INFO-VAX Mon, 10 Sep 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 494 Contents: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Re: DEBUG64 and LINKER64 functionality on VMS 8.3 DFU on the freeware disks Re: DFU on the freeware disks Re: DFU on the freeware disks Re: DFU on the freeware disks Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Re: I think I might understand N3 and the bullet Re: Stuck at a console Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates Re: VMS License Plates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:18:06 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht Subject: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <20070910121806.GA31695@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk> I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and I get the following error: $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 1-2-1.PCSI;1 -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition $ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 1-2-1.PCSI;1 -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition $ show def SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] $ what could cause this error? The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? $ show dev/full donkey$dqa0 Disk DONKEY$DQA0:, device type DV-28E-C, is online, allocated, deallocate on dismount, mounted, software write-locked, file-oriented device, shareable, served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging is enabled. Error count 0 Operations completed 1008 Owner process "SYSTEM" Owner UIC [SYSTEM] Owner process ID 20E00429 Dev Prot S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W Reference count 2 Default buffer size 512 Total blocks 2843136 Sectors per track 41 Total cylinders 1692 Tracks per cylinder 41 Logical Volume Size 2843108 Expansion Size Limit 2863104 Volume label "I64BINFEB071" Relative volume number 0 Cluster size 3 Transaction count 1 Free blocks 253869 Maximum files allowed 355388 Extend quantity 5 Mount count 1 Mount status Process Cache name "_$1$DGA2:XQPCACHE" Extent cache size 64 Maximum blocks in extent cache 25386 File ID cache size 64 Blocks in extent cache 0 Quota cache size 0 Maximum buffers in FCP cache 4840 Volume owner UIC [17,35] Vol Prot S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, allocation inhibited because of error on bitmap, file high-water marking, write-back caching enabled. $ many thanks anton -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:07:44 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <46E541A0.6000701@comcast.net> Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and > I get the following error: > > $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ show def > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] > $ > > what could cause this error? > > The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? > > $ show dev/full donkey$dqa0 > > Disk DONKEY$DQA0:, device type DV-28E-C, is online, allocated, deallocate on > dismount, mounted, software write-locked, file-oriented device, shareable, > served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging is enabled. > > Error count 0 Operations completed 1008 > Owner process "SYSTEM" Owner UIC [SYSTEM] > Owner process ID 20E00429 Dev Prot S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W > Reference count 2 Default buffer size 512 > Total blocks 2843136 Sectors per track 41 > Total cylinders 1692 Tracks per cylinder 41 > Logical Volume Size 2843108 Expansion Size Limit 2863104 > > Volume label "I64BINFEB071" Relative volume number 0 > Cluster size 3 Transaction count 1 > Free blocks 253869 Maximum files allowed 355388 > Extend quantity 5 Mount count 1 > Mount status Process Cache name "_$1$DGA2:XQPCACHE" > Extent cache size 64 Maximum blocks in extent cache 25386 > File ID cache size 64 Blocks in extent cache 0 > Quota cache size 0 Maximum buffers in FCP cache 4840 > Volume owner UIC [17,35] Vol Prot S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD > > Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, allocation inhibited > because of error on bitmap, file high-water marking, write-back caching > enabled. > > $ > > many thanks > anton > At the very least you need to do an $ ANALYZE /DISK_STRUCTURE /REPAIR /CONFIRM DONKEY$DQA0: At worst, you had better hope you have a good backup! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:30:27 -0400 From: "Ken Robinson" Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <7dd80f60709100630m45334818m2a426ff327515a23@mail.gmail.com> On 9/10/07, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and > I get the following error: > > $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ show def > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] > $ > > what could cause this error? Please do a $ sho log sys$sysdevice and a $ sho log sys$sysroot It sounds like you destination drive is also write locked. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:22:12 -0700 From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and > I get the following error: > > $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > $ show def > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] > $ > > what could cause this error? > > The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? > > $ show dev/full donkey$dqa0 > > Disk DONKEY$DQA0:, device type DV-28E-C, is online, allocated, deallocate on > dismount, mounted, software write-locked, file-oriented device, shareable, > served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging is enabled. > > Error count 0 Operations completed 1008 > Owner process "SYSTEM" Owner UIC [SYSTEM] > Owner process ID 20E00429 Dev Prot S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W > Reference count 2 Default buffer size 512 > Total blocks 2843136 Sectors per track 41 > Total cylinders 1692 Tracks per cylinder 41 > Logical Volume Size 2843108 Expansion Size Limit 2863104 > > Volume label "I64BINFEB071" Relative volume number 0 > Cluster size 3 Transaction count 1 > Free blocks 253869 Maximum files allowed 355388 > Extend quantity 5 Mount count 1 > Mount status Process Cache name "_$1$DGA2:XQPCACHE" > Extent cache size 64 Maximum blocks in extent cache 25386 > File ID cache size 64 Blocks in extent cache 0 > Quota cache size 0 Maximum buffers in FCP cache 4840 > Volume owner UIC [17,35] Vol Prot S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD > > Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, allocation inhibited > because of error on bitmap, file high-water marking, write-back caching > enabled. > > $ > > many thanks > anton > Your default directory is set to DQA0: which is a DVD and is not writeable. Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:57:35 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <20070910135735.GA32004@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:30:27AM -0400, Ken Robinson wrote: > On 9/10/07, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and > > I get the following error: > > > > $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > > > $ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition > > > > $ show def > > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] > > $ > > > > what could cause this error? > > Please do a > > $ sho log sys$sysdevice > > and a > > $ sho log sys$sysroot > > It sounds like you destination drive is also write locked. Ken, thanks a lot: $ show log sys$sysdevice "SYS$SYSDEVICE" = "$1$DGA2:" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) $ show log sys$sysroot "SYS$SYSROOT" = "$1$DGA2:[SYS0.]" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) = "SYS$COMMON:" 1 "SYS$COMMON" = "$1$DGA2:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.]" (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) $ I also tried to specify the destination with /DESTINATION = SYS$SYSDEVICE:[VMS$COMMON] the error is the same anton -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:32:25 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <20070910143225.GA32238@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:07:44AM -0400, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and > >I get the following error: > > > >$ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > >%PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing > >DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > >1-2-1.PCSI;1 > >-SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > >%PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > >%PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error > >condition > > > >$ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > >%PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing > >DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > >1-2-1.PCSI;1 > >-SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > >%PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > >%PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error > >condition > > > >$ show def > > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] > >$ > > > >what could cause this error? > > > >The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? > > > >$ show dev/full donkey$dqa0 > > > >Disk DONKEY$DQA0:, device type DV-28E-C, is online, allocated, deallocate > >on > > dismount, mounted, software write-locked, file-oriented device, > > shareable, > > served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging is enabled. > > > > Error count 0 Operations completed > > 1008 > > Owner process "SYSTEM" Owner UIC > > [SYSTEM] > > Owner process ID 20E00429 Dev Prot > > S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W > > Reference count 2 Default buffer size > > 512 > > Total blocks 2843136 Sectors per track > > 41 > > Total cylinders 1692 Tracks per cylinder > > 41 > > Logical Volume Size 2843108 Expansion Size Limit > > 2863104 > > > > Volume label "I64BINFEB071" Relative volume number > > 0 > > Cluster size 3 Transaction count > > 1 > > Free blocks 253869 Maximum files allowed > > 355388 > > Extend quantity 5 Mount count > > 1 > > Mount status Process Cache name > > "_$1$DGA2:XQPCACHE" > > Extent cache size 64 Maximum blocks in extent cache > > 25386 > > File ID cache size 64 Blocks in extent cache > > 0 > > Quota cache size 0 Maximum buffers in FCP cache > > 4840 > > Volume owner UIC [17,35] Vol Prot > > S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD > > > > Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, allocation > > inhibited > > because of error on bitmap, file high-water marking, write-back > > caching > > enabled. > > > > At the very least you need to do an > $ ANALYZE /DISK_STRUCTURE /REPAIR /CONFIRM DONKEY$DQA0: > Richard, thanks: $ analyze/disk_structure /repair /confirm donkey$dqa0: Analyze/Disk_Structure/Repair for _DONKEY$DQA0: started on 10-SEP-2007 15:28:24. 20 %ANALDISK-I-SHORTBITMAP, storage bitmap on RVN 1 does not cover the entire devic e %ANALDISK-E-NOREPAIR, one or more volumes write locked - /REPAIR cancelled %ANALDISK-I-OPENQUOTA, error opening QUOTA.SYS -SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such file $ Is there a problem with this DVD media? thanks anton -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 8233 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:53:45 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <46E55A79.6080807@comcast.net> Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:07:44AM -0400, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >>Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> >>>I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and >>>I get the following error: >>> >>>$ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] >>>%PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing >>>DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 >>>1-2-1.PCSI;1 >>>-SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error >>>%PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed >>>%PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error >>>condition >>> >>>$ product install fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] >>>%PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing >>>DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 >>>1-2-1.PCSI;1 >>>-SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error >>>%PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed >>>%PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error >>>condition >>> >>>$ show def >>> SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] >>> = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] >>> = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] >>>$ >>> >>>what could cause this error? >>> >>>The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? >>> >>>$ show dev/full donkey$dqa0 >>> >>>Disk DONKEY$DQA0:, device type DV-28E-C, is online, allocated, deallocate >>>on >>> dismount, mounted, software write-locked, file-oriented