulation on electrical cables would become as brittle as glass and shatter every time the cable was moved. The space suits, in addition to closed-loop breathing, would then need heaters with portable power supplies lasting hours. Photographic film would not work. Just about the only advantage you'd get is cooling for the lighting instruments.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 12, 2007 15:11:02 GMT -4
... and it is flat amazing how many of them some of our local HB types would answer yes. Answer yes to what question? Oh, some of the ones about how people would do anything to get ahead, about how most people lie most of the time. I'm sure Jay pegged at least one, and given a copy of the test (which I don't have), I'm sure most of us could pick out a dozen or so. I'm pretty sure I even came across one or two about the Government (TM). What's fun is that, without knowledge of my physical problems, a bunch of the ones I answered "true" to come across making me look like a hypochondriac.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 12, 2007 17:33:39 GMT -4
Liquid helium has a few unsual properties, including being able to climb out of a breaker, however this doesn't affect objects placed in the helium, and trying to film in liquid helium would not only be an impressive feat, but would not produce results like seen in the Apollo footage, more like some of the scenes in the Abyss.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2007 18:27:32 GMT -4
Actually I gave an amusing contrived example: "Do you believe your toaster is laughing at you?" That's a Simpsons reference, but it illustrates the kind of question that might address paranoia.
As I recall, the MMPI is not "open-source," so I don't think a copy of it would be easy to find.
After discovering that a lot of what I wanted to study about engineering had roots in psychology and sociology, I took some additional courses in that. At the time, human factors in engineering was mostly about how people interacted with machinery and accidentally flew it into mountains, etc. It was not at all about the psychology of the engineers themselves in producing and analyzing designs for those machines. Lately that has received more attention.
But my psychology professor at the University of Michigan had been in clinical practice for many years and brought a wealth of practical experience to his survey of basic abnormal psychology. His introduction emphasized two points: (1) Don't try to diagnose your friends if you want them to stay that way, and (2) Everyone's a little bit crazy.
The interpretation of standardized psychological assessments is very much an art. No assessment provides you a one-dimensional gauge that reads Sane at one extreme and Bonkers at the other. You can still see where many of the questions are headed, but the art lies in realizing how the questions don't necessarily examine orthogonal traits. (There's that word again.) A question that seems aimed at schizophrenia may indicate it only when combined with other questions. An enormous amount of statistical and methodological work goes into standardizing, calibrating, and hardening these assessments. It comes down to the notion that someone who is trying to interpret Gillianren's answers outside the context of her physical condition is ipso facto doing it wrong. And analogously you can't cherry-pick one or two questions and on that basis conclude that someone is bonkers in some particular way.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 12, 2007 19:38:07 GMT -4
Actually I gave an amusing contrived example: "Do you believe your toaster is laughing at you? Not anymore it isn't
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 12, 2007 20:44:25 GMT -4
Would the effect of lowering the helium to this low temperature create a reduced gravity situation? Helium at low temperatures seems to defy gravity. No, it wouldn't reduce gravity. IIRC, liquid He can flow out of a beaker, but not because it effects gravity. It has to do with density. It's buoyant, like a helium ballow, or a blimp. I suppose it would simulate a very cold room. That's about it. There's nothing about it that would allow one to recreate the enviroment of the moon.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 13, 2007 16:25:22 GMT -4
Just to piggyback on Jay's remarks - temperature control of equipment (including space-suited personnel) in such a chamber would be impossible because of the tremendous convective cooling due to the helium atmosphere. On the Moon, it was relatively easy to control temperatures: the engineers only had to worry about heat transfer via conduction and radiation.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 13, 2007 16:51:38 GMT -4
Yes, would it even be possible to survive submerged in liquid helium for hours at a time? With 1960s technology?
|
|