On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:00:22 GMT > said:
>>>
>>>the only justification i have seen from you is that freud did not have a
>>>degree (or some other formal qulification) in theology. what other
>>>reasons do you have?
>>>
--I don't keep these postings long, but I think I said that he wasn't
a theologian.  Didn't say anything about a degree, did I?

>i do not konw what you mean by a "true beliver", especially not in the
>context you have just used it.
>
--In this case, one who believes in the Freudian myth as if it were
established fact and will hear no criticism of it.

>i recall from scripture classes that god is the father of mankind.
>in all our religious instruction the analogy between a family in the
>social
>or biologoical sense was drawn with god and mankind, with god as "our
>father, who art in heaven", the benvolent father.
>
--But only because people who teach those classes are trying to find
a familiar symbol.  God in scripture is not always benevolent as I'm
sure you read further down.

>perhaps the author(s) of the holy scriptures were hopeless theologians
>too.
>
--No.  You miss the point.  You are citing only those ideas that
suit your purpose.

>
>in fact it does, if i recall correctly. but i do not recall the details.
>i seem to recall tales of peoples comparing and chhosing different gods,
>with, in at least one case, an acknowledgement of the god of the
>israelites
>as being the mightiest.

--Keep reading.

>
>but my memory could be faulty.

--It is.  Or it is selective.

i have no qualifications in theology,

--No need to get shirty about it!

>>In fact, God is rather an
>>inconvenience that Israel often tried to avoid, e.g., the allegory of
>>the golden calf.  Most of the words of the major prophets deal with
>>an Israel that continually strayed from God, preferring to ignore
>>the relationship.  In Jeremiah we read that God actually uses
>>Nebuchadnezzar as an instrument of correction.  We also have the
>>allegory of the flood to indicate God's displeasure with his people
>>who have strayed.  Read from a theological point of view, this does
>>not sound like a group of people looking for a loving father to make
>>up for the lacks of their earthly fathers.
>>

--Chose to ignore this comment, did you?

>
>i don't know about hockey. the only sport i have any training or
>qualifications in is fencing.
>
--I see that.  Here you are, fencing again.

>He was trained as a neurologist.
>
>that's right.  he had no prospect of a stable career
>in research since he would not have been granted a stable position at the
>university in vienna, since he was jewish. that is why he practised
>medicine.
>
--No disagreement here.

>of course -- all psychiatric training then was unrecognisable from what
>it is today. he received the standard training of his day, and not the
>training of some sixty years after his death. i am equally sure he did
>not learn about the structure of dna either, or about aids.

--But he did not have the psychiatric training of his day.  How can you
say that he received the standard training of his day?  Psychiatry was
in its infancy and very few were practicing even the crude form it had.
Charcot was one, and Freud spent some time with him, but didn't
stay long.
>
>in fact he had established a school in vienna by then, if i recall
>correctly.

--Well, it's a stretch to call what he did "establish a school."  He
attracted some people, most of whom broke with him.  I can't recall,
but I think that it was only Feuchtwanger that didn't quarrel with
him.  The defections of Adler and Jung are legendary.

 galileo was also not taken seriously by the established
>scientists of his day. either was fourier. do i need to go on listing
>examples of scientific breakthroughs which challenge the prevailing
>paradigm and are therefore rejected by the established, acknowledged
>experts? "heresy" is the usual charge in some form or other.
>
--No.  But Galileo and Fourier were vindicated by history.  Psychoanalysis
had a brief vogue, but is relegated to cult status now.  There are
very few schools that teach psychoanalysis as a technique, and Freud
is appreciated primarily for one or two contributions, but is mainly
an historical figure.  Psychoanalysis certainly is not a major treatment
approach and hasn't been for twenty years.

>are you saying, after all, that since freud had not theological training,
>he did not know about theology?
>>
--No.  I'm saying that he did not know anything about theology.  Some
education might have helped.

>there is also very little newtownian in the theory of general relativity,
>although that is where it started!
>
--I'm not a physicist (but that doesn't matter as long as I sound
authoritative, right), but my understanding is that Newtonian physics
has very little to do with relativity.  Einsteinian physics represents
a paradigm shift.  Your analogy breaks down.  There is little if any
psychiatric theory that is based on Freud--except more Freudian and
neo-Freudian theory, e. g. Karen Horney.  Current theories of mental
illness are not based on Freud's analysis of human behavior.

>in fact the situation in physics is much worse, for there is no known way
>of treating microscopic and macroscopic phenomena simultaneously. quantum
>mechanics and general relativity don't seem to fit together too well.
>
--I'll take your word for it.  I know nothing about physics.  Except
that things fall down instead of up.  I took biology for my science.

>
>many people can also practice other forms of psychological treatment
>without being medically trained. the same is true of "health workers"
>not all are trained in schools of medicine.
>
--Sure.  But under the direction of a medically trained physician.  And
their roles are limited and they can't prescribe meds or do surgery.
Most "health workers" if by that you mean nurses, dieticians, physical
and occupational therapists, are trained under medical supervision,
and in teaching hospitals--and either in medical schools or specific
schools that are closely related to medical schools.  Psychoanalytic
training is completely independent of medicine.

>sure. but a mistaken diagnosis is not the same as a false theory.
>i am sure that freud's mistaken diagnosis, for which, as you yourself
>pointed out, he blamed himself, is not unique in the annals of medicine
>or psychology, or psychiatry.
>
--You're overlooking the main point.  Freud did not even examine the
young woman.  He was certain she had a neurosis.  He believed so
implicitly in his theory that he did not do a differential diagnosis.
Of course, the theory could still be valid, but there is no good
research that confirms it.  See the work of Hans Eysenck who has
reviewed it.

