Friam

Experiment and Interpretation

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

Bruce Sherwood

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

I can offer some historical context on why physicists at least are, on
average, unlikely to give Nick much help.

In the 1950s Halliday and Resnick, then at Pitt, created a new-style
intro university-level ("calculus-based") physics textbook, for the
freshman/sophomore course taken by engineering and science students.
Their motives included emphasizing depth rather than breadth, as
existing textbooks tended to be shallow surveys of a vast field. At a
conference at RPI honoring Resnick upon his retirement, Resnick
explained that in the service of the laudable goal of emphasizing
depth they had to eliminate some topics, and one of the topics they
mostly dropped was fluids, reasoning that the basics were covered in
the high school survey course.

With time, the book universally referred to as "Halliday and Resnick"
gathered a huge audience and is still at this very late date the most
widely used university textbook (now "Halliday , Resnick, and
Walker"). There was a trickle-down effect, because high school physics
is strongly influenced by university physics."Since Halliday and
Resnick downplay fluids, so will we", and as Resnick ruefully
acknowledged in his retirement address, fluids basically disappeared.
Fluids even disappeared from the curriculum taken by physics majors.
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that most physicists today
know very little about fluids (with exceptions, of course).
Occasionally there are clarion calls for bringing fluids back into the
education of physicists, but I've not seen any significant movement in
that direction.

In our own university intro physics textbook ("Matter & Interactions";
see matterandinteractions.org), Ruth Chabay and I emphasize starting
analyses from a small number of fundamental principles rather than
from one of a very large number of secondary formulas, and we
emphasize the insights available from exploiting simple atomic models
of matter. In the first chapter we comment that in the service of
these emphases we'll analyze solids and gases but not liquids. Solids
have the simple property that the atoms don't move around very much,
and gases have the simple property that the atoms interact rather
seldom, whereas in liquids the atoms move around a lot AND they
continually interact. So in our own small way we contribute to the
continuing absence of fluid mechanics in physics curricula.

I'll add that my own perception is that fluid dynamics is really
really hard. It is a fiercely complex phenomenon. I don't think I've
ever seen a popular-science treatment of fluids, whereas there are
lots of good books on "simple" stuff like quantum mechanics....

Bruce

P.S. My own undergraduate education was in engineering at Purdue, and
I had a wonderful aeronautical engineering course on fluid dynamics
taught by Paul Lykoudis and using the textbook by Prandtl. Alas, I
never used this knowledge and it atrophied, so I'm no use to Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Pamela McCorduck

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

I find this discussion fascinating, especially because it mirrors an ongoing discussion between me (liberal arts trained) and my beloved (applied mathematician/computer scientist). In over forty years, we've found that we can talk to each other at some level about these issues, but I don't expect him to read a novel the way I do, and he doesn't expect me to understand physics (and God knows, not fluid dynamics) the way he does. We speak in a kind of pidgin. It's okay.

Tangentially, one of my favorite tee shirts has a bit of the Navier Stokes equation on it. People without any knowledge of physics just laugh. (Idea is: Which part of .... do you not understand?) Physicists scrutinize my chest and eventually say (to a man): Uhm, there's a syntax error there.

On Jul 5, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Interesting, Bruce, thanks.

BTW: on the subject of being of use to Nick re: his burning question of why water goes down the sink drain the way it does, Nick appears to have rejected the characterization of this phenomenon as a "really, really hard" fluid flow systems problem requiring graduate-level studies in the specialty areas of fluid dynamics sciences as the necessary basis for developing an answer.

Which leaves us where?

Apparently with Nick bitching that no one will answer his question. I mean, it's a simple question, right?

Also, as to Nick's suggestion that this list should refocus on complexity issues: I don't think I've ever worked on a more complex problem than when I was developing simulations of fluid flow systems.

But, it was just a simple question, right?

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

I can offer some historical context on why physicists at least are, on
average, unlikely to give Nick much help.

