1995.01.02 / Dieter Britz / Re: The Check Was in the Mail Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Check Was in the Mail Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 09:49:31 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On 29 Dec 1994, Tom Droege wrote: > But now it has arrived. I would like to acknowlege that I > have received a check for $1058.95. I will deposit it in my > bank account. I should be able to get some cheap derivatives > so it will grow while I am arranging a trip to Mr. Griggs. ;^) > [...] > There is bound to be some money left over. What do you all think > about using the remainder to sponser someone to attend ICCF5? > Some of you live close enough that the left overs might do the > trick. Dieter Britz comes to mind. Thank you, Tom, but no thank you. I have a full program and no time to spare; and I really am a skeptic, you know, and I wouldn't attend a conference devoted to something I don't believe in, when I can't get to all those that I do believe in. -- Dieter alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / The polymath / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: russ@m-net.arbornet.org (The polymath) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 1995 09:23:06 GMT Organization: M-Net, America's First Public Access Unix BBS [most sci.* groups deleted from the followups, and good riddance.] In article <788993933snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>, Richard Wentk wrote: >As I'm sure you're aware, according to QM virtual >particles are popping into existence and disappearing all around us. Like >all particles these have a wave-like nature. There has been at >least one serious attempt to capture this 'virtual energy' by creating >a very tiny resonance trap. Those who do not know physics are doomed to stub toes against it. According to QM, you can pull virtual particles out of the quantum foam by adding sufficient mass-energy. This has been demonstrated many, many times; one interesting experiment is to create nearly-bare heavy nuclei which are so heavily charged that the electric field pulls electron/positron pairs out of space. You don't get anything for free. You have to put that energy in to get anything out. In the case of the heavy nuclei, you need to put in considerable energy to ionize them in the first place, and the mass-energy of the new electron and positron comes from the reduction in the energy of the electric field around the nucleus after the new electron orbits it. If the resonance trap is going to pull virtual particles out of space without any energy input, does it operate by QM principles? If so, you should be able to point to something in the standard model of QM which says that violations of conservation of energy are possible. If the resonance trap operates by new principles, you should be able to point to evidence that QM and other theories which demand that energy be conserved are faulty in that respect. No theory, no evidence, no credibility. "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon." cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenruss cudfnThe cudlnpolymath cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Dieter Britz / Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 10:26:56 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On 31 Dec 1994, Matt Austern wrote: > In article mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein) writes: > > > The following article appeared in the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday, > > July 8, 1989: > > ... > > > A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water requirements > > of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons. > > [...] > As far as I'm concerned, actually, the story of that gizmo is the one > crucial question about "cold fusion". I'm reminded of C .S. Lewis's > famous trichotomy about Jesus: Jesus, said Lewis, was either mad, or a > liar, or genuinely divine. The way I remember the book, which I read about 35 years ago, is that CSL left out the liar possibility; had me wondering... Any relevance to CNF, I wonder? I think the CNF TB's will at some stage have to admit that this little water heater was a false front PR device, and therefore not to be taken seriously. This will, of course, leave us wondering what else has been in that category... -- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Carl Lydick / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 1995 09:58:11 GMT Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera In article , hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes: =In article <788993933snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>, =Richard Wentk wrote: =>To suggest also that you HAVE to have a PhD (another post, this...) =>before you can be treated seriously is also daft. I too get sick of =>postings that start 'Well, I'm no scientist, but...' and then go on to =>state something that simply isn't true. (My net favourite has to be 'Mirrors =>don't work in a vacuum', BTW... :) ) I'm no fan of tiresome speculations =>about the speed of light, either, especially from people who haven't taken =>the time to understand GR or SR and clearly don't know what they're talking =>about. Actually, the above paragraph would appear to give us a very useful observation of how Wentk thinks: Please note that he cites GR and SR, rather than observations, as refuting unspecified speculations about the speed of light. He clearly bases his opinions on what he considers to be reasonable theory rather than on observations. Hey, come up with a "theory" that he finds convincing and which predicts invisible pink unicorns, and chances are, he'll then insist that invisible pink unicorns exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / John Logajan / Conservation violation vs big bang Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John M. Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Conservation violation vs big bang Date: 2 Jan 95 08:07:13 CST The polymath (russ@m-net.arbornet.org) wrote: : If the resonance trap is going to pull virtual particles out : of space without any energy input, does it operate by QM : principles? If so, you should be able to point to something : in the standard model of QM which says that violations of : conservation of energy are possible. If the resonance trap : operates by new principles, you should be able to point to : evidence that QM and other theories which demand that energy : be conserved are faulty in that respect. QM is nice, but as Marshall Dudley has keenly pointed out, the big bang seems to put a wrinkle or two into the purity of the QM. So if nature doesn't even always obey QM, why should humans? :-) -- - John Logajan F6111 -- logajan@cray.com -- 612-683-5426 - - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 - cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Richard Blue / Re: length of torque arm Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: length of torque arm Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 08:22:08 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway To correct Jed Rothwell once more, I have never said that "nobody can measure anything to the nearest centimeter." I believe I could make the measurement to the required level of precision. I can even believe that Jed Rothwell's grandfather could have made such a measurement. The significant point is not what could be done by parties unknown using appropriate methods but rather what was done. Did Jed Rothwell, with his demonstrated lack of respect for careful measurements, excercise the necessary care or did he take a paint store yardstick, hold it up to the lever, and eyeball the endpoints? Granted that in all likelyhood he did better than that, how well did he do? His reported measurements give no clue as to the accuracy with which any of the data was obtained. Although he can quote the specified operating temperature range for the dynamometer he cannot tell us whether this instrument remained within that temperature range during the course of his measurements. In fact his stated temperature for the pump housing gives some grounds for suggesting that the dynamometer was excessively hot. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Richard Blue / Bockris fallacy Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Bockris fallacy Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 08:22:16 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway In connection with the recently released absurdity from Bockris, et al. that 56Fe was being formed in a four-body nuclear fusion reaction there is another common fallacy that arises in cold fusion circles. People who are inexperienced in nuclear physics make the automatic assumption that any reaction for which the final reaction products are stable will be difficult to detect. I calculate an expected energy release in excess of 56 MeV per iron nucleus formed. This presents two obvious difficulties for the Bockris hypothesis. First the availability of large amounts of energy means that there are many other reaction pathways available. Getting 56 of the total of 60 nucleons involved to stick together everytime the reaction is initiated would require a higher order of divine intervention than most CF reaction theories invoke. Finally any 56Fe that is formed just cannot be expected to always be formed initially in its ground state. It will, with high probability, be formed in an excited state such that it must shed energy before becoming stable and inert. Now I know you CF folks will say that I can't prove that the energy does not just melt away unnoticed. There could be "A Special Condition of Matter" involved here. Like this is not hot fusion in a plasma so none of those old rules apply. Oops, the Bockris reaction is supposed to occur in a carbon arc! Isn't that sort of "hot fusion"? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Richard Blue / Who claims o/u for Griggs device? Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Who claims o/u for Griggs device? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 08:22:24 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Several people have questioned Jed Rothwell as to which of the Griggs devices are "over unity". Jed responds that they all are even though there is no such assertion in the patent obtained by Mr. Griggs. I am more than curious to know precisely who as ever made any claims that the Griggs device provides output energy in excess to the input. I will once again ask Jed Rothwell directly whether Mr. Griggs has ever put in writing a claim that his Hydrosonic Pump outputs energy in excess to the mechanical work input via a rotating shaft? Does the literature which he provides potential customers contain such a claim? Have any contracts been drawn which mention performance levels that Jed Rothwell asserts are routinely achieved? Is any level of performance specified or guaranteed? If the device is claimed to meet some specified level of performance what tests are specified for the determination of that performance? What instrumentation is to be used for these tests? I find it rather strange to have the wildest claims of "excess energy" coming from the Griggs device being delivered by a third party who claims to have no interest in the business. In fact we have been led to believe that the conclusive measurements on the heat output were made by Jed Rothwell using methods he devised. Only once did Jed let slip the idea that Mr. Griggs believed that he was building o/u devices. Please tell us, Jed. Have you ever seen a written description of the Griggs device that could be taken as a claim that the Hydrosonic Pump is more than 100% efficient? Dick Blue P.S. If you would care to mail a copy of such a document to me I would be more than willing to repay you the cost of copying, mailing, and handling. My address: 631 Forest St., E. Lansing, MI 48823 . cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Cameron Bass / Re: What is your opinion? Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What is your opinion? Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 22:10:38 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article , wrote: >You should bear in mind however, that this demand for a close loop system is >purely emotional. There is no scientific justification for it. Any reasonable >laboratory calorimeter can detect a tenth-watt with great assurance, and CF >scientists routinely measure heat levels between 5 and 150 watts. There is >absolutely, positively no likelihood that every single one of them, at every >single university and corporation is wrong. Funny. That's the same argument used by people who think UFO's are aliens from other planets. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.01 / Ralph Buttigieg / Dr. Oriani's Lecture Originally-From: rbuttigieg@vulcans.caamora.mpx.com.au (Ralph Buttigieg) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Dr. Oriani's Lecture Date: 01 Jan 95 17:24:32 Organization: Caamora, Randwick NSW Australia G'day jedrothwell@delphi.com 23 Jan 94 08:59, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote to All: jc> I would not believe that if I was you. Especially because Jed never made jc> any such suggestion. I am not aware of a single experiment that indicates jc> the Griggs device is a CNF machine. As I stated very clearly in the paper jc> uploaded here a half dozen times, I do not know whether it is CF or jc> something else. This Griggs Device has received increased fame since the "New Scientist" article. How about reposting the paper so people who have just joined the newsgroup (like me) can know what it is? ta Ralph -- | Caamora: Ralph Buttigieg 13:1000/635 | Internet: rbuttigieg@vulcans.caamora.mpx.com.au | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own | Caamora (InterNet Services) UUCP<>FTN Mail and News +61 2 3100771 cudkeys: cuddy01 cudenrbuttigieg cudfnRalph cudlnButtigieg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Frank Lofaro / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 3 Jan 1995 00:10:37 GMT Organization: University of Nevada, Las Vegas In article hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes: >In article <788993933snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>, >Richard Wentk wrote: >>In article >> hatunen@netcom.com "DaveHatunen" writes: > >[...] > >>> Um. Could you be a little more specific about these previously untapped >>> energy sources? >> >>No problem - here's one. As I'm sure you're aware, according to QM virtual >>particles are popping into existence and disappearing all around us. Like >>all particles these have a wave-like nature. There has been at >>least one serious attempt to capture this 'virtual energy' by creating >>a very tiny resonance trap. Give me a week or so I'll even go to the >>library and dig out chapter and verse for you - unless someone >>else wants to post something on the subject first. >> >>Sure the idea is highly speculative - but then so are most ideas >>before someone takes the time and trouble to make them happen. > >Supposing it to be possible, and you need to understand that virtual >particles exist below the Heisenberg Uncertainty limit, I beleive the >key words to be "very tiny". And it is a virtual certainty, Heisenberg >or no, that some basement