>this is a human foible which he should have chosen to avoid. but surely
>it is the way most of us argue. surely most of us, when we are serious,
>argue from and with conviction, even if we admit the possibility that we
>are wrong. i would suggest that nost of us would continue to argue, at
>least until our arguments were defeated by more convincing ones. of
>course some of us would extract themselves from and intellectual debate
>as soon as the danger of losing it rears its ugly(?) head....
>
--And some of us simply ignore the main points and play semantic games.

>
>no. i am not saying that at all. what i am saying is that it is quite
>possible to have studied a problem or thought about it without having
>formal qualifications and that history is replete with examples of the
>received wisdom being --- and correct me if i am misusing the term ---
>horsehockey: "the earth is flat," "flogiston," "aether," "leaching,"
>need i continue?

--Of course the received wisdom can be wrong and should be challenged.
By the way, I don't really think anybody with any knowledge ever believed
that the earth was flat beyond a few crude geographers.  Flogiston and
ether, I'll grant were strange.  Looking backward, it is hard to see how
anyone could have believed them.  I think that psychoanalysis almost
belongs in this category.

>
>i am assering that an argument or comment or criticism should stand or
>fall on its own merits, independently of whether it is consistent with
>"received views" and that no formal training is required to think.
>
--But it's a helluva lot easier to think about something when one has
studied it.  Most of the challenges to the received wisdom come from
scholars of that wisdom, not just some bloke from off the street.

>i also assert that it is easier to convince most people of "received
>wisdom" than of something which challenges it.

--Actually, it is easier to convince most people of most anything.  That's
how con men and advertisers make their livings.  My wife has the "Hanna
Theory of Advertising."  It states that a product's advertising is
inverse to the actual performance of the product.  That is, if a soap
company advertises that its product produces more suds than any other,
then that is the one thing it won't do.  She also advises me to avoid
buying any product advertised as "sanitary" because it's probably not.
>
>i have been to a dentist exactly once in the past twenty-five years. i
>intend to go again soon.
>
--Well, it's your mouth.  The best of British luck to you.

>>>
>
>my reasoning is very simple --- as you should expect from someone as
>simnple-minded as i consider myself to be. there is almost nothing you
>can measure in physics without presupposing theory. for example, there is
>no way of measuring time directly.
>
--This is sophistry.  And your portrayal of yourself as the village
idiot and the butt of all jokes is unworthy of you.  But people were
measuring time and weight well enough to get on with the business of
life long before anybody had a theory about it.  You can argue that,
like the Dickens character who was amazed to find that he had been
speaking prose all his life, they were using theory without knowing
what it was, but it is sophistry.

>as a challenge, tell me how you culd measure, say, a weight *without*
>making theoretical assumptions.
>
I would use a scale.  I wouldn't assume a damn thing, since I know
that weight is a term of convenience.  I'm just a country boy.

>my assertions are surely provocative, since they undermine the prevailing
>myths about science. rest assured that they are the result of giving the
>matter thought. rest assured that i do not think that because i have
>thought about the matter i am a priori right. but you will need to provide
>sound arguments to comvince me.
>
--And all you have given these matters is pure thought unguided by
any formal study, right, mate?  Just a country boy yourself from
a small village near Lake Balaton.  First, one does have to know
the prevailing myths in order to undermine them.  As in the case
of psychoanalytic theory.  Second, one has to have developed some
critical apparatus.  How do you know that the prevailing myths are
wrong?  There must be an alternative explanation that has some
appeal.  One could, of course, reinvent the wheel without ever having
seen one, but I prefer the university and the library.

--This is interesting to me, but I'll bet that the rest of the
HUNGARY list has been given their delete keys a lot of exercise.
Not much to do with Hungary, has it?

der Dreckfink

Subject: More ambivalence toward NATO
From: EvaB459762
Date: 18 Sep 94 23:57:41 GMT
In article > ,  writes:

>Imi Bokor wrote yesterday:


>>a while ago I asked why it is "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" for
>>hungary to join austria nad switxerland in a "neutral corridor' in
>>central europe.

>>no answer yet. is that because there isn't one?

>>d.a.

>
>Greg, in my opinion, brilliantly answered:

[i have taken the liberty of repeating my responses as well (d.a.)]


>>d.a writes:

>>> a while ago I asked why it is "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" for
>>> hungary to join austria nad switxerland in a "neutral corridor' in
>>> central europe.

>>Actually, this is probably more feasible than Hungary becoming a nuclear
>power.

>>The two word answer, is probably History and Geography.

>>We can however make some comparisons, from the 1993 CIA World Factbook:


>>Switzerland

>>Terrain:  mostly mountains (Alps in south, Jura in northwest) with a
>>central plateau  of rolling hills, plains, and large lakes


>(i) the jura mountains form the western border and hardly qualify as
>alps,
>being little over 1,000 metres high

>(ii) the alps run through about the middle of the country with a
>substantial part of the country of major agricultural importance
>to the south


>>International disputes:  none


>there is, however internal division and strife, with significant
portions
>of the francophone and italophone regions pushing for secession from
>switzerland to join france and a possible new northern italy to escape
>what
>is perceived as domination by the german swiss. there have been  attacks
>in
>the jura region (by "les beliers") in support of the separation of the
>french
>speaking communities from the german speaking ones of the cantons of
>berne and basel at least.