In the 1950s Halliday and Resnick, then at Pitt, created a new-style
intro university-level ("calculus-based") physics textbook, for the
freshman/sophomore course taken by engineering and science students.
Their motives included emphasizing depth rather than breadth, as
existing textbooks tended to be shallow surveys of a vast field. At a
conference at RPI honoring Resnick upon his retirement, Resnick
explained that in the service of the laudable goal of emphasizing
depth they had to eliminate some topics, and one of the topics they
mostly dropped was fluids, reasoning that the basics were covered in
the high school survey course.

With time, the book universally referred to as "Halliday and Resnick"
gathered a huge audience and is still at this very late date the most
widely used university textbook (now "Halliday , Resnick, and
Walker"). There was a trickle-down effect, because high school physics
is strongly influenced by university physics."Since Halliday and
Resnick downplay fluids, so will we", and as Resnick ruefully
acknowledged in his retirement address, fluids basically disappeared.
Fluids even disappeared from the curriculum taken by physics majors.
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that most physicists today
know very little about fluids (with exceptions, of course).
Occasionally there are clarion calls for bringing fluids back into the
education of physicists, but I've not seen any significant movement in
that direction.

In our own university intro physics textbook ("Matter & Interactions";
see matterandinteractions.org), Ruth Chabay and I emphasize starting
analyses from a small number of fundamental principles rather than
from one of a very large number of secondary formulas, and we
emphasize the insights available from exploiting simple atomic models
of matter. In the first chapter we comment that in the service of
these emphases we'll analyze solids and gases but not liquids. Solids
have the simple property that the atoms don't move around very much,
and gases have the simple property that the atoms interact rather
seldom, whereas in liquids the atoms move around a lot AND they
continually interact. So in our own small way we contribute to the
continuing absence of fluid mechanics in physics curricula.

I'll add that my own perception is that fluid dynamics is really
really hard. It is a fiercely complex phenomenon. I don't think I've
ever seen a popular-science treatment of fluids, whereas there are
lots of good books on "simple" stuff like quantum mechanics....

Bruce

P.S. My own undergraduate education was in engineering at Purdue, and
I had a wonderful aeronautical engineering course on fluid dynamics
taught by Paul Lykoudis and using the textbook by Prandtl. Alas, I
never used this knowledge and it atrophied, so I'm no use to Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"In humans, the brain is already the hungriest part of our body: at 2 percent of our body weight, this greedy tapeworm of an organ wolfs down 20 percent of the calories that we expend at rest."

Douglas Fox, Scientific American

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

Simply titillating, Pamela.

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I find this discussion fascinating, especially because it mirrors an ongoing discussion between me (liberal arts trained) and my beloved (applied mathematician/computer scientist). In over forty years, we've found that we can talk to each other at some level about these issues, but I don't expect him to read a novel the way I do, and he doesn't expect me to understand physics (and God knows, not fluid dynamics) the way he does. We speak in a kind of pidgin. It's okay.

Tangentially, one of my favorite tee shirts has a bit of the Navier Stokes equation on it. People without any knowledge of physics just laugh. (Idea is: Which part of .... do you not understand?) Physicists scrutinize my chest and eventually say (to a man): Uhm, there's a syntax error there.

P.

On Jul 5, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Interesting, Bruce, thanks.

BTW: on the subject of being of use to Nick re: his burning question of why water goes down the sink drain the way it does, Nick appears to have rejected the characterization of this phenomenon as a "really, really hard" fluid flow systems problem requiring graduate-level studies in the specialty areas of fluid dynamics sciences as the necessary basis for developing an answer.

Which leaves us where?

Apparently with Nick bitching that no one will answer his question. I mean, it's a simple question, right?

Also, as to Nick's suggestion that this list should refocus on complexity issues: I don't think I've ever worked on a more complex problem than when I was developing simulations of fluid flow systems.

But, it was just a simple question, right?

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

I can offer some historical context on why physicists at least are, on
average, unlikely to give Nick much help.