inventor will not be the one who finds how to >do it. > Oh, so only people with PhD's will ever contribute anything really useful to society. How elitist! >>> >i. Earlier in the year the HST revised the age of the Universe to between >>> >8 and 12 billion years. This conflicts with earlier observations. Which >>> >are right? >>> >>> No, it does not. The earlier figures were always considered tentative, >>> pending better instruments. In any case, cosmology/cosmogony is a >>> highly speculative field, and really not appropriate to jsutify >>> earth-bound apparati. >> >>My original point was simply 'we don't know everything', and I >>was using this as an example to illustrate my point. On that basis, >>is there still anything you can disagree with here? > >And my point was that no one says we know everything. But we know damn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >near everything about what can be done here on earth. The sun might not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh really?!? Some people undoubtedly believed that 100 years ago, and they would obviously be wrong. That sentiment you expressed above is so unbelievably arrogant it defies comprehension! [rest of post deleted, no big loss] cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenftlofaro cudfnFrank cudlnLofaro cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / A Plutonium / Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele tromag,sci.physics Subject: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: 3 Jan 1995 00:17:29 GMT Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation I read that a neutrino beam can be created from particle accelerators. Does anyone have more information on that other than McGraw-Hill Science Encyclopedia? cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / William Beaty / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:02:52 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever DaveHatunen (hatunen@netcom.com) wrote: : In article , William Beaty wrote: : [...] : >So, what if the device actually does work? Then it obviously must : >be receiving energy from some source, rather than violating Conservation : >laws. : Indeed. And as far as I know, every such "miracle" device proved, on : close exmaination, to be connected to pneumatic tubing in the table : legs, AC electromagnets were under the floor, etc. You can set up a : pretty convincing such machine by simply looping the entire room with a : coil powered by AC, and placing a coil in your device. No no, I'm speculating: what if the device actually works FOR ANYONE? The chances might be vanishingly small for this event, but if it did occur, then I doubt that anyone would see it as a proof that perpetual motion machines exist. My point is that it is unfair to ignore a REAL anomolous device just because it resembles something distasteful like a perpetual motion scam. Rather than crying "perpetual motion!", wouldn't it be more sensible to cry "let's see some good evidence!" Like instructions for construction and operation, and detailed descriptions of what the inventor measured. Which is what is slowly trickling out of the Keelynet group as they work with the device. : But the claim for the device in question originally was that it was an : "overunity" device. Depends on what you mean by "overunity." If the word signifies that the device has an anomolous energy gain, then the word implies an effect more similar to "cold fusion" than to perpetual motion. : And any claims of external power sources that I've : seen are scientifically or technologiaclly ludicrous. So the inventors should just claim that it works, and not try to explain their ideas. -- .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ when? / Tuan Ho / Originally-From: tho@carbon.cudenver.edu (Tuan Thanh Ho) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.particl ,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.techniques.spectroscopy Subject: <>==!! Physics Books 44 Sale !!==<> Date: 2 Jan 1995 18:15:50 -0700 Organization: University of Colorado at Denver I have the following books for sale : Please note the book condition: Brand New = (!) Good = (***) Excellent = (****) Average = (**) Poor = (*) - R. B. Marcus, ed., Measurement of High Speed Signals in Solid State Devices, Academic Press, 1990, $29 (!). - A. A. Maradudin, E. W. Montroll, and G. H. Weiss, Theory of Lattice Dynamics in The Harmonic Approximation, Academic Press, 1963, $29 (***). - B. D'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., Addison Wesley, 1989, $29 (!). - C. W. Wilmsen, ed., Physics and Chemistry of III-V Compound Semiconductor Interfaces, Plenum Press, 1985, $25 (!). - A. Hasegawa, Optical Solitons in Fibers, Springer Verlag, 1989, $29 (!). - M. Lesieur, Turbulence in Fluids, 2nd revised ed., Kluwer Academic Pub., 1990, $54 (!). - J. Callaway, Quantum Theory of The Solid State, Student edition, Academic Press, 1974, $19 (soft bound, ****). - A. Holden, The nature of Solids, Columbia University Press,1965, $19 (***). - G. C. Levy, R. L. Lichter, and G. L. Nelson, Carbon-13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1980, $19 (****). - S. J. Fonash, Solar Cell Device Physics, Academic Press, 1981, $25 (****). - J. M. Cork, Radioactivity and Nuclear Physics, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1950, $19 (***). - R. L. Murray, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1957, $19 (***). - R. E. Sonntag and G. J. Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Statistical Thermodynamics, R. E. Krieger Pub. Co., 1986, $29 (!). - M. S. Tyagi, Introduction to Semiconductor Materials and Devices, John Wiley & Sons, 1991, $25 (!). - R. F. Barron, Cryogenic Systems, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1985, $47 (!). - S. Glasstone and M. C. Edlund, The Elements of Nuclear Reactor Theory, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1952, $19 (***). - R. S. Shankland, Atomic and Nuclear Physics, The Macmillan Co., 1955, $19 (***). - H. Goldstein, Fundamental Aspects of Reactor Shielding, Addison Wesley, 1959, $19 (***). - D. H. Menzel, ed., Fundamental Formulas of Physics, Vol. I & II, Dover, 1960, $19 (Soft bound, ***). - P. E. De Gennes and J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crystals, 2nd ed., Oxford Science Publications, 1993, $47 (!). - C. D. Aliprantis and O. Burkinshaw, Locally Solid Riesz Spaces, Academic Press, 1978, $47 (!). - R. Penrose and C. J. Isham, Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Oxford Science Publications, 1986, $59 (****). - J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons, 2nd expanded Edition, Springer Verlag, 1980, $39 (***). - T. T. Wu, Ed., New Methodologies in Studies of Protein Configuration, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985, $25 (!). - F. J. Brykowski, ed., Ammonia and Synthesis Gas: Recent and Energy-Saving Processes, Noyes Data Corporation, 1981, $25 (****). - R. Abe, Statistical Mechanics, University of Tokyo Press, 1975, $25 (****). - C. Kittel, Elementary Statistical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, $25 (****). - W. H. Zachariasen, Theory of X-Ray Diffraction in Crystals, John Wiley & Sons, 1945, $20 (***). - S. H. Crandall and N. C. Dahl, An Introduction to Mechanics of Solids, McGraw Hill, 1959, $25 (***). - G. C. Levy, R. L. Lichter, and G. L. Nelson, Carbon-13 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1980, $25 (****). - R. B. Marcus, Ed., Measurement of High-Speed Signals in Solid State Devices (Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol.28), Academic Press, 1990, $35 (!). - N. Johnson, S. G. Bishop, and G. D. Watkins, eds., Material Research Society Symposium Proceedings, vol.46, Microscopic Identification of Electronic Defects in Semiconductors, MRS Material Research Society, 1985, $25 (!). - D. C. Harris, and M. D. Bertolucci, Symmetry and Spectroscopy: An Introduction to Vibrational and Electronic Spectroscopy, Oxford University Press, 1978, $25 (***). - R. W. Christy and A. Pytte, The Structure of Matter: An Introduction to Modern Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1965, $25 (****). - R. L. Shriner, R. C. Fuson, and D. Y. Curtin, The Systematic Identification of Organic Compounds: A Laboratory Manual, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1964, $25 (***). - R. F. Baron, Cryogenic Systems, 2nd ed., Oxford Science Publications, 1985, $45 (!). - H. H. Aly, ed., Lectures on Particles and Fields, Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 1970, $90 (reg.