>>Land boundaries:  total 1,852 km, Austria 164 km, France 573 km,
>>Italy 740 km, Liechtenstein  41 km, Germany 334 km
>>---

>land-locked of vital military and economic impoortance for north-south
>transit in western europe (st gotthard, san bernadino, and other passes)
>used as important transit by germany in wwii

>>Austria

>>Terrain:  in the west and south mostly mountains (Alps); along the
>>eastern and northern margins mostly flat or gently sloping

>>International disputes:  none

>except with slovenia concerning the treatment of the slovene minority in
>carinthia and styria, and with italy concerning southern tyrol
>taken from austria and awarded to italy in 1920, trieste region given to
>italy and yugoslavia in 1920,  with slovakia and hungary concerning
>slovak-hunagrian dam project and with  hungary concerning cancellation of
>expo land-locked of vital military and economic impoortance for
north-south
>transit in western europe (brenner and other passes)
>used as important transit by germany in wwii



>>Land boundaries:  total 2,496 km, Czech Republic 362 km, Germany
>>784 km, Hungary 366 km, Italy  430 km, Liechtenstein 37 km,
>>Slovakia 91 km, Slovenia 262 km, Switzerland  164 km
>>---


>>Hungary

>>Terrain:  mostly flat to rolling plains

>protected by carpathian alps and their foothills to the north and east,
>by the yugoslav and austrian alps and their foothills in the west and
>south.

>>International disputes:  Gabcikovo Dam dispute with Slovakia;
>>Vojvodina taken from Hungary and  awarded to the former
>>Yugoslavia by treaty of Trianon in 1920

>>Land boundaries:  total 1,952 km, Austria 366 km, Croatia 292 km,
>>Romania 443 km, Serbia and  Montenegro 151 km (all with Serbia),
>>Slovakia 515 km, Slovenia 82 km,  Ukraine 103 km

>>Note:  landlocked; strategic location astride main land routes between
>>Western  Europe and Balkan Peninsula as well as between Ukraine
>>and Mediterranean basin

>hardly. the ukrainian basin has direct water access to the
mediterranean.
>the carpathian mountains form a formidable natural barrier between
>hunagry and the ukraine. the way around that on land is either to the
>north
>--- via poland,  slovakia, germany etc --- or to the east --- via
>rumania,
>bulgaria, yugoslavia, croatia, etc.

>most of the traffic from western europe to the balkan peninsula is via
>carinthia, styria, italy, slovenia, croatia.
>>in many cases hungary is also used if the trading includes vienna,
>slovakia, rumania or hungary itself.

>>---


>>Naturally, none of these factors are relevant unless A) one is willing
>to be
>>influenced by traditional geopolitical/strategic thinking; or, B) one's
>>potential adversaries are or may be so influenced.

>>Off the top of my head, I'd say another factor'd be whether or not
>Hungary's
>>neighbors would have much faith in Hungary's commitment to neutrality,
>>non-aggression, and all- around benignity.


>switzerland's neighbours did not trust switzerland, which is why
>switzerland
>had its neutrality imposed upon it by others in 1815(?).

>i would offer the suggestion that historically, switzerland and austria
>have been of greater geopolitical and military significance than
hungary,
>at least in the last hundred or so years. moreover, i would also suggest
>that switzerland's neighbours, france, germany and italy, or austria's
>neighbours germany and italy have greater gravitas than hungary's
>neighbours, so that neutrality is easier to maintain.

>i would also observe that until recently, all but one of hungary's
>neighbours were non-aligned countries, or at least neutral in the
>east-west cold war. thus a "corridor of neutrality" would not be so
>unthnkable.


>personally, i find it highly desirable. but then again, i abhor violence.

>d.a.



>Greg also called attention to my posting of July 28, 1994, entitled
>"Hungarian foreign policy." In case, Imi Bokor missed it, I am reposting
it
>here:

>Imi Bokor by now asked twice why I am against Hungary being nonaligned or
>neutral because, according to him:

>>it would be quite a natural extension of the neutral band formed
>>by switzerland and austria. hungary could do worse than join
switzerland,
>>austria and sweden as neutral countries.

>And yesterday:

>>why not for hungary while it seems to work for austria and switzerland?
>>roumania is also non-aligned in this dyad, and with hungary there would
be
>>a contiguous belt of non-aligned/neutral countries.

>>why do you say that it would be viable or wise?


>However much Imi wishes, Hungary is not Switzerland or Sweden; not even
>Austria. Hungary until very recently was a satellite country of the
Soviet
>Union which meant the lack of true independence of action in foreign
affairs.


until its neutrality, austria had been part and parcel of nazi germany

>Admittedly, the Soviet Union collapsed and willingly relinquished its
empire
>inside and outside of the Soviet state. However, that doesn't necessarily
>mean that the prostrate state of Russia at the moment will last for ever.

the prostrate state of germany hasn't lasted for ever either. but, so
what?


>Even the question of democratic development is not necessarily assured in
>Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, just to mention a few of the newly emerged
>states. Mr. Zhirinovsky's showing at the polls shows that Russian pride
has
>been greatly wounded by recent developments, including the loss of
Russia's
>empire status. If there is a change of regime in Russia which whips up
>nationalistic sentiments the first victims will be the former components
of
>the Soviet state and the second the former satellite countries. That is
the
>reason why Poland, for example, is so intent on joining NATO.


these arguments apply mutatits mutandis to germany. yet i do not see the
austrians trembling at the knees in fear of schoenhuber's successor.

>The formation of the smaller states of East-Central Europe after World
War I
>was possible only because of the simultaneous collapse of both the
Central
>Powers and Russia. In case Russia had been on the side of the victors,
the
>map of East Central Europe would have been very different. (Russia had
quite
>a list of war aims against her neighbors, by the way.)

what were they?


> The same is true about
>a possible victory of the Central Powers. Eventually both Germany and
Russia
>recovered and the rest of the story is well known: East Central Europe,
left
>alone as a no man's land, became the fighting ground between two great
>powers.

just look at a topographical map. when has hungary been a central
location for conflict between eastern and western powers? poland and the
regions to the north of the carpathian basin, yes, but hungary? the only
occasions in the last century or so have been when hungary entered a war
and lost.

>
>Hungary is a small country whose geopolitic position is such that it
needs
>powerful protectors in case of trouble.

please explain why.


