January 2009 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding
by zaurak＠digis.net 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

I don't think others should profit form his work. So yes, I think he should be able to copyright it and at least share in the profit. As I recall it was a the Dole-Hatch Act in the 80's that allowed them to copyright the discoveries, I think it needs further amending. My only problem is that some "scientists" refuse to share what information and data they produce. Copyright laws seem to hinder the sharing of info, there should be reform. I think most Universities are a combo of public and private grants. In energy research I understand the majority is private funding. They work side by side with industry that does get to protect their discoveries. --- retenney(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:07:34 -0800 (PST) Now that you mention it, I don't remember him mentioning the source of his funding. I was assuming public funds, as he teaches at UCSB. And for argument's sake, let's assume it was public funds. Does he then have the right to copyright his work so he can personally profit from it? --- On Fri, 1/30/09, zaurak(a)digis.net <zaurak(a)digis.net> wrote: > From: zaurak(a)digis.net <zaurak(a)digis.net> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 11:59 AM > Hi Rich, > > As I see it the problem is that the privately funded > research becomes propitiatory so what is published and > shared is up to the company funding the research. > In the case of the Drug Industry they can choose not to > release studies that show harmful affects of the drug the > spent to develop, Avandia for example. They are simply to > invested in the outcome of the study to be trusted to do > good science. Results should not be censored, and result > should be analyzed by independent people. > In the case of energy sources they can withhold data that > shows what a competing energy source is capable of > providing. > > It seems contrary to good science, and paticularly in the > case of medical research, all studies should be public > domain. I think this clearly shows the fallacy that private > funding provides and advances science better than public > funding. Did the speaker advocate changes in the current > funding environment? > > Erik > > > --- retenney(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> > To: Utah Astronomy > <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:54 -0800 (PST) > > So after attending last night's excellent F.O.S. > lecture at the U on emerging solar photovoltaic technology, > I came away a little troubled by something that I realized > in the course of the lecture. I post this by way of trying > to better understand things, so if I'm wrong in what > I'm thinking here, please one or more of you correct me. > > It occurred to me that we are publicly funding (taxes, NSA > grants, etc.) university-level research that in turn is > being copyrighted and commercialized by the individuals > receiving the grants for personal gain. I recognize that > their hard work and creativity certainly deserves to be > rewarded, but shouldn't scientific breakthroughs funded > by taxes become public domain, available to any and all > enterprising talent to bring said technologies to market (at > a far more rapid pace than could said individual, who > certainly wouldn't be excluded, and in fact have a > head-start due to his/her intimate understanding of the > emerging technology)? Aren't we the venture capitalists > in that sense, entitled to share in the profit? Or is the > profit that cool new things come to market? > > I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the > subject... > /R > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding
by zaurak＠digis.net 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

Hi Rich, As I see it the problem is that the privately funded research becomes propitiatory so what is published and shared is up to the company funding the research. In the case of the Drug Industry they can choose not to release studies that show harmful affects of the drug the spent to develop, Avandia for example. They are simply to invested in the outcome of the study to be trusted to do good science. Results should not be censored, and result should be analyzed by independent people. In the case of energy sources they can withhold data that shows what a competing energy source is capable of providing. It seems contrary to good science, and paticularly in the case of medical research, all studies should be public domain. I think this clearly shows the fallacy that private funding provides and advances science better than public funding. Did the speaker advocate changes in the current funding environment? Erik --- retenney(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard Tenney <retenney(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:54 -0800 (PST) So after attending last night's excellent F.O.S. lecture at the U on emerging solar photovoltaic technology, I came away a little troubled by something that I realized in the course of the lecture. I post this by way of trying to better understand things, so if I'm wrong in what I'm thinking here, please one or more of you correct me. It occurred to me that we are publicly funding (taxes, NSA grants, etc.) university-level research that in turn is being copyrighted and commercialized by the individuals receiving the grants for personal gain. I recognize that their hard work and creativity certainly deserves to be rewarded, but shouldn't scientific breakthroughs funded by taxes become public domain, available to any and all enterprising talent to bring said technologies to market (at a far more rapid pace than could said individual, who certainly wouldn't be excluded, and in fact have a head-start due to his/her intimate understanding of the emerging technology)? Aren't we the venture capitalists in that sense, entitled to share in the profit? Or is the profit that cool new things come to market? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject... /R _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by zaurak＠digis.net 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