$150), (****). - R. Chand, Symmetries and Quark Models, Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 1970, $85 (reg.$140), (****). - R. M. Olson and S. J. Wright, Essentials of Engineering Fluid Mechanics, 5th ed., 1990, $50 (reg.$70), 1990 (!). - I. Kaplan, Nuclear Physics, Addison Wesley, 1962, $35 (****). - A. O. Barut, Scattering Theory, Aspects of Scattering Processes in Atomic, Nuclear, and Particle Physics, Gordon & Preach Science Publishers, 1969, $115 (reg.$198), (****). - I. G. Currie, Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids, McGraw Hill, 1974, $30, (!). - A. O. Barut and W. E. Britten, eds., De Sitter and Conformal Groups and Their Applications, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. XIII, Colorado Associated University Press, $45 (reg.$65), 1978, (****). If interested, Please e-mail me at: tho@carbon.cudenver.edu or Phone me at : (303) 364-4426 Thanks, Tuan cudkeys: cudentho cudfnTuan cudlnHo cudszL ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Richard Schultz / Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Date: 3 Jan 1995 02:10:48 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <5c6ZIUV.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, wrote: >Richard Schultz writes: >>The point of my response -- to which Rothwell has not yet made a reply, >>so perhaps he will explain exactly what he meant -- was as the previous >You know very well what I meant; I meant the rail voltage; the max you can >get out of a given power supply. . . . >but facts are facts, you can never get more energy out of a power supply >than you put in. >You have found one minor slip-up in my messages here. I should have written >"rail volatage" intead of "mains" because, yes, you can step up voltage >with a tranformer. So now that you have found this slip up, you plan to beat >the drum on it fora couple of months no doubt. First of all, I did not know very well what you meant. That was the point of my asking for a clarification. Given your track record here, I was not quite sure what you did mean. In any case, it is obviously true that a power supply cannot continuously put out more *energy* than it takes in (unless, I suppose, it is run by cold fusion). But transiently, it certainly can. If you don't believe me, hook up your power supply to a voltmeter and yank the plug out of the wall. You will still have voltage (i.e. energy) for a few seconds (more or less, depending on the configuration of the power supply) even though the energy input is zero. But really what we were talking about was *voltage*. I said in my previous message (in a part you seem to have missed or at least deleted) that I have personally used a power supply that was putting out 100 volts more than its rated maximum. Which leads us back to where we startd -- unless the voltage was being monitored continuously, there is no way to know what the actual voltage output was. Second, there is a more serious point hidden in the noise of your bluster about "trivial" mistakes. That is that accuracy of expression is extremely important when communicating information that purports to be scientific. So when you say "mains" instead of "rail" voltage, I have to assume that you meant what you said. Finally, I had no intention of "beating the drums" on this error of yours for any particular length of time, although I suspect you will be bringing it up time and again yourself. Sorry to disappoint you. >If you want to point out really stupid mistakes you should join my side. >The opportunities are much greater, because the bogus science and nitwit >ideas posted here to *disprove* CF are far worse than all the mistakes I have >ever made. All I know is that I was at the initial press conference given by Pons and Fleischmann and at the departmental seminar given by Stanley Pons. If the level of competence in the SCCF field matches that shown there, then there can be no question in anyone's mind who the nitwits are. Have I ever told anyone about the time (when Pons was invoking inter alia the possibility of involvement of Li in the "nuclear" reactions) that I offered one of Pons's graduate students some isotopically pure Li salts we had lying around and was politely turned down? -- Richard Schultz "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Craig DeForest / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 95 20:30:34 Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics In article billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes: (some other people write): : > No. It is not an "opinion". It is the result of centuries of hard : > scientific research. ... Of course. But this whole thread started because an argument was made thus: all so-called "free energy" devices are perpetual motion machines, perpetual motion machines are ridiculous, and so it is a waste of time to look into reports of working "free energy" machines. But this argument is screwy!... Actually, no, this thread started because someone (I) speculated on places where the Keelynet folks might have screwed up their measurements. These folks clearly know little about the things that they are doing -- their theory is so much technobabble, and their initial instructions for duplicating their apparatus included instruments that are known to have trouble measuring exactly the quantities of interest! Most of the skeptics who have been posting, have been pretty clear that they consider it a waste of *their* time, not of "time" in general, to investigate the device further. Like it or not, none of us has an infinite supply of the stuff [time], and we all must make choices about what to investigate. I'd love to see this device looked at by a trained professional; however the mere fact that someone is a member of the "established scientific community" does not make that person a free technical consultant for every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along. It may sound arrogant or elitist, but unless someone presents his claims in language that sounds competent, most scientists (myself included) will discount those claims! It's not bigotry; it's merely pragmatism. As anyone who has ever graded a sophomore's lab results knows, it's a time-consuming and tedious chore to sift through the work of an untrained researcher. If the Keelynet folks have discovered a new energy source, I laud them and encourage them: they should develop it and demonstrate it in a convincing manner, then proceed to get rich and save the world. However, it's not *my* job (or anyone else's) to pore over their work, for the same reason that I don't bother to try and figure out Ludwig's rantings on the Plutonium Totality or Abian's perennial comments on TIME and MASS. They aren't paying me! Remember that science is carried out by human beings, not mythical scientists. We all investigate the things we find worthwhile, and new events and/or ideas will be addressed to the degree that they can be made interesting to other scientists. It can (and should) be no other way! There are at least two ways to be "interesting": demonstrate incontrovertible results; or be extremely lucid. The Keelynet folks have done neither, and thus aren't very interesting. End of discussion, until they produce more enticing results or argue more convinvingly. -- --Craig DeForest "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay" cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / John Logajan / Re: What is your opinion? Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John M. Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What is your opinion? Date: 2 Jan 95 22:31:27 CST Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote: : Funny. That's the same argument used by people who think UFO's : are aliens from other planets. This is not a proper logical construct. For instance, Adolph Hitler believed that 2+2=4, therefore if you believe that 2+2=4 you are (not) tainted with all the sins of Hitler. I'm picking on Cameron Randale Bass here because there have been a flurry of less than optimal logical contructs asserted by people who should know better. Remember people, the more sweeping your assertions, the more likely they will be prone to unanticipated exceptions. -- - John Logajan F6111 -- logajan@cray.com -- 612-683-5426 - - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 - cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 00:19:38 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard Schultz writes: >All I know is that I was at the initial press conference given by Pons >and Fleischmann and at the departmental seminar given by Stanley Pons. Yes, that is all you know, and that is your problem. Look here, why don't you try the following: 1. For a few hours (at least) forget all about Pons and Fleischmann. Pretend that you have never heard of them, never read a paper from them, never saw them. Pretend the press conferences of 1989 never happened. 2. Now, while you are in that willful state of pretend amnesia, go to the library and read several good papers on cold fusion, from people like Storms, McKubre, Miles, Miley or Mizuno (we have a lot of good "M" scientists). Read about the tritium experiments underway at Los Alamos, or read the Canon patent. Pick any paper you -- there are hundreds to choose from. Many of them will reference P&F, but pretend you had not read those footnotes. 3. Having done that, try judging CF as a field of science. Forget all about your personal judgments of the personality or competance of Pons and concentrate instead on *objective, peer reviewed, replicated, experimental data*. Forget about theories, forget about personalities, forget about me (for crying out loud), concentrate exclusively on the calorimetry and the data. 4. Report back if you find any mistakes in the calorimetry. If you do not find any mistake, then you must admit that I am right: CF *does* produce heat beyond the limits of chemistry. It does produce thousands of electron volts of energy per atom, with no known upper limit. You will not find any errors I am sure; you will see that I am right. The trick is for you to FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE and concentrate on that one scientifically proven fact, and its implications for science and mankind. As I see it, your problem is that you are focussed exclusively on your perception of the personality of Pons -- who is merely one CF scientist out of many hundreds. You should forget about personalities and look at scientific data instead. Also, for goodness sake, forget about theories. No theory can ever disprove what experiments show is truth. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / DaveHatunen / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 05:36:54 GMT Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere In article <3ea4lt$68k@homesick.cs.unlv.edu>, Frank Lofaro wrote: [...] >Oh, so only people with PhD's will ever contribute anything really useful >to society. How elitist! That's an almost awesome leap of logic. I'm inpressed. You managed to fo from my comment about the unlikelihood of garage inventors finding fundamental flaws in quantum theory to acting like I said only PhDs can contribute to society. Do you always debate that way? Just for the record, I don't believe Mother Teresa has a PhD. But I suppose I could be wrong. -- ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) ********** * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * * and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea * ******************************************************* cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / DaveHatunen / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 05:42:07 GMT Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere In article , William Beaty wrote: >DaveHatunen (hatunen@netcom.com) wrote: [...] >No no, I'm speculating: what if the device actually works FOR ANYONE? >The chances might be vanishingly small for this event, but if it did >occur, then I doubt that anyone would see it as a proof that perpetual >motion machines exist. My point is that it is unfair to ignore a REAL >anomolous device just because it resembles something distasteful like >a perpetual motion scam. Rather than crying "perpetual motion!", >wouldn't it be more sensible to cry "let's see some good evidence!" >Like instructions for construction and operation, and detailed >descriptions of what the inventor measured. Which is what is slowly >trickling out of the Keelynet group as they work with the device. You must have a great deal of time on your hands if you can spend it looking at every "what if" that comes down the pike, no matter how apparently improbable. But then, it's not _you_ that you're suggesting spend the time, is it? -- ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) ********** * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * * and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea * ******************************************************* cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / an176059@anon. / MRA: Specs req'd for construction Originally-From: an176059@anon.penet.fi Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: MRA: Specs req'd for construction Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 05:46:15 UTC Organization: Anonymous contact service Could someone possibly post a sufficiently detailed description of the MRA device, preferably with diagrams, that someone could build one? Even if it does not work, there would be some hobby satisfaction in putting one together. Apologies for the anon posting, but I am not interested in getting into either side of a flame war, just in getting enough info to be able to put together one of these devices, working or not. As I may not be able to get to read the news group again for a while, E-mail responses are also invited. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenan176059 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / William Beaty / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 20:31:31 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever : In article : hatunen@netcom.com "DaveHatunen" writes: : > No. It is not an "opinion". It is the result of centuries of hard : > scientific research. The invocation of the Principle of the : > Conservation of Energy is not "opinion". The principle is so deeply : > rooted in science and technology that to deny it is to claim that : > television sets don't work, that cars don't run, and that the planets : > don't revolve around the sun. It is a fundamental. Of course. But this whole thread started because an argument was made thus: all so-called "free energy" devices are perpetual motion machines, perpetual motion machines are ridiculous, and so it is a waste of time to look into reports of working "free energy" machines. But this argument is screwy! By this reasoning, long-ago reports of ore samples that fog film are also ridiculous, because film-fogging energy can't come from nowhere. Yet when the reports of evidence are actually considered, they can be replicated, and deeper investigation uncovers the true mechanism behind the impossible reports. The energy WAS coming from an unknown source, but now the source is known. So, what if the device actually does work? Then it obviously must be receiving energy from some source, rather than violating Conservation laws. : > Anyone who comes along, laughing like a lion, and claiming that it is : > all just so much dragon shit must have an unbounded arrogance, and an : > unmitigated inflated opinion of his true importance. Even Einstein did : > not overthrow science, but expanded it. You, sir, propose to overthrow : > it. What you propose is on a par with what the Bolsheviks did to Russia : > in 1918. But Einstein DID overthrow science, in the sense that he proposed some concepts that were extremely hard to swallow at the time. Einstein's work had to fight an uphill battle against the status quo. It is only in hindsight that Einstein's work appears to be an obvious extension of Newton's. Is not the history of Relativity a tale that cautions us not to reject "crazy" works out of hand? Do you disagree that a fair percentage of new discoveries are labled as crazy when first presented? And I don't think that it is impossible for someone with a crazy theory to uncover new physics while collecting experimental evidence to support that theory. After all, these people are probably looking at things which no "sane" researcher would think important, and so they have an increased chance of stumbling across something new. Look for anomolies, for "crazy" stuff in the real world, and you will find real phenomena which requires expansion of current theory in order to be explained. .....................uuuu / oo \uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / William Beaty / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 20:50:41 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Jimmy Brokaw (jimmy@juggler.demon.co.uk) wrote: : Okay, I'm confused now. I grasp that you are trying to take the : magnetic field of our sweet planet as a source of electricity, right? : The magnetic field is a force, but it doesn't do any 'work' until it : moves an object - much like gravity. Gravity has a force of 9.8 m/s2 on : all objects, but does no work until the object is moved. Thus, to : create electricity from it you need to move an object, ie, hydroelectric : power. Correct? Not necessarily. One can obtain energy from magnets by demagnetizing the magnet, as is done in magnet-based cooling devices. So it is not totally ridiculous that some device could extract energy out of the earth's electromagnet (rather than out of its field!) and so reduce the total energy stored in the earth. There's no way to do this with a tabletop device. If the MRA is doing this, then the source of its energy is well known, but the mechanism through which it taps this source is very strange. And if it works, then you've created a method for eliminating the earth's field! Unless the field is created by an outside agency, such as interactions with the solar wind, rather than via the liquid-metal convection current homopolar generator as it's currently assumed. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / DaveHatunen / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 22:02:23 GMT Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere In article , William Beaty wrote: [...] >So, what if the device actually does work? Then it obviously must >be receiving energy from some source, rather than violating Conservation >laws. Indeed. And as far as I know, every such "miracle" device proved, on close exmaination, to be connected to pneumatic tubing in the table legs, AC electromagnets were under the floor, etc. You can set up a pretty convincing such machine by simply looping the entire room with a coil powered by AC, and placing a coil in your device. But the claim for the device in question originally was that it was an "overunity" device. And any claims of external power sources that I've seen are scientifically or technologiaclly ludicrous. [...] >But Einstein DID overthrow science, in the sense that he proposed some >concepts that were extremely hard to swallow at the time. Einstein's work >had to fight an uphill battle against the status quo. It is only in >hindsight that Einstein's work appears to be an obvious extension of >Newton's. Is not the history of Relativity a tale that cautions us not to >reject "crazy" works out of hand? No. This is a common misconception. Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity is surprisingly simple from the standpoint of even a third year Physics student. Even at the time, the math was easily accessible to its intended audience. Once they read it and looked at the data that it explained, it was quickly accepted by the scientific community (except for a few old fuddy-duddies). There were some theoreticians that tried to find alternate theories, but that is part of science, and is how theories are proved. The general public has always had a hard time with some of the concepts of SR, though. General Relativity has had a longer road to travel though. The math is much tougher, Einstein having used a branch of mathematics (tensors) that were no much used until then (creating the legend that only some limited number of people could understand the theory). And he showed that space was non-Euclidean, utilizing another until-then arcane branch of mathematics. And the experiments and observations required to demonstrate GR simply weren't technologally available until very recently, at least not with the precision required to distinguish Einstein's thoery form competing theories. As it happens, though, every experiment or observation made to test the theory has confirmed Einstein, and the competing theories keep falling by the wayside. >Do you disagree that a fair percentage of new discoveries are labled as >crazy when first presented? Indeed I do. At least from the scientific community as a whole (I'm sure you can always find a maverick, such as Peter Duesberg in the field of AIDS research). >And I don't think that it is impossible for someone with a crazy theory to >uncover new physics while collecting experimental evidence to support that >theory. After all, these people are probably looking at things which no >"sane" researcher would think important, and so they have an increased >chance of stumbling across something new. Look for anomolies, for "crazy" >stuff in the real world, and you will find real phenomena which requires >expansion of current theory in order to be explained. There has been no truly "new" physics since the development of quantum theory in the 1920s, and there have been tens of thousands of physics professors and grad students trying. It is virtually impossible that anything has been overlooked. The physical sciences are a tight, reasoned logical system, not unlike Euclidean Geometry. And like geometry, no new theorems or propositions are possible unless they build on previous theories and propositions. Any attempt to do otherwise brings down not just a part of the structure, but