>Moreover, as I mentioned, Poland is
>very keen on NATO membership and so is, the Czech Republic.


both of these countries *are* sandwiched between germany and russia and
their terrain --- especially that of poland --- makes them extremely
vulnerable. moreover, he baltic states and large parts of poland were
part
of czarist russia for the best part of two centuries, since before the
usa came into existence, long before it comprised more than thriteen
states. in fact, as far as i recall, there had never been a latvia or
estonia or finland as  countries in their own right until after world war
i. so i can see the fears that poland or the baltic states and finland my
entertain that the "traditional occupiers" may wish to return at some
time in the future. but i know of no country with designs on hungary's
current territorial integrity. if anything, what is left of yugoslavia,
the slovak republic and rumania may be suspicious that hungary might wish
to once again "renegotiate the trianon agreement."


> Hungary's
>relation with the Visegrad countries should be fostered and whenever
possible
>their foreign policy moves should be coordinated instead of playing the
lone
>odd-man-out which would raise eyebrows in the West and it may result in
>Hungary's abandonment later on. Eva Balogh

as i have said before, switzerland, which is far more vulnerable than
hungary and surround by far more powerful countries than hungary's
neighbours has managed to "play the odd-man-out". austria has also
amnaged to maintain neutrality, albeit for a shorter period. joing with ,
say hungary, slovakia, slovenia and rumania would make the region more
rather than less serene.

i believe it is incumbent upon statesmen to reduce rather than foster
division. i see nothing wrong with disgareements, but neutrality is a
public affirmation of non-belligerence. joining a miltary pact is not a
 declaration of peaceful intent, except in "newspeak". i had trouble
enough
 learning to speak english. i'll be buggered if i'll learn "newspeak" as
 well.

 d.a.

Imi Bokor writes:
> in the meantime, do you know why american beer is like making love in a
> canoe?

> d.a.

Because, both are satisfactory, but not great.

Regards,Jeliko.

Heather Olsen writes:

> I just heard on the radio last night that the Austrian People's Party has
> come out in favor of abandoning neutrality and joining the WEU and possibly
> NATO. The Social Democrats continue to support neutrality, and it is likely
> to be an issue in the upcoming election campaign.

> Heather Olsen

"The united we stand, divided we fall" is not a new idea for any country.
If neutrality means being alone, I am for not being neutral.

Regards,Jeliko.

>>Have you considered Eva Balogh's post of 28 Jul 1994,
>under the subject "Re: Hungarian foreign policy?"?

>>--Greg

>yes. in fact i asked the good lady the question i posed again, but
>received no reply.

>d.a.

That is correct. The "good lady" did not answer because she didn't think that
the continuation of the discussion with Imi Bokor would be profitable. A
discussion between Imi Bokor and myself can be described as a fencing match
between, let's say, Ilona Elek and someone who has never had a foil in
his/her hands and has no idea about the rules of the sport. The result is, in
spite of Ilona Elek's skills, wild brandishing of the foil, somewhat similar
to fencing scenes in Hollywood movies of the 30s. I am simply tired of
arguing about Switzerland, neutrality, 1815 (maybe; I am too lazy to look it
up) and all that. Eva Balogh

 writes:
>
> In article > George Frajkor,
>  writes:
>
> >       Being a bit of a pedant, I am used to dealing with dense
> >students.
>
> it's better to be knowledgable than pedantic.

     The best thing is to be wise. The next best is to be silent. -
              -- old Slovak proverb,
>
> >    a good example is how airplanes fly. Even in Hungarian air.  The
> >flow of one layer over the top (the layer next to the wing is
> >essentially still) lowers the pressure because it is speeded up.
>
> the aviation engineer i asked assured me that the lifting effect is
> caused by the shape of the wing causing turbulance above it, hence
> creating
> "partial vacuum" and so a pressure difference. he assured me that the air
> reaches the upper half of the wing at the same speed as the lower half.
> but maybe you know better, after all, he is only an aviation engineer and
> not a pedant.

   With respect, I think you may have misinterpreted his words.  The
lat thing an airplane wants is turbulence over the top of the wing.
In fact, it wants a nice, steady laminar flow.   There may be vortices
behind the wing, or turbulence farther behind, but if there is
turbulence on the wing top the wing will stall.  Lift is produced by
the increased speed of the flow over the wing (Bernoulli's principle)
which reduces the pressure.  I am sure no aviation engineer would have
told you otherwise.
    One of the odd things about some pedants is that they also hold
private pilot's licences.  Single-engine, VFR, but getting an
instrument rating.

    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

JELIKO writes:

> > Oooh...    And I used to come to the Hungary list to enjoy a quiet
> > environment where people think and bring valuable contributions...
> > It's rather difficult to type on a computer keyboard with boxer gloves,
> > but there are moments one finds these mountains of nonsense unbearable.
>

> I have stated before on another newsgroup that the dam issue can be looked
> at various ways, i.e.
>
> 1) Environment
> 2) Energy Needs
> 3) Geopolitics
>
> Unfortunately, most of these issues are being mixed. The most unfortunate
> part is when somebody uses partial (technically disguised) arguments to
> support his or her geopolitical feelings.

      The arguments are purely technical, intended to show that the
environmental objections were spurious and that the quarrel actually
IS a geopolitical one which some people tried to disguise as an
environmental one.
      Other than the environmental issue, there are legal
(international law and riparian rights law) issues, as well as the
energy considerations... but I do not think the world court is
concerned with those.

> A thank you is deserved for Roman Kanala for discussing the relevance of
> technical parameters for the evaluation.

   Please see my response to Kanala.

> I am particularly bothered by the impression (I hope wrong) that I got from
> the article that Mr Kanala responded to, i.e.that the garbling of science
> into other issues, is a seeming trend of presumed journalistic training.