In the 1950s Halliday and Resnick, then at Pitt, created a new-style
intro university-level ("calculus-based") physics textbook, for the
freshman/sophomore course taken by engineering and science students.
Their motives included emphasizing depth rather than breadth, as
existing textbooks tended to be shallow surveys of a vast field. At a
conference at RPI honoring Resnick upon his retirement, Resnick
explained that in the service of the laudable goal of emphasizing
depth they had to eliminate some topics, and one of the topics they
mostly dropped was fluids, reasoning that the basics were covered in
the high school survey course.

With time, the book universally referred to as "Halliday and Resnick"
gathered a huge audience and is still at this very late date the most
widely used university textbook (now "Halliday , Resnick, and
Walker"). There was a trickle-down effect, because high school physics
is strongly influenced by university physics."Since Halliday and
Resnick downplay fluids, so will we", and as Resnick ruefully
acknowledged in his retirement address, fluids basically disappeared.
Fluids even disappeared from the curriculum taken by physics majors.
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that most physicists today
know very little about fluids (with exceptions, of course).
Occasionally there are clarion calls for bringing fluids back into the
education of physicists, but I've not seen any significant movement in
that direction.

In our own university intro physics textbook ("Matter & Interactions";
see matterandinteractions.org), Ruth Chabay and I emphasize starting
analyses from a small number of fundamental principles rather than
from one of a very large number of secondary formulas, and we
emphasize the insights available from exploiting simple atomic models
of matter. In the first chapter we comment that in the service of
these emphases we'll analyze solids and gases but not liquids. Solids
have the simple property that the atoms don't move around very much,
and gases have the simple property that the atoms interact rather
seldom, whereas in liquids the atoms move around a lot AND they
continually interact. So in our own small way we contribute to the
continuing absence of fluid mechanics in physics curricula.

I'll add that my own perception is that fluid dynamics is really
really hard. It is a fiercely complex phenomenon. I don't think I've
ever seen a popular-science treatment of fluids, whereas there are
lots of good books on "simple" stuff like quantum mechanics....

Bruce

P.S. My own undergraduate education was in engineering at Purdue, and
I had a wonderful aeronautical engineering course on fluid dynamics
taught by Paul Lykoudis and using the textbook by Prandtl. Alas, I
never used this knowledge and it atrophied, so I'm no use to Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"In humans, the brain is already the hungriest part of our body: at 2 percent of our body weight, this greedy tapeworm of an organ wolfs down 20 percent of the calories that we expend at rest."

Douglas Fox, Scientific American

============================================================

Owen Densmore

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

Administrator

Nick: in the djvu books on Feynman Lectures on physics, you'll find this comment on fluids and their difficulties in the first volume.

Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time ago--over a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids. If we watch the evolution of a star, there comes a point where we can deduce that it is going to start convection, and thereafter we can no longer deduce what should happen. A few million years later the star explodes, but we cannot figure out the reason. We cannot analyze the weather. We do not know the patterns of motions that there should be inside the earth. The simplest form of the problem is to take a pipe that is very long and push water through it at high speed. We ask: to push a given amount of water through that pipe, how much pressure is needed? No one can analyze it from first principles and the properties of water. If the water flows very slowly, or if we use a thick goo like honey, then we can do it nicely. You will find that in your textbook. What we really cannot do is deal with actual, wet water running through a pipe. That is the central problem which we ought to solve some day, and we have not.

If you search for fluid you'll find that he does comment often on them in other contexts, and in the second volume he has two chapters on elasticity and two on fluids. Bruce can comment on the Feynman books .. I know in some circles they are considered poor but for me they are the quickest to get to the point and best at clearly discussing the topic under consideration.

Feynman really does agree with your view that the more expert one is, the more able to explain clearly and with sufficient depth. He definitely was no snob!

If anyone wants to see the books in djvu form, you can find them at:

http://backspaces.net/temp/

-- Owen

Nick Thompson

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

Thanks, Owen,

That passage is remarkable. Everytime I read Feynman, I find that I LIKE him.