usually the entire structure. The idea that someone who has no idea of the depth of the previous work is going to come up with some idea that will bring down the entire structure of science is preposterous. Just as Lobaschevsky (or whoever he cribbed it from) was able to show that an entire new geometry was possible if you reject one of the axioms, anyone hoping to find a "new" physics will ahve to wipe out some fundamental tenet of science. Generally, such people and their supporters simply have no idea how ridiculous the idea is. There are a myriad of sources of energy out there. Any competent physics student can probably start a list of them. The problem is that they are mostly impractical. For instance, the common periodic changes in atmospheric pressure can be used to derive power, and you can buy clocks powered by these changes. But you'll never run a car off it. Claims to tap power from the ionosphere or whatever generally fall in this category, except the inventor claims to get power in usable quantities, and proposes preposterous methods to obtain it. The explanations sound plausible to the scientifically unsophisticated, but sound absurd to those with understanding of the processes involved. Inventors who have, in actuality, proposed a perpetuum mobile, frequently scramble to put forth possible sources of the energy just so they can evade the accusation that they are proposing perpetual motion. -- ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) ********** * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * * and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea * ******************************************************* cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Frank Pitt / Aether again ? Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Aether again ? Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 04:15:22 GMT Organization: Munden's Bar >In the past, researchers have noted many effects which occur at aggregate >resonance, which typically includes a range of three octaves. Octaves ? Next you'll be saying it has to be tuned to Middle C. >Anomalous >energy gains were referred to as "aetheric". The aether was believed to exist >outside of the three physical dimensions, and could be "tapped" for free >energy at resonance. This says "was", but the next bit assumes that resonance hasn't already been explained without reference to this "aether". >Aetheric energy is said to be limitless, but to vary locally with increases in >earth magnetic fields at sunset and sunrise, like the tides of an infinite >ocean. This effect is not thoroughly understood, but has been observed in the >MRA, as increases in output in the early morning, and decreases in the early >evening. This is still being studied. I don't about everybody else, but this certainly rings warning bells for me. Aetheric energy ? Someone is trying to use Victorian fantasy to explain an affect ? AFAIK, the idea of an aether was scrapped after it was shown that radio waves could actually propogate through normal space without the invocation of such a thing. BTW, Magnetic Resonance Amplifiers, what we used to call mag-amps, were used quite often in particular avionic circuits, but they went out of style when transistor amplifiers gained in efficiency, power and frequency response, because mag-amps weighed too much No-one ever claimed they were a free energy device before, though. Frankie cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.03 / Frank Pitt / Re: MRA theory, free energy device... Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA theory, free energy device... Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 04:20:14 GMT Organization: Munden's Bar In article <5d1wI289ldB@shb.contrib.de> harti@shb.contrib.de writes: > THE RULE OF NINES > by Joel McClain > Resonant geometry and the Zero Point > > "Nest two tetrahedrons and you have the keys to the universe." What the fuck has numerology got to do with fusion ? This is getting beyond a joke, Some of us want to hear about _fusion_research, not this sort of shit. Frankie cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / K Jonsson / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 1995 15:42:54 GMT Organization: University of Iceland In <3e8inj$220@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes: >In article , hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes: >=In article <788993933snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>, >=Richard Wentk wrote: >=>To suggest also that you HAVE to have a PhD (another post, this...) >=>before you can be treated seriously is also daft. I too get sick of >=>postings that start 'Well, I'm no scientist, but...' and then go on to >=>state something that simply isn't true. (My net favourite has to be 'Mirrors >=>don't work in a vacuum', BTW... :) ) I'm no fan of tiresome speculations >=>about the speed of light, either, especially from people who haven't taken >=>the time to understand GR or SR and clearly don't know what they're talking >=>about. >Actually, the above paragraph would appear to give us a very useful observation >of how Wentk thinks: Please note that he cites GR and SR, rather than >observations, as refuting unspecified speculations about the speed of light. He >clearly bases his opinions on what he considers to be reasonable theory rather >than on observations. Hey, come up with a "theory" that he finds convincing >and which predicts invisible pink unicorns, and chances are, he'll then insist >that invisible pink unicorns exist. Theory and Data are two different things. He is talking about mis- interpretations of GR and SR. Data showing either to be at fault must still be looked at, no? Kristjan -- Kristjan Valur Jonsson | The individual does not qualify for Student of mechanical engineering, | making decisions regarding the University of Iceland | activities of the many. Exclaimer: Yess! | (Helmut, 1993) -- Kristjan Valur Jonsson | The individual does not qualify for Student of mechanical engineering, | making decisions regarding the University of Iceland | activities of the many. Exclaimer: Yess! | (Helmut, 1993) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Douglas Harrell / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: gt0603f@prism.gatech.edu (Douglas Alan Harrell) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 1995 11:31:41 -0500 Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology In article <3e3t5s$6ua@eldborg.rhi.hi.is> kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson) writes: >In hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes: > >>>Kristjan Valur Jonsson >>>Student of mechanical engineering, >>First year? >Well, at least my .sig has some of my credidentals in it. I don't think >my post called for (what some people might consider) personal insults. > >Kristjan Translation: Yes, I *am* a first year student, and I haven't even finished calculus yet, much less taken thermo. But I can type stuff into Internet, so I must be really smart!?! Kristjan, If this is not the case, then why haven't you posted your true credentials; if it *is* true, then recognize your limitations until such time as you can remove them. Others have earned the right to speak with authority by earning degrees or having suitable real-world experience. Ignorance is understandable, speaking authoritatively out of ignorance is arrogance. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudengt0603f cudfnDouglas cudlnHarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Jimmy Brokaw / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: jimmy@juggler.demon.co.uk (Jimmy Brokaw) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane .science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc .energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 16:28:04 +0000 Organization: The Flaming Hedgehog In article <3e5nrp$fnr@everest.pinn.net> jasonw3@pinn.net "Jason A. Whitgard III" writes: > What I and suggesting is that the MRA device works on a similar > principle, usuing the current flow in the device to set up the "suction" > of the energy from the Magnetic Field of the Earth. > It's not something for nothing, but a simple law of physics that > requires a bit of "Pump Priming" via the current flow in the MRA. Okay, I'm confused now. I grasp that you are trying to take the magnetic field of our sweet planet as a source of electricity, right? The magnetic field is a force, but it doesn't do any 'work' until it moves an object - much like gravity. Gravity has a force of 9.8 m/s2 on all objects, but does no work until the object is moved. Thus, to create electricity from it you need to move an object, ie, hydroelectric power. Correct? -- /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ | jimmy@juggler.demon.co.uk | | PGP v2.62 Public Key Available on Request | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/ cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenjimmy cudfnJimmy cudlnBrokaw cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / Alan M / Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 17:05:31 +0000 Organization: Home In article: <3e7s9v$evm@cronkite.nersc.gov> u14363@sas.nersc.gov (Bruce Langdon) writes: > And, why would you assume a name as unbelievable and ridiculours as > Archimedes Plutonium? Because he liked it better than Ludwig Plutonium, his previous version. Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / harmon@hepnsf. / Hot fusion Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hot fusion Date: 2 Jan 1995 17:53:05 GMT Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA, USA Hello, Just for my own education, I would like to calculate the probabilities of fusion reactions occuring vs other competing reactions and energy loss mechanisms to see just how likely hot fusion (I'll assume complete confinement) will be. So if anyone has any good references or knows where I can get a copy of the grant proposals for the big machines, I'd appreciate it. Also, any ideas on the methods/efficiency of energy extraction would help. Craig harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / ivie@cc.usu.ed / Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Originally-From: ivie@cc.usu.edu Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet ufo,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp) Date: 2 Jan 95 11:03:23 MDT Organization: Utah State University In article <789064084snz@juggler.demon.co.uk>, jimmy@juggler.demon.co.uk (Jimmy Brokaw) writes: > Okay, I'm confused now. I grasp that you are trying to take the > magnetic field of our sweet planet as a source of electricity, right? > The magnetic field is a force, but it doesn't do any 'work' until it > moves an object - much like gravity. Gravity has a force of 9.8 m/s2 on > all objects, but does no work until the object is moved. Thus, to > create electricity from it you need to move an object, ie, hydroelectric > power. Correct? Oh. Well, that's why they keep using the phrase "virtual rotation". Instead of actually rotating an object, they put on their LCD shutter glasses and view a computer model of an object rotating.... :-) -- ----------------+------------------------------------------------------ Roger Ivie | Don't think of it as a 'new' computer, think of it as ivie@cc.usu.edu | 'obsolete-ready' cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenivie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.02 / John Morris / Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino Originally-From: John@kirsta.demon.co.uk (John Morris) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele tromag,sci.math,sci.physics Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 13:20:34 +0000 Organization: Usenet Control In article <3dmfkf$hq6@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> prem@ix.netcom.com "Prem Sobel" writes: > In <3daci8$k76@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu > (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > > > the thought of negative resistance is not credible, but that is > >somewhat beside the point. For one thing, consider negative > >resistance in a ring carrying current... positive resistance causes > >current in a ring to decay - are you saying that once you put current > >into a superconducting ring, it *increases* monotonically? > > > >Second, why must you assume something as unbelievable as negative > >resistance? > > The current does not increase monotonically because it EXACTLY > cancels the positive resistance in the circuit. If you wish to study > a very real negative resistance device get some tunel diodes and > experimennt with them. The voltage current curve looks like: > > i > | > | > | / > | _ / > | / \ / > | / \_/ > |/ > +---------------------- v Beware confusion of terms. "Resistance" is being used in two ways in this thread. The common meaning of resistance is just volage/current: ie apply a voltage V to something, measure the current i which flows, and the resistance of the something is then R = V/i ohms. We can call this the "standing resistance". In this sense of resistance there is no such thing as negative resistance Most things obey Ohm's law, near enough. That says that the current is proportional to voltage: i = V/R. This assumes that R is independent of V. For some things Ohm's law does not follow. (Actually, for all things if you take V high enough!) In partcular, when Ohm's law _does_ hold you can differentiate i=V/R to give di = dV/R. Thus a change in applied voltage gives a change in current. In this case R can be called the "differential resistance". For ohmic material the differential resistance is the same as the standing resistance. However, for some devices the equation di = dV/R does not hold. An example is the tunnel diode, so well graphed above. For these i = f(V), where f(V) is some more or less complex function of V. As shown by the graph, in some regime the current actually decreases with increasing applied voltage. So although the "standing resistance" remains positive, the "differential resistance" is indeed negative. Electronic engineers are just as lazy as everyone else when it comes to using shorthand to describe things in their field, and so say "negative resistance" when referring to tunnel diodes and their like, omitting the detail that this is negative _differential_ resistance, while the _standing_ resistance remains well and truly positive. In brief, "negative resistance" is a shorthand way of saying that for some V, dV/di is less than zero. This does not imply that V/i is less than zero. For a more complex example of a negative resistance device consider a switch-mode power supply. Many of thse will operate over a wide range of AC input voltage, whilst consuming the same power (for a given output.) As the AC input voltage increases the current drawn decreases accordingly. Voila! Negative resistance. It's still consuming rather than producing energy though. -- John Morris Ada Lovelace set a major precedent we follow to this John@kirsta.demon.co.uk day: she worked on a project that was over budget, GM4ANB@GB7EDN.#77.GBR.EU late, and didn't do what it was supposed to do. - Michael D Shapiro cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenJohn cudfnJohn cudlnMorris cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 3 04:37:05 EST 1995 ------------------------------