         Your hope is fulfilled.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

 writes:
>
> It was written on this list:

> ~      Laminar flow.
> ~       Only the bottom layer of the water, in contact with the bed,
> ~sinks into the bed, presuming it is permeable or semi-permeable.  Now
> ~I am sure you may think this strange, but in fact it has not yet been
> ~shown that the layer at the surface is absorbed into the bed.  The
> ~layer at the surface is customarily at a higher level than the layer
> ~at the bottom.
> ~     the layer (from the latin 'lamella'-- meaning layer or sheet.
> ~Hence 'laminar') at the bottom is influence by (a) pressure, usually
> ~due to gravity (b) horizontal velocity of layers above.
> ~     a good example is how airplanes fly. Even in Hungarian air.  ...

> ~         If you want to visualize it, consider a molecule of water...
>
>                   [ ... deleted ...]

> ~     Now consider gravity.  One of the effects of a dam (even in
> ~Hungarian water) ...


> First, I will have to explain a couple of terms just to know what we
> are speaking about.
>
> Laminar flow is a flow where trajectories of particles are (quasi)
> parallel, as opposed to turbulent flow, when particles move in a
> seemingly chaotic way. An example of this is cigarette smoke in a quiet
> room, when it goes laminar on a certain distance, but after, turbulences
> occur. Recent progress in theory of complex dynamic systems brought
> tools to assess the phenomenon in a determinist way, via sensible
> dependence of solution of differential equations describing the motion
> upon the initial and boundary conditions. Keywords are "attractor"
> and "theory of chaos". Of course, laminar flow has nothing to do with
> the sinking of water, be that water as fascinating as the Gabcikovo
> water.

         I am sorry to disagree, it does indeed have something to do
with the sinking of water if by that you mean diffusion (see below).
Just as in the lift generated by a wing, the horizontal flow of the
water above the bottom layer results in a difference in pressure,
which CAN affect diffusion .  You are going a little too far in
introducing chaos theory here.
>
> Gravity is a phenomenon that's independent of the water depth, if we
> don't want to go through a calculus with 40 digit precision of the
> perturbations of the interacting mass with or without the water
layer.

    I have used gravity in place of hydrostatic pressure for
simplicity's sake.   You are aware that in this world, hydrostatic
pressure IS the weight of a column of water over a given area.
Weight, as opposed to mass, is caused by gravity.  That's all I was
trying to do.  If you can think of any force other than gravity acting
on the river bottom to push the water down, let me know.

> On the other side, hydrostatic pressure depends upon the water depth,
> but in case of permeable bottom it's perfectly irrelevant. Should the
> permeable bottom be dry, then we could speak about significance of the
> hydrostatic pressure. But, this is by far not the case: there is a wet
> equilibrium.

     There is a wet equilibrium until the equilibrium is disturbed.
When the height of the water table suddenly rises, (as it does when
you build a dam) the pressure on the bed rises. This is self-evident.
It is also self-evident that the forces resisting diffusion (the
silt/gravel formation is not fluid and there is friction between the
grains) cannot adjust to the new equiilibrium immediately.  So for a
time there IS a differential pressure until the new equilibrium is
reached. Which could take a long time. After which what you say is true.


> Infiltration of one fluid into an another one is being scientifically
> called diffusion, not osmosis. Osmosis is a phenomenon where the
> infiltration of one fluid into another goes through an obstacle, like
> a permeable or semi-permeable membrane.
> Concentration of   minerals is perfectly irrelevant due to dimensions of
> the filter, in the given case gravels and sands.

  You are right. I should have used the term diffusion.  There ARE
osmotic forces in the Danube situation but they are negligible.



> equilibrium of salt concentrations. Both diffusion and osmosis are
> phenomenons occuring at molecular level and can be well assessed thanks
> thanks to developed theoritical concepts. Both have nothing, nothing to
> do with macro phenomenons like water sinking at the bottom of a riverbed.

        I must differ once again.  The higher the pressure, the more
fluid will diffuse through a permeable/ semi-permeable medium. This is
well known and appplied in practice in the de-salination of water by
reverse osmosis, which FORCEs salt water at high pressure through a
member into fresh water.   Similarly put enough pressure onto an
impermeable bottom such as smooth rock and it will eventually fracture
into little pieces, into the cracks of which which the water will
flow.   Pressure will force water into deeper and wider volumes of the
permeable medium, overcoming the resistive forces.



> Now finally we get to the Danube water sinking phenomenon. Gravels and
> sands deep under the riverbed cannot be neglected when building a dam.
> If doing so, the dam would get underwashed and would not resist for a
> year. Thus the dam has either to go down until an impermeable layer,
> preferrably rock, or the reservoir bottom has to be hermetized to
> prevent uncontrolled water sinking.
> It's this second possibility that
> has been chosen in Gabcikovo case because building a dam 200 m deep in
> water-saturated gravels would be, let's say it so, hard to achieve
> with today's technology.
>
   You are speaking of two different things here.
  The dam has to built on a suitable site. That is why Gabcikovo and
Nagymaros were chosen back in 1913.
     The reservoir behind it does NOT  and does not have to be on
impermeable rock.  As you mentioned, once equilibrium is reached
between the water in the gravel and water in the lake, no more will
saturate the soil.
      As I said previously, my information is that the
walls and bottom of the canal (that long passage leading from the
reservoir to the dam) are sealed, as they have to be. But the bottom
of the big lake is not, and doesn't have to be.
    However, I can check this.

> So we can see the situation as an underground slow river that goes
> through gravels, and a surface river that goes quickly or slowly
> depending on the turbines, with no interaction between the two.

      I don't think I said there is a reaction between the flowing
river and the underground water.  On the contrary, my first statement
was the simplified "still water sinks in, flowing water does not".
The reaction is between the water in the lake and the underground
water.  The higher and wider the lake, the more pressure and the more
available water to  saturate the underground water. Effectively, it
is the reservoir lake and not the canal that is contributing to the
subsurface water.


> What happens if the two water flows get vertically disconnected? At the
> surface, nothing. But, concerning the underground layer, the level may
> (yes, I said may) lower.