Thanks for putting it before us.

nIck

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 2:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

Nick: in the djvu books on Feynman Lectures on physics, you'll find this comment on fluids and their difficulties in the first volume.

Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time ago--over a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids. If we watch the evolution of a star, there comes a point where we can deduce that it is going to start convection, and thereafter we can no longer deduce what should happen. A few million years later the star explodes, but we cannot figure out the reason. We cannot analyze the weather. We do not know the patterns of motions that there should be inside the earth. The simplest form of the problem is to take a pipe that is very long and push water through it at high speed. We ask: to push a given amount of water through that pipe, how much pressure is needed? No one can analyze it from first principles and the properties of water. If the water flows very slowly, or if we use a thick goo like honey, then we can do it nicely. You will find that in your textbook. What we really cannot do is deal with actual, wet water running through a pipe. That is the central problem which we ought to solve some day, and we have not.

Feynman really does agree with your view that the more expert one is, the more able to explain clearly and with sufficient depth. He definitely was no snob!

If anyone wants to see the books in djvu form, you can find them at:

http://backspaces.net/temp/

-- Owen

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

I must say Nick, that was a rather immature response, even by my standards.

Let's look back at this thread for a moment:

First, you asked a question that probably can't be answered, even with the most powerful, sophisticated tools available to us today.
Several of us tried to explain why this was so.
Some of us joked with you.
You persisted, even implying that an unnamed few of us were being snobs by refusing to answer your simple little question.
We pushed back.
You left in a huff.

Think about it for a bit...

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ok. I got it. You guys don’t want to talk about this subject, you don’t want ME to talk about it, and nobody else really wants to talk about it. So, I declare this thread closed. Please don’t post any more responses to this thread. You want to make off color remarks, find you own damn thread.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 1:05 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

Simply titillating, Pamela.

--Doug
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
I find this discussion fascinating, especially because it mirrors an ongoing discussion between me (liberal arts trained) and my beloved (applied mathematician/computer scientist). In over forty years, we've found that we can talk to each other at some level about these issues, but I don't expect him to read a novel the way I do, and he doesn't expect me to understand physics (and God knows, not fluid dynamics) the way he does. We speak in a kind of pidgin. It's okay.

Tangentially, one of my favorite tee shirts has a bit of the Navier Stokes equation on it. People without any knowledge of physics just laugh. (Idea is: Which part of .... do you not understand?) Physicists scrutinize my chest and eventually say (to a man): Uhm, there's a syntax error there.

P.

On Jul 5, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Interesting, Bruce, thanks.

BTW: on the subject of being of use to Nick re: his burning question of why water goes down the sink drain the way it does, Nick appears to have rejected the characterization of this phenomenon as a "really, really hard" fluid flow systems problem requiring graduate-level studies in the specialty areas of fluid dynamics sciences as the necessary basis for developing an answer.

Which leaves us where?

Apparently with Nick bitching that no one will answer his question. I mean, it's a simple question, right?

Also, as to Nick's suggestion that this list should refocus on complexity issues: I don't think I've ever worked on a more complex problem than when I was developing simulations of fluid flow systems.

But, it was just a simple question, right?

--Doug
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
I can offer some historical context on why physicists at least are, on
average, unlikely to give Nick much help.

In the 1950s Halliday and Resnick, then at Pitt, created a new-style
intro university-level ("calculus-based") physics textbook, for the
freshman/sophomore course taken by engineering and science students.
Their motives included emphasizing depth rather than breadth, as
existing textbooks tended to be shallow surveys of a vast field. At a
conference at RPI honoring Resnick upon his retirement, Resnick
explained that in the service of the laudable goal of emphasizing
depth they had to eliminate some topics, and one of the topics they
mostly dropped was fluids, reasoning that the basics were covered in
the high school survey course.