device, >>> shareable, >>> served to cluster via MSCP Server, error logging is enabled. >>> >>> Error count 0 Operations completed >>> 1008 >>> Owner process "SYSTEM" Owner UIC >>> [SYSTEM] >>> Owner process ID 20E00429 Dev Prot >>> S:RWPL,O:RWPL,G:R,W >>> Reference count 2 Default buffer size >>> 512 >>> Total blocks 2843136 Sectors per track >>> 41 >>> Total cylinders 1692 Tracks per cylinder >>> 41 >>> Logical Volume Size 2843108 Expansion Size Limit >>> 2863104 >>> >>> Volume label "I64BINFEB071" Relative volume number >>> 0 >>> Cluster size 3 Transaction count >>> 1 >>> Free blocks 253869 Maximum files allowed >>> 355388 >>> Extend quantity 5 Mount count >>> 1 >>> Mount status Process Cache name >>> "_$1$DGA2:XQPCACHE" >>> Extent cache size 64 Maximum blocks in extent cache >>> 25386 >>> File ID cache size 64 Blocks in extent cache >>> 0 >>> Quota cache size 0 Maximum buffers in FCP cache >>> 4840 >>> Volume owner UIC [17,35] Vol Prot >>> S:RWCD,O:RWCD,G:RWCD,W:RWCD >>> >>> Volume Status: ODS-2, subject to mount verification, allocation >>> inhibited >>> because of error on bitmap, file high-water marking, write-back >>> caching >>> enabled. >>> >> >>At the very least you need to do an >>$ ANALYZE /DISK_STRUCTURE /REPAIR /CONFIRM DONKEY$DQA0: >> > > > Richard, thanks: > > $ analyze/disk_structure /repair /confirm donkey$dqa0: > > Analyze/Disk_Structure/Repair for _DONKEY$DQA0: started on 10-SEP-2007 15:28:24. > 20 > > %ANALDISK-I-SHORTBITMAP, storage bitmap on RVN 1 does not cover the entire devic > e > %ANALDISK-E-NOREPAIR, one or more volumes write locked - /REPAIR cancelled > %ANALDISK-I-OPENQUOTA, error opening QUOTA.SYS > -SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such file > $ > > Is there a problem with this DVD media? > > thanks > anton > I missed the fact that it was a DVD! There might, indeed, be a problem with the file structure on it. ANALYZE /DISK_STRUCTURE is the only way I know of to repair file structure problems. If it won't work with a DVD then I guess you have to make a new DVD and get it right this time! :-) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 17:15:02 +0200 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER) Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <46e57b96$1@news.langstoeger.at> In article <20070910121806.GA31695@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton Shterenlikht writes: >I'm trying to install fortran on I64 VMS8.3 from a layered product DVD and >I get the following error: > >$ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] >%PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 >1-2-1.PCSI;1 >-SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error >%PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed >%PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition How about copying the kit to another disk before the update? Will the COPY be successfull? How about a explicit /FILE= qualifier? Where does PCSI$DESTINATION point to? >$ show def > SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$SYSROOT:[SYSMGR] > = SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR] I recommend setting the default not to a search list (like SYS$MANAGER, SYSTEM's homedir) but I don't think this is related to your problem. And I also recommend doing a logfile of the installation (like with $ SET HOST/LOG=SYS$SYSDEVICE:[INSTALL_LOGS]FORTRAN-V0801-2.I64 or .LOG) and using /LOG and /TRACE qualifiers with the PRODUCT command... >what could cause this error? Maybe default on a write locked device (which would mean your system disk is write locked - and then you have other problems than your current one). Or more likely a PCSI$DESTINATION logical pointing to a write locked device. But frankly, I don't know. I suspect the DVD, too. >The following reports "error on bitmap". Is that important or relevant? I wouldn't trust such a kit then (as long as it has no manifest file to gain trust again) but it is no proof that the kit is damaged I think. Good luck -- Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Network and OpenVMS system specialist E-mail peter@langstoeger.at A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:18:03 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > $ product extract release_notes fortran /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] > %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 > 1-2-1.PCSI;1 > -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error > %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed > %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error condition My first reaction is to suggest you take the PCSI file and move it to a real disk, and then try the "product" command again. It may be trying to create temporary files on the CD or create the release notes file on the CD. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 12:04:55 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <$hJ3D9PjN1aa@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <20070910143225.GA32238@mech-aslap33.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton Shterenlikht writes: > > $ analyze/disk_structure /repair /confirm donkey$dqa0: > > Analyze/Disk_Structure/Repair for _DONKEY$DQA0: started on 10-SEP-2007 15:28:24. > 20 > > %ANALDISK-I-SHORTBITMAP, storage bitmap on RVN 1 does not cover the entire devic > e > %ANALDISK-E-NOREPAIR, one or more volumes write locked - /REPAIR cancelled > %ANALDISK-I-OPENQUOTA, error opening QUOTA.SYS > -SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHFILE, no such file > $ > > Is there a problem with this DVD media? Is this DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, or some other writeable media? Is the driver stricly a reader, or does it have compatable -R, +R, or -RW capabilities? The errors you are seeing all involve attempting to write to what appears to be read-only storage. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:34:01 +0200 From: Albrecht Schlosser Subject: Re: -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error Message-ID: <5pbgr4-l4b.ln1@news.hus-software.de> JF Mezei wrote: > Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >> $ product extract release_notes fortran >> /source=donkey$dqa0:[fort0811.kit] >> %PCSI-E-WRITEERR, error writing >> DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V080 >> 1-2-1.PCSI;1 >> -SYSTEM-F-WRITLCK, write lock error >> %PCSI-E-S_OPFAIL, operation failed >> %PCSIUI-E-ABORT, operation terminated due to an unrecoverable error >> condition > > > My first reaction is to suggest you take the PCSI file and move it to a > real disk, and then try the "product" command again. Yes, that should do the trick (just tried it), although ... > It may be trying to create temporary files on the CD or create the > release notes file on the CD. ... the error message is: "... error writing ... DONKEY$DQA0:[FORT0811.KIT]HP-I64VMS-FORTRAN-V0801-2-1.PCSI;1" which is the original PCSI file (I checked it on my version, same volume label: "I64BINFEB071"). Same error here. However, my version doesn't show the "error on bitmap". Is this a PCSI bug? System/VMS version: HP rx1620 ... running OpenVMS V8.2-1 Albrecht ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:30:02 -0400 From: John Reagan Subject: Re: DEBUG64 and LINKER64 functionality on VMS 8.3 Message-ID: Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I installed fortran on VMS alpha 8.3: > > $ PRODUCT SHOW PRODUCT FOR* > ------------------------------------ ----------- --------- > PRODUCT KIT TYPE STATE > ------------------------------------ ----------- --------- > DEC AXPVMS FORRTL V7.6-1 Full LP Installed > DEC AXPVMS FORTRAN V8.0-1 Full LP Installed > ------------------------------------ ----------- --------- > 2 items found > $ > > The fortran installation manual also details the installation of > 64-bit tools, OpenVMS Debugger (DEBUG64) and OpenVMS Linker (LINKER64). > > However, it says that: > > If you have a version of OpenVMS later than Version 7.2, > check its release notes to see if DEBUG64 and LINKER64 > functionality is already included. > > I cannot find any relevant info in 8.3 release notes. > > Has this been included for ages? Can I check this somehow? > > thanks > anton > The references to DEBUG64 and LINKER64 will be totally removed from the release notes for the next Fortran release (being finalized as I type). -- John Reagan OpenVMS Pascal/Macro-32/COBOL Project Leader Hewlett-Packard Company ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:43:19 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: DFU on the freeware disks Message-ID: Hi, DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason? -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:59:21 -0000 From: IanMiller Subject: Re: DFU on the freeware disks Message-ID: <1189429161.818999.209700@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> The lastest DFU and information about it are on http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:38:03 +0200 From: Jur van der Burg <"lddriver at digiater dot nl"> Subject: Re: DFU on the freeware disks Message-ID: <46e548bc$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware to be maintained anymore. You can get it from my site: http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html Jur. Ron Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason? > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:59:44 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: DFU on the freeware disks Message-ID: Does that mean no F/W 9.0? On 09/10/07 08:38, Jur van der Burg wrote: > It was not removed, but never put there. Don't count on the freeware > to be maintained anymore. > > You can get it from my site: > > http://www.digiater.nl/dfu.html > > > Jur. > > Ron Johnson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> DFU was removed from F/W 8.0. Was there any specific reason? >> -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:58:40 +0200 From: "Rudolf Wingert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <00c101c7f378$04861670$994614ac@domina.fom> Hello, David did write: >>> How do you know when an instruction from God is a helpful suggestion, = which you can ignore if you wish because you think things have changed and you know=20 better, and a Law ? I think a lot of Jews still regard it as God's Law even though they are perfectly well aware of how conditions have changed. <<< In my German Bibel the heading is instructions, not law. May be this is = a wrong translation from Greek or Latin to German. But why should God = change his mind from: you can eat what you want, if it is without any blood to = you can eat only koscher animals? God did give the mankind only ten laws, = the rest where all instruction to survive. Jesus did expand (or compress how = you would like to see) it with the law: You should love God and your next = and yourself. Look to the apostle Paul. He did write, that he can eat idol meat = without any problem. I think that it is not important, what you believe. Important is, to = have a living relationship to Jesus Christ and his Father. To answer to the = love of God. The Bibel is the scale, where I can measure me live in this love. Best regards Rudolf Wingert ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:35:45 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: Rudolf Wingert wrote: > can eat only koscher animals? God did give the mankind only ten laws, the > rest where all instruction to survive. Yep. The problem is that those instructions were not in "concepts" but rather specific. (eg: specific way to cook the meat). The people of that day probably needed specifics. But in the big picture, if you are to write a timeless book (bible), it should be more in concept than specific instructions. And in the 21st century, it isn't very smart for someone to take many of those instructions litterally without really understanding the environment in which those were originally made. I think Paul understood that when he reformed christianity to lose many of the specifics that applied to middle eastern way of life/conditions in order to spread the new religion to other areas of the planet (notably roman empire). But new specifics were added over time. However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and doesn't cause illness to people ? While the Jewish people may be deprived of some of the finer modern culinary haute-cuisine, the strict kosher diet doesn't render them ill or poorly nurished. The problem with religions is that their rituals and way of life are associated not with a faith/beliefs, but with a culture. And when someone from culture X decides to move to country Y where the culture is different, he might be able to bring his faith and continue to think the way he wants about some god, but should he also insist on bringing his original culture to a new country where the culture is different ? Another thing to consider:: Bibles (for various religions) were written a long time ago and only dealt with issues/concepts knows to the people at that time. If the old testament were written today, the food restrictions may be quite different (focusing more on fats, too much sugar and general eating disorders that cause obesity etc), and there may be sections that deal with media (TV, movies, video games, internet etc). So the old religions are today, totally devoid of "instructions" to guide the members with regards to modern way of life and modern technology. Yet, they retain many of the antiquated and no longer applicable instructions which are maintained solely for the purpose of not breaking tradition. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:12:41 +0200 From: "Rudolf Wingert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <00ca01c7f38a$bd80a6b0$994614ac@domina.fom> Hello, JF Mezei wrotes: >>> However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which,=20 although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and=20 doesn't cause illness to people ? <<< JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. But is wrong to demonise one side (the traditionals or the other one). The = Bibel is not a cookbook. It is written to show God plan with mankind and his = mention about the best way to live. It is also not a book without contradiction. = It is written within the historical context and the writer where not = puppets on the string (e.g. Chronik versus Kings: David did be tempted by God or by = the devil to count the soldiers?). Chinese people do eat pork. Are Chinese Christians are bad, if they eat = too? My personal opinion is: no. Also Jesus did say, the Sabbath is made for mankind and not mankind for Sabbath. Best regards Rudolf Wingert ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:12:52 -0700 From: AEF Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189426372.388487.37070@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 7:22 am, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: > > On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote: > >> Ron Johnson wrote: > >>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote: > >>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden > >>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of > >>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash > >>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.] > > >>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the > >>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person > >>>>> blows a feather with his breath. > > >>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of > >>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine." > > >>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd. > > >>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite > >>>> reaction." > > >>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding, > >>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions. > >>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples? > > >>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction? > > >> > > >> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there: > > >> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: > >> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, > >> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is > >> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your > >> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a > >> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally > >> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same > >> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much > >> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will > >> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the > >> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the > >> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the > >> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, > >> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, > >> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to > >> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, > >> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities > >> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the > >> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in > >> the next scholium." > > >> Hope that helps. > > > It does. The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table > > pushes up against the book, etc. > > > But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the > > expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel. > > Nor does it explain the excess force from the expanding gas > in a rocket nozzle or in a gun barrel. > > There's a chemical reaction that explains that excess force. > > > Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on* > > the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing > > arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to > > bounce back off the table. > > > What am I misunderstanding? > > At a guess, you are under the delusion that for every physical situation > that is explainable there is a single explanation that captures > the essential details and that all other explanations are wrong. > > You may also be conflating "explanation" and "cause". Don't forget the recoil of the gun. The gases push the bullet forward and gun backward. I'm not sure what is meant here by "excess" force, but maybe this will help clear it up. AEF ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:23:34 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/10/07 04:12, Rudolf Wingert wrote: > Hello, > > JF Mezei wrotes: > > However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, > although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and > doesn't cause illness to people ? > <<< > > JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. But is There are *lots* of very old traditions which are very very very bad. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 07:53:31 -0500 From: briggs@encompasserve.org Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <$jNEQ2kHTGIQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article <1189426372.388487.37070@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes: > On Sep 10, 7:22 am, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote: >> In article , Ron Johnson writes: >> > On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote: >> >> Ron Johnson wrote: >> >>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote: >> >>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden >> >>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of >> >>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash >> >>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.] >> >> >>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the >> >>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person >> >>>>> blows a feather with his breath. >> >> >>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of >> >>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine." >> >> >>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd. >> >> >>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite >> >>>> reaction." >> >> >>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding, >> >>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions. >> >>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples? >> >> >>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction? >> >> >> >> >> >> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there: >> >> >> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: >> >> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, >> >> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is >> >> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your >> >> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a >> >> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally >> >> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same >> >> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much >> >> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will >> >> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the >> >> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the >> >> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the >> >> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, >> >> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, >> >> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to >> >> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, >> >> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities >> >> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the >> >> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in >> >> the next scholium." >> >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> > It does. The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table >> > pushes up against the book, etc. >> >> > But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the >> > expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel. >> >> Nor does it explain the excess force from the expanding gas >> in a rocket nozzle or in a gun barrel. >> >> There's a chemical reaction that explains that excess force. >> >> > Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on* >> > the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing >> > arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to >> > bounce back off the table. >> >> > What am I misunderstanding? >> >> At a guess, you are under the delusion that for every physical situation >> that is explainable there is a single explanation that captures >> the essential details and that all other explanations are wrong. >> >> You may also be conflating "explanation" and "cause". > > Don't forget the recoil of the gun. The gases push the bullet forward > and gun backward. > > I'm not sure what is meant here by "excess" force, but maybe this will > help clear it up. Here's my understanding of "excess" force in context... The scenario in question is a rubber ball sitting on a table. Or a bullet sitting stationary in a not-yet-fired cartridge. There is a "ordinary" force that simply holds the ball or bullet in place against the force of gravity. And there is an "excess" force that accelerates a bouncing ball away from the table or propels a fired bullet down the barrel of the gun. If I reconstruct Ron's concern properly, he sees people saying that Newton's third law explains bullets and rockets and bouncing balls. But he doesn't see anything in Newton's third law to explain these "excess" forces. Of course he's perfectly correct in this. The "excess" force on the bouncing ball is due to an an elastic deformation of rubber molecules -- the ball is stressed and deformed out of its normal spherical shape. Newton's third law is silent on the nature of the deformation and stresses in the rubber ball. Hooke's law may approximately apply. The "excess" force on the bullet is due to high temperature, high pressure gas in the firing chamber. Newton's third law is silent on the nature of the temperature, pressure and resulting forces. Boyle's law may approximately apply. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:12:12 -0400 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <46E542AC.5040308@comcast.net> Ron Johnson wrote: > On 09/10/07 04:12, Rudolf Wingert wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>JF Mezei wrotes: >> >>However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, >>although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and >>doesn't cause illness to people ? >><<< >> >>JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. But is > > > There are *lots* of very old traditions which are very very very bad. > e.g. celebrating by firing guns into the air. It doesn't seem to occur to the celebrants that the bullets come down somewhere and that terminal velocity is something like 120 MPH! Every once in a while, this practice makes the news when some unfortunate soul happens to be standing where the bullet came down. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 08:35:02 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > The classical ie Newtonian Universe is a clockwork Universe which is > theoretically completely deterministic. Excellent citation of theories no longer held to be accurate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:48:02 -0500 From: Ron Johnson Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: On 09/10/07 08:12, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 09/10/07 04:12, Rudolf Wingert wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> JF Mezei wrotes: >>> >>> However, is there anything wrong with continuing a practice which, >>> although no longer needed, is still part of a very old tradition and >>> doesn't cause illness to people ? >>> <<< >>> >>> JF your are right. There is nothing wrong to practice tradition. But is >> >> >> There are *lots* of very old traditions which are very very very bad. >> > > e.g. celebrating by firing guns into the air. It doesn't seem to occur > to the celebrants that the bullets come down somewhere and that terminal > velocity is something like 120 MPH! > > Every once in a while, this practice makes the news when some > unfortunate soul happens to be standing where the bullet came down. I was thinking of older, *much* older traditions. -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:58:03 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >> >> The classical ie Newtonian Universe is a clockwork Universe which is >> theoretically completely deterministic. > > Excellent citation of theories no longer held to be accurate. > As I recall in that post , or at least other posts in that thread, I've cited Newtonian theory, Special Relativity - and implicitly general relativity, and relativistic Quantum theory. I'm not sufficiently up on string theory and loop quantum gravity etc However I'm fairly confident that any future theory of everything would incorporate enough of special relativity to guarantee the predetermination of the future of the Universe (assuming that there is just one single consistent future rather than multiple futures as held by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory). David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 08:58:26 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: RE: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > Where's the catch ? As reported this sounds like a mechanism for extracting > useful energy from the vacuum ie zero-point energy. > Our only future energy problems would be to do with storage and transmission. Generating energy using the force described in the article would face exactly the same difficulty as generating energy using electrical or magnetic forces, which have been used to cause small objects to levitate for many generations now. The point of the article seems to be to find out how many people can be confused and amazed by the word "levitation". ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 15:57:26 GMT From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <5kl7r6F42t3iU1@mid.individual.net> In article <46E17F6D.9080900@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> In article <5katd5F2u9j4U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >> >>>In article , >>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >>> >>>>A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which >>>>they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that >>>>envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon >>>>like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate). >>> >>>There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not >>>we used a cannon. >> >> >> Well I can't recall Apollo being shot out of a barrel. >> >> >> >>>Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about >>>why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts? >>> >> >> >> No sorry I haven't. >> > > Did that go something like "50,000 components, each let to the lowest > bidder..." The lowest biddeer comment was Neil Armstrong. Chuck Yeager was quoted as saying "I refuse to be shot out of a cannon." when he turned down the offer. He was, of course, refering to the fact that the occupants in the original space flights had no control over the craft and just went along for the ride. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 11:50:11 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > > I'm not sufficiently up on string theory and loop quantum gravity etc > However I'm fairly confident that any future theory of everything would > incorporate enough of special relativity to guarantee the predetermination of > the future of the Universe (assuming that there is just one single consistent > future rather than multiple futures as held by the many-worlds interpretation > of quantum theory). I'm not up on al lthe latest advances, but in every case I know of when differences between relativity and quantum mechanics have been close as a finding of that one of them was wrong, it was relativiy that lost out. It's quite clear that both are sufficiently accurate descriptions of the universe that a final theory explaining concepts of both (if we ever work it out) will not be able to dismiss major features of either. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 12:02:07 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article <5kl7r6F42t3iU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > > The lowest biddeer comment was Neil Armstrong. Chuck Yeager was quoted > as saying "I refuse to be shot out of a cannon." when he turned down the > offer. He was, of course, refering to the fact that the occupants in the > original space flights had no control over the craft and just went along > for the ride. A common misconception. The Mercury spacecraft were _supposed_ to operate completely automatically unless someone wanted to interfere, and did for the test flights prior to the first manned launch. That's what Chuck was talking about when astronaut selelction was in progress. But due to planned testing or systems failure every manned Mercury mission was at some point under the astronaut's control. Many of them would have been lost were it not for the skill of the man inside. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:22:33 +0000 (UTC) From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >> >> I'm not sufficiently up on string theory and loop quantum gravity etc >> However I'm fairly confident that any future theory of everything would >> incorporate enough of special relativity to guarantee the predetermination of >> the future of the Universe (assuming that there is just one single consistent >> future rather than multiple futures as held by the many-worlds interpretation >> of quantum theory). > > I'm not up on al lthe latest advances, but in every case I know of > when differences between relativity and quantum mechanics have been > close as a finding of that one of them was wrong, it was relativiy > that lost out. > I'm not aware of any conflicts between SR and QM. GR and QM is a different matter. David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University > It's quite clear that both are sufficiently accurate descriptions of > the universe that a final theory explaining concepts of both (if we > ever work it out) will not be able to dismiss major features of > either. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:51:25 -0700 From: Doug Phillips Subject: Re: Here's one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin) Message-ID: <1189446685.012766.11600@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> On Sep 10, 12:40 pm, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote: > In article , Ron Johnson writes: > > On 09/10/07 08:46, Bob Koehler wrote: > >> In article , Ron Johnson writes: > >>> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the > >>> expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel. > > >> There is no excess force. The recoil matches and is opposite to > >> the force which propels the projectile and the gas. > > > I think we're getting somewhere!!!! > > > How is N3 related to the (heat, pressure, gas, Boyle's Law, etc) > > force which propels the projectile and the gas? > > Newton's third law simply states that the force of object A on > object B is equal and opposite to the force of object B on object > A. > > If object A is a bullet and object B is an exploding gas then the > force of the gas on the bullet is equal to the force of the bullet > on the gas. > > If object A is a rubber ball and object B is a kitchen table then > the force of the rubber ball on the table is equal and opposite to > the force of the table on the rubber ball. > > If Boyles's law or Hooke's law or Newton's second law or whatever allows > you to determine the magnitude and/or direction of a particular force then > Newton's third law makes the magnitude and/or direction of its third > law partner force immediately obvious. > > > > >> In the case of rocketry the recoil is the motion of the rocket. > > >>> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on* > >>> the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing > >>> arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to > >>> bounce back off the table. > > >> N3? I assume that's shorthand for Newton's 3rd law. > > > Yes. ;) > > >> Balls bounce because they (and to some extend the table) absorb shock > >> by changing shape, storing some of the energy that was used to get > >> them to the table, then release it, rebounding and to a large part > >> restoring shape. At all times the forces are in balance: the force > >> down on the table top by the ball is continuously equal and opposite > >> to the force up provided by the table top on the ball. > > > But the ball *bounces* because of rebound from the force that was > > added by gravity and your arm. > > Newton's laws of motion don't tell us that a lump of putty will stop > on the table and that a rubber ball will rebound. They are consistent > with both situations. > > > ISTM that "all" that N3 does in this case is to "measure" how much > > force it would take to get the ball and the surface out of balance. > > No. That notion isn't even coherent. > > > (Gently toss a tennis ball against a glass pane and it rebounds. > > Throw a rock at the pane and it shatters.) > > Newton's third law applies in either case. The force of the glass pane > against the rock is equal and opposite to the force of the rock on the > glass pane. The force of the tennis ball on the glass pane is equal and > opposite to the force of the glass pane on the tennis ball. > > You really need to review first semester freshman physics. Or read the many #&*%$#& links and references to Newton's Laws and other's that have provided, explained and repeated here too many times. Unfortunately, Newton is no longer around to explain it himself. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 09:55:12 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: I think I might understand N3 and the bullet Message-ID: In article <7soEi.41014$Pv4.10282@newsfe19.lga>, Ron Johnson writes: > > As it zooms thru the fluid medium (air, usually), it strikes against > other molecules. These opposing reactions are what is, in > aggregate, known as friction. No, there cause what is known as pressure. > Am I still totally off-base? No. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:19:11 -0700 From: Rich Jordan Subject: Re: Stuck at a console Message-ID: <1189437551.407237.42000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> On Sep 9, 1:50 pm, David J Dachtera wrote: > kiwi-red wrote: > > > Hi > > > Will typing a boot command for an AXP 4100, > > I accidentally hit a wrong key > > > Now my machine I think is waiting for me to type something extra but I > > don't know > > what it is. Any suggestions? > > > I could get the ops guys to turn the power off I guess > > > P00>>>halt > > CPU 0 is halted > > P00>>>b -fl 3,`1 > > _> > > _> > > _> > > 4100's do have a RESET button. Should do the trick for you. > > -- > David J Dachtera > dba DJE Systemshttp://www.djesys.com/ > > Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Pagehttp://www.djesys.com/vms/market/ > > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/ > > Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/ > > Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/ A CTRL-C might work to get you back to the normal prompt. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 2007 09:07:29 -0500 From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: In article <46E1C59B.3060708@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > > How about "Two years of uptime is not unusual." Too short. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:40:30 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <9193f$46e57382$cef8887a$28406@TEKSAVVY.COM> >> How about "Two years of uptime is not unusual." My uptime is bigger than yours. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:30:23 -0400 From: "Syltrem" Subject: Re: VMS License Plates Message-ID: <13eavpgt9n74uf1@corp.supernews.com> "JF Mezei" wrote in message news:9193f$46e57382$cef8887a$28406@TEKSAVVY.COM... >>> How about "Two years of uptime is not unusual." > > > My uptime is bigger than yours. I like this one ! Unfortunately uptime is not everything. I have a couple of days more uptime on a Windoze server running a single application (MS-Exchange), but the VMS server is running about 20 apps and different RDBMS systems at the same time and has undergone many application upgrades and/or installations without a reboot. That's the main thing, being able to adminster and use the system to its real capacity without a need to reboot all the time. Syltrem ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.494 ************************