   I think the best thing here is an analogy.  Rice fields.  You can
saturate a rice field in two ways.

       ground level     ____ ____ _____ ___
                            U    U     U    ditches in which water runs

         Not that diffussion is out through the SIDES of the ditches
more than the bottom, as the area is is greater than the area of the
bottom.   But there is high pressure only at the bottom.  At the top,
hydrostatic pressure is minimal (pressure one foot below the ocean is
less than pressure at the bottom.

   Or you can flood the field

                    ---------------------   water level
          ground level ___ ____ ___ ____
,                         U    U   U    former ditches.

           It should be pretty clear that you saturate the field MUCH
faster this way, as in fact rice farmers discovered a long time ago.
  Thus, the gravel and silt under the Danube will get saturated much
more quickly and to a greater depth and extent because of the flooded
artificial lake than by diffusion through the former main channels and
meanders.
     The pressure in the underground reservoir and its volume goes UP
(as I believe measurements show it is doing now).

> reasons that I don't want to enumerate right now. It's exactly for that
> there is a regulated leakage system on side of the dam, as to aliment
> the underground lake with surface water. It's artificial instead of
> natural regulation and obviously the control cannot be perfect:
> lowering of the underground water is unavoidable. However, with a good
> system of control, this can be limited to be kept at decimeter order
> level.
>
    I really think that once again you are mixing two different
things.   There are 'seepage canals' alongside the canal walls, but
their only purpose is to drain away water that inevitably leaks
through the canal, rain water that drains down the sides,etc.
    They just keep excess water off the farmer's
fields or the basements of their houses.  This has nothing to do with
replenishing the underground reservoir any more than drainage ditches
beside roads.
    There are also concrete spillways... which are deliberately there
to dump excess water back into the former wetlands, and into the old
channel. They are a flood control measure essentially, as well as a
way of getting rid of high water when the turbines are not operating
at the main dam.  These both deal with surface water drainage and
rejuventation of surface vegation and old meanders, not with
underground water.

> image about the nature of the problem. Disclaimer: I am not a hydrologist
> specialist, nor a dam construction specialist, I am just trying to think
> and leave Bernoulli to rest in peace.

         Bernoulli cannot rest as long as fluids are moving.  As you
know, a stream can move a rock far away because of Bernoulli's
principle, not because of the direct force of the stream.  The water
over the top of the rock flows faster because of the curve of the rock
and reduces the pressure, while the water under the rock is obviously
under greater pressure (the top of the rock is higher than the bottom)
and so, like an airplane wing, the rock lifts.  This force works also
on water molecules over which others are flowing.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Jan George Frajkor writes:
[deleted]

I'm saddened to see this foolish exchange continue.  Why in the world
we should accept non-expert's opionions on hydrology, etc. is beyond me.

I do think that I've forgotten more hydrodynamics than JGF will ever know,
and I am not at all impressed by his analyis.

And the silly thing is, he may not be wrong about the dam; but please, can we
hear from experts, and not those whose study of fluid flow stopped at
Bernoulli's equation?

As an example, maybe the evidence the Int'l Court of Justice is to hear
(has heard) might have some relevance.

Otherwise, by all means, let's debate how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin...


--Greg

paul writes:

> I think I read all of the thread on the dam, but I didn't see anything
> explaining the current state of negotiations, if any.  Has there been any
> decision by some authority (world court)?

  There has been no decision and if i know the courts there will be
none for years.  In fact, I have the feeling they are hoping that
there will be a political settlement before they have to tackle
something this sticky.  the court is at the stage of having
comissioned and received the technical/ environmental reports from its
expert panels.  Legal arguments have not yet been presented as they
are up to the countries to prepare rather than the court.
    the issue will probably turn on legalistics more than anything
else.  There are water-use rights established in international law
quite other than rights conferred by making or breaking treaties.

> As to the discission of the behavior and status of the water behind and over
> the dam, why has this been an issue?  Was this the basis of an argument
> against it?

     Yes, one of the HUngarian arguments was that the project caused
measurable environmental damage and financial loss, and the
counter-argument is that it does not, that in fact, NOT finishing
Nagymoros is the cause of the environmental damage.  That is what all
this water flow stuff is about.

 >  Where did you get the info for you disertation on the behavior of the
> Slovak water?  Since you are not a scientist, bu your own admission, I
>expect some expert explained this to you.

    Long ago when I used to work for a living I covered the story of
the building of the St. Lawrwence Seaway and a few things stick in my
mind.  Also, yes, I have talked to several people in Canada and
Slovakia involved in building Gabcikovo. There is a professor at
University of Ottawa who consults for Hydro-Quebec, which was called
in to do some assessments in the early and later stages of building.
And I read the odd book.  The usual journalistic stuff.  Not saying it
results in truth all the time.

> Overall it seems reasonable (I am
>an electrical engineer, and have studied physics and basic
> fluid mechanics), but  you
> did not explain the relevance of your last point;
>
>     If you had a cup that had one hole per square centimeter drilled
>     into the bottom, it will leak water at a certain rate.  If you
>     quadruple the area of the bottom, each hole will continue to leak
>     water at the same rate, but there will be four times as many holes,
>     and four times as great a volume of water leaking.
>
> This is true, but the volume of the ground soaking up the water increases in
>proportion to the surface area of the botom of the lake, so the density of the
>water in the ground is the same, for a given depth of the lake.  Is the total
>quantity of underground water important here, or is it the density of water in
> the  ground (how saturated the ground is)?
>
     Yes, saturation is an issue as one of the Hungarian complaints is
that the underground water table is being depleted by the project,
leaving less pure, deep water for human consumption.  The counter
argument is that saturation is being increased, or at least little
affected.

>Also, given that most of what you wrote was correct, what was
> the point you were
>making in relation to the Gabcikovo dam? (I read all of the
> thread I found, but  this
> point was not addressed).

    YOu"re right, it was not. The point was to show that the
environmental argument, which is the most emotion-laden one, probably
is not valid and that the issue is legal and geopolitical.  More
boring, but probably more easily solved without arousing passions.


    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Kova'cs -smith >> blacksmith

The following is a short review of the KOVA'CS name and the
names of some of the basic metals in Hungarian. There have
been several articles in the near past about the meaning of
the name KOVA'CS. The present meaning is black-smith and it
can be a Slovak or Hungarian name, and I believe some of the
southern slav languages have it with minor variations as
names. With the help of Tony Pace, who supplied the Slovak and
Polish spelling the following picture emerges.

  Hungarian       Slovak      Polish
  Kova'cs         kovac'      koval    means black smith

Hungarians and Slovaks have lived together in one country for
some 1,000 years and have shared many words in their language.
Today  some of these are difficult to separate, to figure out
which language originated it. This is made doubly difficult by
the overheated nationalism that both sides sometimes display.

First of all let me state that Hungarian indeed has many
Slovak words in it, as does Slovak Hungarian words. My only
contention is that many times these are looked at in too
narrow of time frame and location resulting in a biased
interpretation. The words which we share sometimes came from
an earlier language, not necessarily from either of the two.

Let me indulge you in another version of the KOVACS name's
origin. Let's presume for a moment that we have had a
profession which worked making knives, hatchets and the like
since the stone ages and not just since the iron age. Perhaps
using a similar name. Naturally they first worked with hard
stone, such as flint and obsidian first, then gold, copper,
bronze, and eventually iron ore as they learned the tricks of
smeltering at higher temperatures. Most of these metal working
inventions came from the area of the Caucasus Mountains as is
proven by archaeologists and as the proof of the origin of
words for smith in many European languages.

"KOV"is the key word meaning smith, found in 3 western Slavic
     languages, KOV means metal in Slovak. There are several
     derivatives of the word which were also listed by T.Pace.

"KOVA"means a hard-sharp stone, flint, which was used to make
     stone tools...it was also used to spark a fire when later
     used with iron. Its variant Kav,Ko", means stone and
     this is the Hungarian word shared by most of the Uralic
     Languages. The HUN language also includes the hard/sharp
     stone. My friend has found a reference from the "Magyar
     Tortenelmi Szemle, July 1971 - published in the west, in
     an article from Feher Matyas two HUN words from Chinese
     references. One is KUWA, a hard stone, a diamond. The
     other word is WO-SHU meaning iron. I have the Chinese
     character but can't send it.

Naturally the Slovak explanation seems closer (in time) to the
blacksmith idea and metal working, but fundamentally the smith
has existed for a long time and came from the Caucasus Mtn
area in prehistoric times. Words in Latin, Greek, Etruscan are
all from there. Hungarian has changed a lot of professional
words and Europeanized the language so many of our old words
for these are now gone. Even though Hungarian metal working
from the 10th century was exceptionally advanced, European
words replaced the old over time. This makes it doubly
difficult to relate current words. But it is not our intent to
prove the "Hungarian" origin of things, especially since steel
working was already well in advance in Europe by then, but to
show the archaic eastern origin of the word.

The KOV word, when terminated with A'CS suffix (Slovak AC'
same) refers to a profession. Hungarian linguists state that
the suffix A'CS is in common with the Altaic (Turkic)
languages. There is a list of Hungarian professions which all
use the A'CS suffix also.

        A'CS -framer,woodworker
   Kov -A'CS -blacksmith
   Tak -A'CS -Weaver     (Sumerian TUG =garment)
   Meszar-OS -Butcher    (Sumerian Masaru=s.m.)
   Munk-A'S  -Worker
   Szak-A'CS -Chef       (Slovak sokac')
   Tan- A'CS -Council
   Tolm-A'CS -Translator (Turkish dilmacs)

For those who are interested, I will list the names of the
common metals in Hungarian and their interrelations to other
eastern languages to show the origin or relationships of
Hungarian words.

   arany  =gold in Hungarian     ezu"st   =silver in Hungarian
sararany  =also gold "           azvest   =silver in Votjak
ap-arany  =gold in Dravidian     oevzist  =silver in Ossetic
h-iranya  =gold in Sanskrit      uzves'   =tin    in Zurjen
z-aranya  =gold in Persian       ----------------------------
z-arnyi   =gold in Votjak        on       =tin    in Hungarian
 s-irnye   =gold in Mordvin      anaku    =tin    in Akkad
  iorni   =copper in Ostjak      anak     =tin    in Sumir
hiaruhhe  =gold in Hurrian (*)   anag     =material in Sumir
                                 anyag    =material Hungarian
                                 -----------------------------

re'z =brass/copper Hungarian   vas (archaic wass) =iron Hungar
urudu =copper in  Sumerian     woshu    =iron in ancient HUN
 eru'  =copper in  Akkad       vaski    =copper,ore in Finn
 eru   =ore in Sumerian        guskin > uskin =gold in Sumer
 ----------------------------    -----------------------------
szobor =statuary/idol (of bronze)  e'rc     =ore in Hungarian
 zabar  =bronze in Sumerian        eru      =ore in Sumerian
 siparu =bronze in Akkadian       (this is quite widespread)


 szak-ma =profession in Hungarian   sakuna =s.m. in Hurrian
 Tibor =archaic word for smith/Turkic timur/Sumir tibira.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
That the KAV word is not just a local Eropean phenomenon, let
me just mention a few lines from a Persian national epic.
     "In the citadel of Babylon, Feridun strikes Zohak to the
ground with a blow of his club, which KAVE, the smith has
forged for him."
Other traditions state that the Persians used the
extravagantly bejeweled leather apron of this smith, KAVE as
their holy national standard till the conquest of the Muslim
Arabs. I have seen explanations from this part of the world
for the KAVE word, but can't find it now. The name and title
KAVE was I believe used by the MEDEs also for their kings. The
central asian nations also equated their god with a heavenly
smith, who forges and moulds men's spirits like a smith forges
steel.-??-
     The Hungarians coming from the east were famous for their
metalworking and metal decorations which were found even on
their clothes, belts, shoes or boots. It is selfevident that
they had words for all of these professions. The names were
not necessarily the same as those we use now, but could have
been similar. This does not necessarily mean that our
neighboors had to learn them from us, but could have been our
other eastern predecessors also. Scythian, Jazig, Hun, Avar
and Magyar.?? It would be nice to see other than two opposing?
views be discussed and the forgeting of nations who are gone.