Canyonlands certainly has no shortage of unique features not seen anywhere else. --- canopus56(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy List Serv <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:27:07 -0800 (PST) Jim wrote: > While reading your comments and some of the articles I was > wondering how many examples of salt dome’s there were. > From this one statement If true, "Upheaval Dome would earn the distinction > of being the most deeply eroded salt structure on earth." It would seem > that the salt school guys are going to have to come up with > extraordinary evidence to back this extraordinary claim. I don't know of specific examples for Utah; I'm not a geologist. But we have enough geologists and petroleum exploration geologists on this list to answer that. The Paradox Formation beneath canyonlands is a classic example of a salt layer that is the source that forms salt domes. The salt rises from below into a diapir with dome sprouting out the top like a mushroom head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salt_dome_hg.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome The wikipedia entry for "salt dome" has a picture of an "emergent salt dome" near Fisher Towers in Moab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ken_Leonard_-_Fisher_Towers_-_Salt_Dome_P… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ken_Leonard_-_Fisher_Towers_-_IMAG0059.JPG The Fisher Towers salt dome is newly forming, e.g. - emergent. The most cited classic dome example that I have seen (when I was hunting for salt dome images a few months ago) is the Kuh-e-Namak in Iran http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6465 The Kuh-e-Namak is a salt dome in mid-life. It's fully formed and is now being eroded away, as you can see from this side view: http://www.beg.utexas.edu/news-events/news-archive2/jackson_iran_02-2004.htm There are even "salt glaciers" coming off the thing. Who would have thunk such a thing existed - salt glaciers? Considering the Fisher Towers emergent salt dome, of which I was not aware of previously, it seems the old geologic consensus that Upheaval is an eroded salt dome is not that far out of an idea. Why look for randomn rocks falling out of the sky when you can see another cause right in front of you doing the same thing in real time? As the Huntoon article says, the Dome is kind of a geologic Rorschat Blot. "[B]ut this is not simply a debate about different processes, rather it reflects deeper philosophical divisions", citing those that in their gut believe in geologic uniformism governed by slow processes and those who are willing to accept random catestrophic acts as a force of nature. Although on first impression Upheaval has always looked like an impact crater to me because of the dual concentric ringwalls. Come' on. It obviously looks like an impact crater. But here's a picture of another crater like bowl shape - dug out of gypsum by the wind - and that has nothing to do with a meteor impact - Richat Structure, Mauritania. 48 km dia. NASA Image of the Day. url: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_528.html And another well known local hole in the ground that is about a kilometer bigger than Upheaval's 3km diameter - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8144 What that caused that "crater"? - Kurt _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

4 7

Off Topic, but this guy needs help
by WAYNE S CLARKE 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

Would any of you with the expertise and/or experience to help this gentleman please contact him. > From: ockhamraz(a)gmail.com > To: waynesclarke(a)msn.com > Subject: Question for SLAS Observatory Training Director > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:45:46 -0600 > > Dear Sir, > I have a Meade ETX-70 AT telescope that is not functional. Outwardly > it appears to be in good shape but the electronics are in need of > attention. I am not a star gazer but we have guests occasionally in > our Park City home that are interested in observing. > Is there someone you could recommend who repairs these instruments-- > perhaps one of your members or a commercial service? > Thanks, > Ronald H Reimann > > > > >

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] San Rafael Swell (SLAS talk?)
by zaurak＠digis.net 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

As I recall, from the transitional board meeting, Dave Bernson mentioned that Kurt was one of the speakers he was hoping (and planning) to get. Erik --- canopus56(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy List Serv <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] San Rafael Swell (SLAS talk?) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:22:42 -0800 (PST) > Roger and Kurt, would you consider putting all of this into a talk for a SLAS meeting? patrick Back in November, when he was merely president-elect Berson, I sent president Dave a powerpoint with a cc: to Roger with an offer to work on a presentation. To broaden the appeal to the general public, I suggested April when spring-fever Salt Lakers start making their annual early spring migrations to some warm weather in Canyonlands. In short, yes. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] San Rafael Swell (SLAS talk?)
by JayLEads 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

I'll look forward to the meeting! On 2009-01-29 09:22, Canopus56 wrote: > > Roger and Kurt, would you consider putting all of this into a talk for a SLAS meeting? patrick > > Back in November, when he was merely president-elect Berson, I sent president Dave a powerpoint with a cc: to Roger with an offer to work on a presentation. To broaden the appeal to the general public, I suggested April when spring-fever Salt Lakers start making their annual early spring migrations to some warm weather in Canyonlands. In short, yes. - Kurt > > > > >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by Canopus56 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

In another thread, Jim wrote: > I was just down at Café Rio and one of the workers had to break me out of my trance. I was watching > the Salt Domes forming on the frying tortillas. I could see the Mexican crustal plate moved eastward > pushing hard on the Gringo plate. LOL. Looks like I'll have to try the salsa at Café Rio. Seems to have an secret ingredient with an extra kick to it. Glad you enjoyed the background on Upheaval Dome. Regrettably, I have to take care of some personal stuff for a day or so and move on to other things. Clear Skies - Kurt

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] San Rafael Swell (SLAS talk?)
by Canopus56 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

> Roger and Kurt, would you consider putting all of this into a talk for a SLAS meeting? patrick Back in November, when he was merely president-elect Berson, I sent president Dave a powerpoint with a cc: to Roger with an offer to work on a presentation. To broaden the appeal to the general public, I suggested April when spring-fever Salt Lakers start making their annual early spring migrations to some warm weather in Canyonlands. In short, yes. - Kurt

1 0

San Rafael Swell
by rcfry＠comcast.net 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

I was glad to see the blog on San Rafael Swell on Utah Astronomy. I am out of town sitting a 8,000 foot well and am forced to use web mail to respond to emails. I am coming home tonight and planned to respond when I get back, but Chuck Hards said "Calling Rodger Fry" forced me to crawl out of my shell. Here it is in a nutshell. The San Rafael Swell is a classic geologic dome or doubly plunging anticline. It was formed by tectonic east-west compressional forces during the Larimide Orogony which started about 68 million years ago. Without question, it isn't an impact crater but is a wonder in itself and I feel is Utah's best kept secret (lets keep it that way). About 68 million years ago, the Pacific crustal plate moved eastward pushing hard on the North American plate. This caused many events to occur two of which are subduction and the formation of thrust faults prevalent in Utah. and crustal compression forming features like the San Rafael Swell and the Rock Springs Uplift. In the San Rafael Swell, the youngest rocks are found on the outer ring of the swell which are the gray marine shales of the Mancos formation. Moving inward to the interior of the swell you go progressively deeper in the geologic section though older formations these including the Dakota sandstone, Morrison formation (famous for dinosaur bones), Entrata sandstone, Carmel formation, Navajo Sandstone (which forms most of the picturesque red-orange cliffs surrounding the swell), Wingate Sandstone, Chinle formation, Moencopi Sandstone and finally, the core of the swell has Permian age rocks, Paradox Formation, exposed. Other minor formations are present in this section. This is a truly remarkable place for anyone interested in geology. Many of the formations are fossil rich including Gryphea Newberri (oyster type molluscs) and Pyronocyclus Wyomingensus (large 2-foot diameter ammonites) in the Mancos Formation, Dinosaur bones in the Morrison Formation, Penticrinus (star crinoid stems-animals that lived on a stalk) in the Carmel Formation. It is a great place to just go and hang out. And for astronomy, the Wedge is located on the Western rim of the swell offers a great dark-sky site 2 1/2 hours from Salt Lake As far as Upheavel Dome. When I was in college as a geology major in the 1960's we took a field trip that included Upheavel Dome. At that time it was universally accepted that this was a salt diapir (intrusion). However, our professor offered an alternate hypothesis that it might be an impact crater which was marginally radical at the time. Many came away open to the fact that might be an impact crater me included. Since that time many studies have been conducted on this and other impact craters world wide and without a doubt, the evidence exists to support the impact crater hypothesis. As far as someone mentioning that Upheavel Dome has a central peak, keep in mind this is a very old impact crater that has been modified by erosian. Erosian has allowed resistive formations surrounding the crater to be cliff formers and the erodible formations to become valleys. The central peaks or highland areas of the dome is the evaporite rich Paradox formation of Permian age. Therefore, the central peak is an erosional feature. This has been a great blog that I have loved reading but not having easy access to email I missed out on most of the fun. I will be glad to be back in town and on-line again. Rodger Fry

7 7

Warning! Way OT...
by Kim 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

…but good fun, nevertheless: HYPERLINK "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5601050.ece"h ttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5601050.ece No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 1/28/2009 6:37 AM

1 0