Cliff was probably the coolest hand under fire that I have ever worked for under total panic/crisis electrical situations.
Cliffy, could be an evil genius at times, although not with yours truly directly.
Cliff is a believer in centrifugal force and a true credit to the Cornell School of Electrical Engineering. Cliff has forgotten more than most electrical engineers know about up, down and inside out.
Once many years ago late on a Friday afternoon, when we were having complex power generation problems Cliff turned to my gang and said, "I've got a date with a lady in Pittsburgh and I'm not going to let this place interfer with my personal life." What a guy!!!
I'm hoping Cliff is enjoying his retirement and I would sincerely recommend him for a position of professor of practical electrical engineering.
Tom Lehman
Btw, it looks like electrical re-regulation has worked out ok in Ohio, much as I suggested, if anyone takes the initiative to do something about it.
Les Schaffer wrote:
> DANIEL.DAVIES (aka dd) saids:
>
> > But are happy with ones which are based on very clear
> > misunderstandings of simple English words. "Up" as a property of
> > quarks is not the opposite of "down". Evocative or nay, that's a
> > wrong use.
>
> what on earth are you saying? (can't you read a map???)
>
> if you look at a map of Strange-Charge space, the up and down quarks
> lie on a line of constant Strangeness and varying Charge.
>
> the up quark has a charge of 2/3, the down quark has a charge of
> -1/3. so, like, in the (positive) charge direction, the up quark is
> higher than the down quark, and so up and down kinda fit. and they are
> opposites in the sense that they have opposite charge (plus and
> minus).
>
> so there is a rough way in which the description up-down works and
> they sit opposite each other in S-Q space. the s quark sits sideways
> direction from the up and down quarks (it has the same charge as the
> down quark), the majority of your daily run-of-the-mill particles are
> made of the up and down quarks. the proton is made of a triple of
> quarks u-u-d ( 2/3 + 2/3 + -1/3 = 1 charge) and neutron is u-d-d ( 2/3
> + -1/3 + -1/3 = 0 charge). (the electron aint got no quarks at'all).
>
> that s-s-s-s-illy (s-s-s-s-ideways) quark makes for oddball stuff and
> so is s-s-s-s-trange indeed. in S-Q space the s (strange) quark is
> neither up nor down from the up quark, but sits kitty corner to it.
>
> > I have no horse in this race -- I'm an economics spod, myself. But
> > I've had my nerves struck hard and often by maths and physics types
> > who regularly truck into the markets, call themselves "rocket
> > scientists" and then proceed to misapply their models to economic
> > data while refusing to understand basic concepts of finance.
>
> this i can appreciate... i know more than a few hot-shot math types
> who try to make this leap.
>
> les schaffer
>
> p.s. some nice pictures and a little "history" which shows why the
> names up and down might have occured at the appropriate historical
> juncture:
>
> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/hienergy/tutorial/fundamentals.html