> =============================================================
  FRED HAMORI          |    BUDAPEST BBS  (714) 895-4885
        |
> =============================================================

Kova'cs -smith >> blacksmith

The following is a short review of the KOVA'CS name and the
names of some of the basic metals in Hungarian. There have
been several articles in the near past about the meaning of
the name KOVA'CS. The present meaning is black-smith and it
can be a Slovak or Hungarian name, and I believe some of the
southern slav languages have it with minor variations as
names. With the help of Tony Pace, who supplied the Slovak and
Polish spelling the following picture emerges.

  Hungarian       Slovak      Polish
  Kova'cs         kovac'      koval    means black smith

Hungarians and Slovaks have lived together in one country for
some 1,000 years and have shared many words in their language.
Today  some of these are difficult to separate, to figure out
which language originated it. This is made doubly difficult by
the overheated nationalism that both sides sometimes display.

First of all let me state that Hungarian indeed has many
Slovak words in it, as does Slovak Hungarian words. My only
contention is that many times these are looked at in too
narrow of time frame and location resulting in a biased
interpretation. The words which we share sometimes came from
an earlier language, not necessarily from either of the two.

Let me indulge you in another version of the KOVACS name's
origin. Let's presume for a moment that we have had a
profession which worked making knives, hatchets and the like
since the stone ages and not just since the iron age. Perhaps
using a similar name. Naturally they first worked with hard
stone, such as flint and obsidian first, then gold, copper,
bronze, and eventually iron ore as they learned the tricks of
smeltering at higher temperatures. Most of these metal working
inventions came from the area of the Caucasus Mountains as is
proven by archaeologists and as the proof of the origin of
words for smith in many European languages.

"KOV"is the key word meaning smith, found in 3 western Slavic
     languages, KOV means metal in Slovak. There are several
     derivatives of the word which were also listed by T.Pace.

"KOVA"means a hard-sharp stone, flint, which was used to make
     stone tools...it was also used to spark a fire when later
     used with iron. Its variant Kav,Ko", means stone and
     this is the Hungarian word shared by most of the Uralic
     Languages. The HUN language also includes the hard/sharp
     stone. My friend has found a reference from the "Magyar
     Tortenelmi Szemle, July 1971 - published in the west, in
     an article from Feher Matyas two HUN words from Chinese
     references. One is KUWA, a hard stone, a diamond. The
     other word is WO-SHU meaning iron. I have the Chinese
     character but can't send it.

Naturally the Slovak explanation seems closer (in time) to the
blacksmith idea and metal working, but fundamentally the smith
has existed for a long time and came from the Caucasus Mtn
area in prehistoric times. Words in Latin, Greek, Etruscan are
all from there. Hungarian has changed a lot of professional
words and Europeanized the language so many of our old words
for these are now gone. Even though Hungarian metal working
from the 10th century was exceptionally advanced, European
words replaced the old over time. This makes it doubly
difficult to relate current words. But it is not our intent to
prove the "Hungarian" origin of things, especially since steel
working was already well in advance in Europe by then, but to
show the archaic eastern origin of the word.

The KOV word, when terminated with A'CS suffix (Slovak AC'
same) refers to a profession. Hungarian linguists state that
the suffix A'CS is in common with the Altaic (Turkic)
languages. There is a list of Hungarian professions which all
use the A'CS suffix also.

        A'CS -framer,woodworker
   Kov -A'CS -blacksmith
   Tak -A'CS -Weaver     (Sumerian TUG =garment)
   Meszar-OS -Butcher    (Sumerian Masaru=s.m.)
   Munk-A'S  -Worker
   Szak-A'CS -Chef       (Slovak sokac')
   Tan- A'CS -Council
   Tolm-A'CS -Translator (Turkish dilmacs)

For those who are interested, I will list the names of the
common metals in Hungarian and their interrelations to other
eastern languages to show the origin or relationships of
Hungarian words.

   arany  =gold in Hungarian     ezu"st   =silver in Hungarian
sararany  =also gold "           azvest   =silver in Votjak
ap-arany  =gold in Dravidian     oevzist  =silver in Ossetic
h-iranya  =gold in Sanskrit      uzves'   =tin    in Zurjen
z-aranya  =gold in Persian       ----------------------------
z-arnyi   =gold in Votjak        on       =tin    in Hungarian
 s-irnye   =gold in Mordvin      anaku    =tin    in Akkad
  iorni   =copper in Ostjak      anak     =tin    in Sumir
hiaruhhe  =gold in Hurrian (*)   anag     =material in Sumir
                                 anyag    =material Hungarian
                                 -----------------------------

re'z =brass/copper Hungarian   vas (archaic wass) =iron Hungar
urudu =copper in  Sumerian     woshu    =iron in ancient HUN
 eru'  =copper in  Akkad       vaski    =copper,ore in Finn
 eru   =ore in Sumerian        guskin > uskin =gold in Sumer
 ----------------------------    -----------------------------
szobor =statuary/idol (of bronze)  e'rc     =ore in Hungarian
 zabar  =bronze in Sumerian        eru      =ore in Sumerian
 sipa