With time, the book universally referred to as "Halliday and Resnick"
gathered a huge audience and is still at this very late date the most
widely used university textbook (now "Halliday , Resnick, and
Walker"). There was a trickle-down effect, because high school physics
is strongly influenced by university physics."Since Halliday and
Resnick downplay fluids, so will we", and as Resnick ruefully
acknowledged in his retirement address, fluids basically disappeared.
Fluids even disappeared from the curriculum taken by physics majors.
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that most physicists today
know very little about fluids (with exceptions, of course).
Occasionally there are clarion calls for bringing fluids back into the
education of physicists, but I've not seen any significant movement in
that direction.

In our own university intro physics textbook ("Matter & Interactions";
see matterandinteractions.org), Ruth Chabay and I emphasize starting
analyses from a small number of fundamental principles rather than
from one of a very large number of secondary formulas, and we
emphasize the insights available from exploiting simple atomic models
of matter. In the first chapter we comment that in the service of
these emphases we'll analyze solids and gases but not liquids. Solids
have the simple property that the atoms don't move around very much,
and gases have the simple property that the atoms interact rather
seldom, whereas in liquids the atoms move around a lot AND they
continually interact. So in our own small way we contribute to the
continuing absence of fluid mechanics in physics curricula.

I'll add that my own perception is that fluid dynamics is really
really hard. It is a fiercely complex phenomenon. I don't think I've
ever seen a popular-science treatment of fluids, whereas there are
lots of good books on "simple" stuff like quantum mechanics....

Bruce

P.S. My own undergraduate education was in engineering at Purdue, and
I had a wonderful aeronautical engineering course on fluid dynamics
taught by Paul Lykoudis and using the textbook by Prandtl. Alas, I
never used this knowledge and it atrophied, so I'm no use to Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

"In humans, the brain is already the hungriest part of our body: at 2 percent of our body weight, this greedy tapeworm of an organ wolfs down 20 percent of the calories that we expend at rest."

Douglas Fox, Scientific American

============================================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Frank Wimberly

Re: Experiment and Interpretation

First, you asked a question that probably can't be answered, even with the most powerful, sophisticated tools available to us today.

Doug,

At the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center we had users who modeled the Gulf Stream and the formation of tornadoes. The latter, Kelvin Droegemeir, monopolized our biggest machines every morning in June to predict, with some success, the locations of that afternoon’s tornadoes in Oklahoma. Is it really too difficult to model water running out of a household sink? Wasn’t that Nick’s question?

Frank

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 2:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

I must say Nick, that was a rather immature response, even by my standards.

Let's look back at this thread for a moment:

First, you asked a question that probably can't be answered, even with the most powerful, sophisticated tools available to us today.
Several of us tried to explain why this was so.
Some of us joked with you.
You persisted, even implying that an unnamed few of us were being snobs by refusing to answer your simple little question.
We pushed back.
You left in a huff.

Think about it for a bit...

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ok. I got it. You guys don’t want to talk about this subject, you don’t want ME to talk about it, and nobody else really wants to talk about it. So, I declare this thread closed. Please don’t post any more responses to this thread. You want to make off color remarks, find you own damn thread.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 1:05 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Experiment and Interpretation

Simply titillating, Pamela.

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 5, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Interesting, Bruce, thanks.

BTW: on the subject of being of use to Nick re: his burning question of why water goes down the sink drain the way it does, Nick appears to have rejected the characterization of this phenomenon as a "really, really hard" fluid flow systems problem requiring graduate-level studies in the specialty areas of fluid dynamics sciences as the necessary basis for developing an answer.

Which leaves us where?

Apparently with Nick bitching that no one will answer his question. I mean, it's a simple question, right?

Also, as to Nick's suggestion that this list should refocus on complexity issues: I don't think I've ever worked on a more complex problem than when I was developing simulations of fluid flow systems.

But, it was just a simple question, right?

--Doug

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

"In humans, the brain is already the hungriest part of our body: at 2 percent of our body weight, this greedy tapeworm of an organ wolfs down 20 percent of the calories that we expend at rest."

Douglas Fox, Scientific American

============================================================

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell