1995.01.17 / Akira Kawasaki /  MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
Date: 17 Jan 1995 03:31:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <950114142135_76570.2270_HHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> 
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes: 

*****NOTE WELL: The room assigment for the MIT Cold Fusion IAP program 
has changed from 10-105 (the Bush room) to Room 6-120, the Physics 
Lecture Hall

************************  COLD FUSION DAY  ************************     
                              at MIT

                            COLD FUSION
              A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                        IAP  Program 
                Video-Lecture-Demonstration Program

_______________________________________________________
January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM 
Room 6-120, Physics Lecture Hall
First floor, main building of MIT.

(Enter at 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, the main entrance of MIT. 
Go down the "Infinite Corridor" straight ahead, and turn right at the 
end to a new corridor. A few doors down this corridor is Room 6-120)
________________________________________________________

Cold fusion is the generic term for the production of excess power from 
electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with palladium, 
or light water with nickel. Nuclear products and emissions have also 
been reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and charged 
particles. New non-electrochemical physical systems have also been 
discovered that evidence significant excess power and associated nuclear 
products. It is difficult to imagine a greater reversal of scientific 
fortunes than what has been emerging in the cold fusion field. As the 
literature of cold fusion expands, the startling phenomena are of 
continuing interest to experimentalists,theoreticians, inventors, and 
entrepreneurs. In this day of lectures, discussions, and startling 
videos, the focus will be on the history, science, technology, and 
business of cold fusion.

Recent developments in commercial-level power production will be 
discussed at this meeting. The program organizers are also negotiating 
to have one or more demonstration units in operation at MIT this day.

* It is probable that the company in charge of the first U.S. Patent 
granted for cold fusion, the Patterson patent, 5,318,675, will be there 
to show a video tape of its cells' operation. Also, an actual cell 
should be there too.

* James Griggs of Hydro Dynamics, Inc. will discuss new evidence 
(photographic and photo-micrographic) of extremely high temperatures on 
the rotor surfaces of Hydrosonic Pumps.

* Dr. Peter Graneau will discuss "Anomalous Forces in Water Plasma 
Explosions" and will show a video tape of experiments

* Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT Dept. of EE and CS) will discuss 
Neutron Transfer Reactions

* Professor Keith Johnson (MIT Dept. of Materials Science) will discuss 
his theoretical work, and progress on the cold fusion movie "Excess 
heat," which he scripted and which will be produced by a major Hollywood 
studio for release in early 1996.

* Graduate student Ray Conley (MIT Dept. of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics) will discuss his light water excess heat experiments.

* AND, much more -- some big surprises.
________________________________________________
For more information on the meeting please contact Dr. Eugene F. 
Mallove, MIT '69, at  Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 
03302-2816;Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975  or at 
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

Reposted, courtewsy of aki

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.14 / AVINASH PATIL /  Re: Suppliers for silicon wafers
     
Originally-From: aup@engr.uark.edu (AVINASH U PATIL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suppliers for silicon wafers
Subject: Suppliers for silicon wafers
Date: 14 Jan 1995 02:34:07 GMT
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:13:46 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas College of Engineering


From aup@engr.uark.edu (AVINASH U PATIL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suppliers for silicon wafers
Date: 6 Jan 1995 17:13:46 GMT


 
 i am interested to know global suppliers for the silicon wafers used in the pv 
systems. brief technical and other details are as follows.
 
100 MM SILICON WAFERS FOR PHOTOVOLTAICS
 
SINGLE CRYSTALLINE SILICON
 
RESISTIVITY 0.5 TO 3 OHMS
 
THICKNESS 400 MICRONS
 
ANNUAL REQUIREMENT 1.2 MILLION NUMBERS
 
contracts  for three years of orders. Deliveries are to  made  at 
regular intervals to suit our requirements which can be  mutually 
discussed and decided upon. 
 
 
pl.let me know if you are aware of or pl. let me know where i can 
get the sources.
 
Thanks in advance






cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenaup cudfnAVINASH cudlnPATIL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion Fundamentals Question
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Fundamentals Question
Date: 17 Jan 1995 04:03:57 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

sdrumm@umr.edu@umr.edu wrote:
: The energy released from fission is on the order of 200MeV, the majority
: of which (approx. 160MeV) is due to the kinetic energy of the fission
: fragments.  Hence, the energy released from the fission process is distributed
: proportionally to the mass of the products.

: In the case of fusion, however, exactly the opposite is true: the energy 
: released is distributed inversely proportional to the mass of the products.
: For a classic D-T reaction:  D + T ----> He + n + 17.6MeV
: Approximately 14.1MeV is contained in the neutron, while only 3.5MeV is
: contained in the alpha (Helium) particle.

: Why does this occur?

Conservation of momentum likely dictates the D-T fusion kinetic energy
division, which is essentially a two-body reaction (He and n.)

I believe in the case of fission there are often more than two fragments,
and so while momentum is always conserved, there are many more possible
energy/direction possibilities that are compatible with conservation of
momentum.

So it would seem to me that the difference would be the number of final
reaction fragments (one, two, or many.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: NP 9Jan95, Ludwig is asked to revise THE FEYNMAN LECTURES 
Date: 17 Jan 1995 01:04:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <q4TXyc1w165w@ps2.xs4all.nl>
cjacobs@ps2.xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs) writes:

> Hello Ludwig,
> 
> When you revise the lectures, in the section about the energy theorem, 
> 50-5 in volume I, will you please add a footnote revealing which function 
> Richard used to find the sum of:
> 
> 1 + 1/2^4 + 1/3^4 + ... = pi^4 / 90.

  It is surprising how little of Feynman Lectures would really need to
be revised. Those were texts were made in 1963. And comparing the
Lectures with say the classroom used texts such as Halliday & Resnick,
or Sears and Zemansky, or others. The Lectures stand out as the most up
to date, and error free.
  Let me elaborate. From the Lectures, I can only see Feynman's biggest
error is his chapter on superconductivity, III 21-5. I assert the BCS
theory is fakery. Feynman, never discusses General Relativity,(GR) at
all. I assert GR is also fakery, just an algorithm, but GR is better
than BCS because the BCS is not an algorithm, just sheer wrong. Now, I
do not know why Feynman omits GR, but I am the happier. And I think in
the future when the physics community accepts GR as the fakery it is,
all the more power to Richard Feynman for having the gut feeling that
GR was just an algorithm and not true physics. Also, I believe Feynman
never mentions Big Bang, black holes, pulsars as neutron stars and
other assorted quackery. Feynman had the gut instinct to stay away from
quackery and concentrate his 3 volume set on quantum mechanics for the
most part. The Lectures is a monumental text series of quantum physics.
   As far as modern day physics texts, you will see GR overdose, Big
Bang, black holes, neutron stars and many many other assorted crackpot
quackery. When you inspect the textbook physics marketplace for as many
years as I have seen it, you walk away with the impression that it is
more like a tabloid sleeze market, where the Lectures stand out as pure
and the others are approaching physics comic book characteristics. All
of the above is my own personal opinion.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Mark Fernee /  Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
Date: 17 Jan 1995 03:23:19 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

Carl F. Ijames (ijames@codon.nih.gov) wrote:
: In article <3f7ilc$lmf@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

: > The February 1995 issue of Scientific American has an article by Putterman
: > on sonoluminescence.

: There was also a one page article in Science in Dec. 94 (or maybe Nov.
: :-)).  Brief description; also mention a research group that is looking
: for neutrons from fusion (not S. Jones).

A recent PRL (a Nov issue) has a paper postulating the role of 
collision induced emission as a mechanism for generating the observed
spectrum of the picosec sonoluminescent pulses. If CIE is responsible
then the plasma temperatures were suggested to be many orders of
magnitude cooler than a black body spectrum would suggest (ie about
10-100K was suggested). This paper used only a coarse approximation,
but the authors believed it fit an experimental spectral line shape
quite well. If CIE is infact the mechanism responsible for the
spectral distribution, then the plasma temps may well be many orders
of magnitude cooler than first suggested. If anyone is interested
further, then I will get the exact reference.

Mark.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Robin Spaandonk /        Tritium in iso out
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Tritium in iso out
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:58:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Has anyone tried CF in an electrolytic cell, using equal portions of 
T and D? i.e. Heavy water wherein half of the Deuterium is replaced by 
Tritium.
Also, could someone tell me how well Tritium is absorbed by Pd, 
compared to Deuterium?

TIA,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Robin Spaandonk /        Sponge metal
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Sponge metal
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:00:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I remember reading a while back about a technique that the Russians 
had developed for producing porous metal.
The size of the holes could apparently be accurately controled.
Has anyone tried using this for the cathode? It seems to me, that 
like a powder, it would have a large surface area.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /  harmon@hepnsf. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:40:36 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <3ffui5$j6@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>Back to detecting neutrinos:
>
>So, questioning the shaky neutrino theory is fair game.  The *experts* 
>still don't have a good neutrino theory, but still claim, vociferously, 
>that the neutrino acts such and such a way.  For example, the neutrino 
>has a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar when part of a decay process, 
>but every other spin 1/2 h bar particle has mass and magnetic moment, and 
>if  not a composite particle, a spin 1/2 particle also has a charge, 
>without exception. Why doesn't the spin 1/2 neutrino have mass, charge 
>and magnetic moment?

Well the cross section would be markedly higher if there was a 
sizeable magnetic moment.  The cross section for elastic v-e scattering 
[if the neutrino had a magnetic moment] goes as,
 		      2
	sigma = A pi r  [E'/E - log(E'/E) -1]

where A is the ratio of the neutrino's magnetic moment/Bohr magneton,
r is the classical electron radius, E' is the threshold energy and E 
is the neutrino's energy.  So the cross section is sensitive to A, 
and the experimental results give a low limit.

[BTW this cross section will also rule out your vector model where you
state that the proton is made of neutrinos that couple to the EM field.
Even a slight coupling of neutrinos to the EM field would result in
measureable differences in the cross sections.  You can check this 
yourself, just put in your model's magnetic moment and calculate the
cross section and see how far off it is from experiment]

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 08:19:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link


> Robert W. Hatcher  Writes:

>Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they're soooo much
> smarter than "the experts" when it comes to *neutrinos* (in 
particular)? 
> What exactly is it about them that attracts the crackpots to -this- 
> subject even more than physics as a whole.....

Sorry to have rattled your cage.  What is it about cyberspace that 
changes (otherwise nice guys) into raging maniacs?

Seriously, that was a humorous play on words, cause I signed my name as 
Tom.  No, just because I questioned neutrino theory does not make me a 
crackpot.   And I know smart, one of my sons is a Physicist, and another 
is an MD, but they fell a good piece from the tree, you see.  I do not 
fit the profile for a crackpot.  Typically a crackpot is an older white 
male who has not been successful in his private life. He is trying to 
make some meaning out of his life, so he deludes himself into thinking he 
must make a contribution.  He may or may not have advanced degrees.  You 
probably know some at MSU, you may even be one yourself?

Back to detecting neutrinos:

At the present time, the only ones claiming they can send Morse code by 
neutrino beams are the accelerator workers.  Other workers have a hell of 
a time trying to detect neutrinos.  Now if you believe Homestake Mine 
detects 3/4 of a Argon-37 atom every four days, as the result of a 
neutrino, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you.  And SAGE, 
that (theoretically) should have been more sensitive, operated for the 
first six months and detected *no neutrinos whatsoever*.   So, the 
theorists get the crackpot idea that the neutrino oscillates between one 
type and another.  

So, questioning the shaky neutrino theory is fair game.  The *experts* 
still don't have a good neutrino theory, but still claim, vociferously, 
that the neutrino acts such and such a way.  For example, the neutrino 
has a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar when part of a decay process, 
but every other spin 1/2 h bar particle has mass and magnetic moment, and 
if  not a composite particle, a spin 1/2 particle also has a charge, 
without exception. Why doesn't the spin 1/2 neutrino have mass, charge 
and magnetic moment?

Since particle physics does not insist on a detailed particle structure 
theory, it is out of control.  We cannot logically   postulate any 
particle that can be imagined, without a way to see if it is a possible 
structure or not.

I want to see theory start with energy and builds particles from an energy 
model, only then can we have a basis other than *blind mans bluff* and try 
to have a coherent particle theory.  Anything less, it seems to me, will 
require the authoritarian stance you seem to prize. 

Regards: Tom,
 

--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 17:56:49 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3ffui5$j6@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>> Robert W. Hatcher  Writes:
>
>>Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they're soooo much

Sorry, that should have been "Tom, David [de Hilster], and Hannu..."

>> smarter than "the experts" when it comes to *neutrinos* (in 
>particular)? 
>> What exactly is it about them that attracts the crackpots to -this- 
>> subject even more than physics as a whole.....
>
>Sorry to have rattled your cage.  What is it about cyberspace that 
>changes (otherwise nice guys) into raging maniacs?

Because it's clear that you are "clueless" when it comes to understanding
the current state of understanding of neutrino physics...far too clueless
to be swayed in any message I might reasonably post to Usenet news.  Again
you claim that (essentially) all current theory about neutrino interactions
is "wrong", but I notice you didn't answer my challenge about how the
accelerator-based measurements could be so "wrong".

>  No, just because I questioned neutrino theory does not make me a 
>crackpot.  

Actually it does when you attack it from such a confused starting point.
 
>           And I know smart, one of my sons is a Physicist, and another 
>is an MD, but they fell a good piece from the tree, you see.  I do not 

Or, on the other hand they too might be, ah, odd.  So get your son to
explain it all to you ... I doubt that he could make your confusion worse.

>fit the profile for a crackpot.  Typically a crackpot is an older white 
>male who has not been successful in his private life. He is trying to 

And you aren't?  Do we have something other than your [deluded] word on
that?  Let's see ... (1) you are male, (2) you are older (old enough to
have adult sons); all we need now is proof that you aren't successful...
ah, you post to Usenet :-)

>make some meaning out of his life, so he deludes himself into thinking he 
>must make a contribution.  He may or may not have advanced degrees.  You 
>probably know some at MSU, you may even be one yourself?

Hmmmm. I'm begining to suspsect a troll.  How droll.  Or maybe not.  They
_were_ amusing when they were rare, poignant and sly.  Now every wantabe
who thinks they can play "dumb" wants to get in on the act.  Boring.

>Back to detecting neutrinos:
>
>At the present time, the only ones claiming they can send Morse code by 
>neutrino beams are the accelerator workers.  Other workers have a hell of 

"claiming"?  Do you have evidence that such "claims" are false?  Again,
I ask to to take a look at the event pictures I directed you to in my last
post.  Are they "fake"?  Is that your claim?  As well as those three I've
got ~100,000 others.  All fake?  Oh, yes, by the way, do you still stand
by your contention that the cross section (for deep-inelastic scattering)
just *can't* possibly increase with energy.  Or are you letting that one 
slide now that I've presented substantial (overwhelming) evidence that it
does?

>a time trying to detect neutrinos.  Now if you believe Homestake Mine 

Maybe because the sun doesn't send out Morse code ... being a continuous
source and all it doesn't have a duty cycle or work in pulse mode.  So
the rate for solar neutrinos is lower than theory (a theory that includes
both assumptions about neutrino interactions AND a model of the solar
interior); that doesn't mean that *everything* in the theory is "wrong",
it might be just one assumption.

>detects 3/4 of a Argon-37 atom every four days, as the result of a 
>neutrino, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you.  And SAGE, 

Cheap?  I presume you aren't so stupid as to assume that one can detect
0.75 atoms, but rather one is talking about statistical averages.

>that (theoretically) should have been more sensitive, operated for the 
>first six months and detected *no neutrinos whatsoever*.   So, the 
>theorists get the crackpot idea that the neutrino oscillates between one 
>type and another.  

As one possible -hypothesis- to explain the data...and then they propose
experiments to test that hypothesis.  And it's not that "crackpot" of an
idea...particle state "oscillations" have been successful in explaining
other quandries (K0_short/K0_long for instance).

>So, questioning the shaky neutrino theory is fair game.  The *experts* 
>still don't have a good neutrino theory, but still claim, vociferously, 

Huh?  You're talking golden delicious and red idas here...both "apples" but
different aspects of a "class".  Your claim makes as much sense as to say
that golden delicious don't make good pies, so there really is no such
thing as good apple pies.  

>that the neutrino acts such and such a way.  For example, the neutrino 
>has a spin angular momentum of 1/2 h bar when part of a decay process, 
>but every other spin 1/2 h bar particle has mass and magnetic moment, and 
>if  not a composite particle, a spin 1/2 particle also has a charge, 
>without exception. Why doesn't the spin 1/2 neutrino have mass, charge 
>and magnetic moment?

Huh?  Just because everyone else is jumping off bridges you feel compelled
to as well?  How does the fact that other spin 1/2 particle have mass,
magnetic moments and charge *require* that the neutrino also have them?

[meaningless drivel constructed of a pseudo-random arrangement of
meaningful words...deleted]

>Regards: Tom,

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Michael Kenward /  Re: ideas & copyrights
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 02:15:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>anyone who hints of my original idea which is patent
>pending plus copyrighted, anyone discussing this idea RADIOACTIVE
>SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION = VIOLATION OF ENERGY/MASS
>CONSERVATION = COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT, without referring to Archimedes
>Plutonium, or a footnote listing my name, will be challenged.


Please stop spouting this rubbish. I am a science writer. Have been for 25
years. Before that I was a fusion researcher. If I want to write about
theories of cold fusion, I am free to do so without mentioning anyone's name. 

Before shoting your mouth off, perhaps you should consult one of these
lawyers you say you will unleash upon me. They will happily take money from
you to confirm that I am free to write what I like so long as I neither
steal your words, nor libel you.

Now, can we get back to talking about fusion, preferably hot fusion. You
know, the sort that we know exists.

Oh yes. One final thought. You can guarantee that nobody every mentions your
name simply by behaving as you now do.

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /   /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: root@prometheus.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 06:57:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3f3996$eb6@seralph9.essex.ac.uk> ierof@essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F) writes:
>Mr. Coloc,
>
>I have been following Mr. Coloc's posts for, oh, about five years now, right
>after the first posting that caught my eye about dense plasma balls as -the- way
>to realistic (therefore cheap) fusion power.

>    But, apart from (deliberately?) fuzzy semi-technical descriptions of your
>concept, and attempts to participate into serious discussions on the concept's
>basic principles with people that study this kind of things in great depth
>(which did not leave me entirely convinced that what you got is what you -think-
>you got), not much else has been coming forth. 

Well at least "I got somethin'".  We shall track down just what it is
or isn't as we accumlate the money and assistance to do the work.  Then
we will let all those know that supported us -- provided they don't
insist on our publishing it to the world.   

>Can we hope that something
>tangible will come out of your efforts, before you leave this good earth for
>good? 

Sure hope, but don't bend a finger to help.  

>Is it possible for you to publish some sort of progress report that would
>not comprimise your aspirations to fame and fortune? Fuzzy web photos don't
>really cut it.

Gee!  this guy really slams you.  So I appologize for using such
crumby technology.  Remember this is early technology, but it's better 
than naught, Frank.     Or  not???

I'm certain you could dazzle us with really sharp photos of your 
order 100ms initially formed long lived airborne plasmoids.  If you 
do not send funds and yourself here (if necessary) then we just 
won't work it out together.   

Otherwise, I'm not publically supported, nor am I interested in fame 
or fortune.  Think of me as the Mother Teresa of fusion -- at least
as relative to the poverty scale and selfless effort. . :-)   
I'm certain that your institute pays its staff, and if the funds 
come from government, then by all means spend some of it on public 
progress reports of your work.  Certainly, I would do the same if 
I were so funded. If you did obtain more complete discriptions of
the work, would you then require an operating manual ???  And demand a 
copy??   Perhaps I misread your approach.  

>similar credibility/resource acquisition barrier as you are, even though we work
>with more conventional concepts and, more importantly, whithin the walls of the
>Establishment (aka university). But i think that the fastest way to thoroughly
>discredit yourself and compromise your efforts, in a world without sufficient
>money to make everyone's dream a reality, is to rant incoherent and insult other
>people in the way that we have witnessed recently in this forum.

What is a conventional concept?   The physical production of mine may 
be a simulation of a Natural concept, so it must be fundamentally
conventional in Someone's Eyes...        :-)

I certainly appreciate your comments.  Perhaps you should understand 
that I have little affection for the tokamak in any form except
as a research vessel for a limited area of plasma physics. I also
tend to crunch a bit on those defending it as a fusion thingy with 
what seems to me to be sloushing hand waving.  Now, I dare to be this 
way because I haven't the comparative means to do otherwise.  I mean 
the ratio of government funds spent on tokamaks compared to my work 
is mind boggling.  So I can wave my arms.  You chaps with funds can't
or at least you don't have quite the justification to do so that 
I do.   

But does that stop my relentless hunting the fusion holy grail?? 
                             not
Bet your resolve wouldn't match that if put to the test.  Takes
a bit of bull-headedness.   

>Frank Ieromnimon,
>SRO, PACE Project,
>dept. of Computer Science,
>Essex University.

>P.S. I would be very grateful if you could e-mail me a compressed
file with >     your paper in Fusion Technology. I could not find
the periodical in our
>     library.

You might try under the name "Koloc", although in "English" the name
is pronouced as you spell it.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenroot cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /  prasad /  Re: GG vs SL
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG vs SL
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:58:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3fesqv$82p@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> In order of magnitude terms:
|> 
|> The Griggs device and the current round of sonoluminesence laboratory
|> experiments exist in about the same relative volume of water -- but the
|> Griggs device is subjecting it to on the order of 200 times higher
|> energy density.
|> 

I'm very interested in the energy density.  Any typical figures?
Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Thomas Selby /  Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Day '95 -- Room Change, etc. Repostng.
Date: 17 Jan 1995 13:10:13 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

As a contributor to the Griggs field trip fund, may I suggest a use for 
the money remaining after Tom's Georgia trip?  It sounded like we would 
have more than enough left to send someone to Boston for a day.  I know 
it's short notice but it would be good to have some first hand reporting 
on the events of the day.  Any volunteers?

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 10:48:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
     "Jed, in the span of four sentences you say that you do not pay much
     attention to newspapers and are not and expert on them, and then proceed
     to assert that everything they contain is wrong.  You have yet to
     explain how you can be an expert on something you are ignorant about."
 
That's a really stupid remark, Jim. Really dumb. Look here, it's simple:
 
1. I compare the scientific papers to the newspaper versions.
 
2. I find the newspaper versions aren't even close. They are just nonsense &
confusion.
 
Got it? Scientific papers give you facts. Newspapers give you mistakes. I
don't have to be expert to realize that.
 
 
     "More importantly, I recently posted some text from the original NYTimes
     article about the P&F news conference almost 6 years ago."
 
The New York Times is full of crap. Their 1990 coverage, described in Fire
From Ice, was laughable. Their review of "Bad Science" was despicable. They
don't know anything about CF. I do not know if their coverage of the P&F news
conference was accurate or not, but I do know that a news conferences is not
science. A news conferences is a waste of time. It has no importance at all.
What matters are facts published in scientific papers and patents. The N. Y.
Times does not begin to understand these facts.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Wright Bros. & the "skeptics"
Date: 17 Jan 1995 11:26:35 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <5q4YZ5d.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>1. I compare the scientific papers to the newspaper versions.

You should compare the newspaper article to the news event.  In most 
cases that is what was said at a news conference or in a press release, 
not in the published paper.  However, in the case I chose, and that you 
ignore, I think the newspaper article correctly presents the claims 
made in both the press conference and the journal article. 

>2. I find the newspaper versions aren't even close. They are just nonsense &
>confusion.

You repeat this over and over again, but you have yet to give a single 
example from the news report of 24 March 1989 that is most relevant to 
your repeated diatribes.  Or are you saying that it is nonsense to 
write that Pons and Fleischman claimed to have seen neutrons?  Are you 
saying they never made such a claim?  

Get specific.  Your generalizations are meaningless drivel. 

>The New York Times is full of crap. Their 1990 coverage, described in Fire
>From Ice, was laughable. Their review of "Bad Science" was despicable. 

I am not sure if you are referring to the book for the news coverage in 
1990, but by then they would be quoting on-the-record sources for various 
points of view.  Further, a book review is not a news article.  Given 
your *repeated* emphasis on ignoring initial reports of a new technology, 
the relevant news stories would be the March 1989 one.  

Either stop this BS about the NYTimes or identify a factual error in 
that story.  I assert that the excerpts I posted are accurate based on 
the journal articles and the videotape I saw broadcast on the evening 
news about the press conference in Utah. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians wasting $290million in science sham projects
Date: 16 Jan 1995 10:25:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: Just get a respected professor to support a
: project and the USA congress is like an open sesame.

"I command thee! Shazam! Grant be funded!"

he he ho ho ha ha ha ha.

``Open sesame''.   

What next?  Madonna a virgin, and trying out
in the Metropolitan Opera auditions?

This one even beats spontaneous muon materialization or whatever.

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@news.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
Date: 17 Jan 1995 19:53:15 -0700
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <3ffd77$h64@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Mark Fernee <fernee@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>Carl F. Ijames (ijames@codon.nih.gov) wrote:

>: There was also a one page article in Science in Dec. 94 (or maybe Nov.
>: :-)).  Brief description; also mention a research group that is looking
>: for neutrons from fusion (not S. Jones).
>
>A recent PRL (a Nov issue) has a paper postulating the role of 
>collision induced emission as a mechanism for generating the observed
>spectrum of the picosec sonoluminescent pulses. If CIE is responsible
>then the plasma temperatures were suggested to be many orders of
>magnitude cooler than a black body spectrum would suggest (ie about
>10-100K was suggested). This paper used only a coarse approximation,

Maybe I'm on the wrong track here, I haven't read the PRL paper
yet, but it seems to me that, at least in transient SL, the
temperatures do get quite high. At one point, I had a faulty
power amp that would overheat after a few minutes of SLing. I
noticed that, when the power went off and the bubbles rose to the
surface, the neck of my flask became quite hot. Wondering if I
was imagining things, I then
stuck my finger in the neck of the flask as the power shut off.
Yup, it gets really hot. burnt myself. Again, just something I
had time to look up the few papers from this year.

-mike




-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@news.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonolumies  in Scientific American
Date: 17 Jan 1995 19:56:43 -0700
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <3fhvqr$381m@acs1.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Michael James Mazur <mjmazur@news.ucalgary.ca> wrote:

>Yup, it gets really hot. burnt myself. Again, just something I
>had time to look up the few papers from this year.

errrggg, damn newsreader. it should say, 'just something I
noticed. I haven't had time to look up the few papers...'.

-mike




-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 17 Jan 1995 18:37:12 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3ffui5$j6@borg.svpal.org> 
lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Back to detecting neutrinos:
>
>At the present time, the only ones claiming they can send Morse code by 
>neutrino beams are the accelerator workers.  

This is true.  After all, you can stop the fission reaction in a 
reactor, but you cannot stop the beta decay of the fission products. 
So the neutrino flux from a reactor cannot be turned off and on 
like it can with an accelerator -- where once you stop making pions 
they are all gone in a few milliseconds. 

>                                            Other workers have a hell of 
>a time trying to detect neutrinos.  

Not true.  Of course it is *always* hard to detect neutrinos, but 
it is far from difficult compared to other things (like finding a 
single Z=111 nucleus in the debris from a reaction at GSI).  After 
all, it was first done decades ago with very primitive equipment 
compared to what is in an undergrad 'advanced lab' today. 

>                                    Now if you believe Homestake Mine 
>detects 3/4 of a Argon-37 atom every four days, as the result of a 
>neutrino, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you.  

Finding solar neutrinos is tougher.  However, Homestake has been 
doing precisely that, day after day for many years.  After 1000s 
of days, it starts to add up.  And you have a hypothesis for where 
the Ar-37 comes from?  And why a big water Cherenkov detector also 
sees neutrinos (whose source direction follows the sun) while using 
a completely different method? 

>                                                               And SAGE, 
>that (theoretically) should have been more sensitive, operated for the 
>first six months and detected *no neutrinos whatsoever*.   

While Gallex, using exactly the same method, saw neutrinos from day 1. 
SAGE will not say there was a technical problem, they just keep integrating 
data until the initial defect becomes inconsequential, but the sudden 
jump in rate suggests they had a technical problem in the big collection 
of industrial-scale chemical reactors used.  Any insiders know more? 

>                                                         So, the 
>theorists get the crackpot idea that the neutrino oscillates between one 
>type and another.  

Actually they got a whole bunch of different crackpot ideas about 
oscillations of neutrino type, among other things.  Some experiments 
were done checking other crackpot ideas, such as the calibration of 
the decay constant for Cl-37 (which proved to be wrong by a small but 
not insignificant factor).  SAGE, Gallex, and soon SNO (with yet 
another method) were built to test the other detection methods and 
the solar model -- since Cl only sees a very rare branch in solar 
fusion reactions that is an insignificant source of solar energy. 

>So, questioning the shaky neutrino theory is fair game.  

Absolutely.  Although SNO and the final results from an experiment 
at LAMPF will clarify the experimental constraints such a theory 
must fit into if it is to be considered plausible. 

>                                                         The *experts* 
>still don't have a good neutrino theory, but still claim, vociferously, 
>that the neutrino acts such and such a way.  

You do not need a theory to do this -- those claims come from experiment.

>     ...           Why doesn't the spin 1/2 neutrino have mass, charge 
>and magnetic moment?

Maybe it does have mass.  If oscillations are seen, they will pin 
down that mass with meV (not MeV) precision.  

But why no charge?  Why does a quark have 1/3 the charge of an electron 
when everything else has unit charges?  The key physics question is to 
establish those experimental facts (like charge and mass and number of 
generations) so that the challenge for unification theories is a well 
defined question.  Those why questions (along with the mass scales 
and CP violation and a bunch of others) are good ones, but they cannot 
change the data. 

>I want to see theory start with energy and builds particles from an energy 
>model, only then can we have a basis other than *blind mans bluff* and try 
>to have a coherent particle theory.  Anything less, it seems to me, will 
>require the authoritarian stance you seem to prize. 

The final authority is experiment, and experiment is ruthless.  Hatcher 
gets exercised because he is an experimentalist, and those data take 
primacy over anything else.  Your coherent theory might be beautiful, 
like an SU(5) GUT, but if it disagrees with data it goes in the can. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Matt Austern /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 18 Jan 1995 08:33:17 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <3fhkb8$a9g@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

> The final authority is experiment, and experiment is ruthless.  Hatcher 
> gets exercised because he is an experimentalist, and those data take 
> primacy over anything else.  Your coherent theory might be beautiful, 
> like an SU(5) GUT, but if it disagrees with data it goes in the can. 

SU(5) GUTs aren't all that beautiful.  A "unified" theory that relies
on two separate irreducible representations of the gauge group for
each generation?  Ick!
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 04:54:14 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3fcj0j$ocs@newsbf02.news.aol.com> robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) writes:
>     My derivation of Planck's constant provides the "exact" known value
>of the former, multiplied by uncertainty factors equivalent to the
>uncertainties in our knowledge of the mean density of the universe, in
>terms of which the value of Hubble's constant is usually stated (as in
>Peeble's book).
Sure Bob,  "exact" ??? 

I was messing around with same and came up with a number for G in
terms of the mass and "size" of a neutron, c and Planck's constant...
So I suppose it could be worked for h/ instead.  The important thing
was that it related to  precision of measurements which are very
sloppy.  So ... exact??  The sense of it was that "h" related to the
information density "packing factor" of a space/time volume.. which 
presupposes that time is quantized.  That won't be heard in institutes 
for a few centuries due to the severe paradigm shift it necessitates.  

>     What is remarkable is to have proved that one gets the right order of
>magnitude for the Planck constant from the current cosmological data.  I
>should have stated my result better:  the _exact_ value of Planck's
>constant, as measured by microphysics, lies within the interval which is
>prescribed by my use of cosmological data, as measured by astronomers. 

Oh!      Ahh, ... never mind. 

>Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass), former Prof. of Physics, of Aerospace,
>of EE, & of Systems Engineering; now Registered Patent Agent 29,130.
>   P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
>Voicemail: (818) 377-4471          E-mail: robertbass@aol.com

Yes and the same Bob Bass that invented the pyrosphere fusion 
concept??  As I remember, you were pretty clever at developing
structures to raise capital.. and with the liberalized 92? laws
seems an innovative fellow like you could render a valued service.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Aether again ?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aether again ?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 05:20:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3f4e0q$qdt@newsbf02.news.aol.com> profusion@aol.com (ProFusion) writes:
>Frankly, this seems like only a semantic difference. There may be no such
>medium as the aether superimposed on space,  .. .

Yes.. a rose by any other name.  However in this case the aether is 
the information field generated by the distribution of mass and energy
throughout space.   For example, a photon cuts through information at
a constant rate, and if the energy density or information density is
constant then the appearance is that information velocity is the speed
of light.  However, if the information density is less, but the information  
rate of an advancing photon is constant then the photon "speeds up" in
terms of "space distance".  They get around this by assuming that the 
information distance is used, not "space distance" but its referred to
as the metric.  So when a speedy photon comes within the influence
of the earths field (local metric) it ajusts its advance (information
rate) to that of the earth (or in other words its speed doesn't change)*.     

Except of course in the eye of an infinite gauge .. GOD.   

> but space itself seems like
>the medium  .. .

Space itself is null.. empty no information and without the 
information dump from a 2space decay (big bang) there would be
no meausure here (3space) whatsoever.  Matter and Energy is
information and information operations organized into enities
we collective-macro-ensembles-of-particles see as cold dead
stupid lifeless dull atomic particles, fields, etc.  Without the
big bang dump, space would have no borrowed measure, time, 
distance, etc. 

> in which EM waves propagate, and thus has the properties of the
>aether. Whether you can infer  anything else about it...

EM waves propagate through the COLLECTIVE far field of particles 
(i.e. grav field of earth), which is their (these particles') far 
reaching shallow halo of existence.  

Just putting a bit of coherence and color into the story of 
disjoint and pretty dismal physics.   ..  so far.  
                                Only Paul M. Koloc would .. .

>Vic
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.18 / Thomas Lockyer /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 18 Jan 1995 04:00:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link

 <mount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl>: 
Distribution: 

>Jeffrey Templon (templon@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl) Writes:

> (snip)
>I'm not a high energy theorist; one of those may be able to give you yet
>another reason why the neutrino cross section increases with energy.
>
>I'll give you an example case for which I know something about:
> proton-scattering cross sections.
> (snip)

Jeffrey, thanks for your reply; I am pleased that you are working with 
proton scattering experiments.  I like proton scattering experiments, 
much more repeatable and, to me easier to believe, especially the 
polarized proton, polarized target ones that tend to refute the quark 
model.  The proton reportedly acts like it has a single hard core that 
contains most of the spin and charge. Counterclockwise spinning protons, 
in scattering with a clockwise polarized target, go straight, clockwise 
are deflected to the side.  What is your take on this?  Maybe start a new 
thread, or email me?

Back to neutrino theory. Most neutrino detection schemes are based on 
postulating that the neutrino can cause inverse beta decay transmutation 
of certain atoms (Chlorine-37 to Argon-37 or Germanium-72 to Gallium-72 
for examples).  This theory is based on the well known inverse beta decay 
caused by a K shell electron, but i know of not a single  documented case 
for inverse beta decay by the neutrino,  in any cloud chamber 
photographs. 

To check for the radioactive daughter (supposedly created by the 
neutrino), the experimenter must see one count for each decaying atom , 
in his counter. But, background counts from cosmic rays are sporadic, so, 
it is left up to the conscience of the experimenter, whether he reports 
above background, during any given random decay period. This is what 
happened to SAGE, in the first 5 months of operation, the experimenters 
saw nothing above background. The half life of the Gallium-72 is a short 
13.95 hours, and this makes it very difficult to accumulate (assuming the 
inverse beta decay is the mechanism) enough atoms to raise the counts 
above  a sporadic background. The Argon-37 half life is a little better 
with 34.8 days. But, if the HOMESTAKE MINE is  to see a reported one 
ARGON-37 atom every 5 days or so, it's still in the background range.  
Background can get you coming and going.  The ARGON-37 could be created 
by a cosmic ray proton entering the fiduciary volume of HOMESTAKE MINE , 
as a false positive.  


Sorry to get carried away, but neutrino theory and detection claims, as 
presently given, are not convincing, in my view.

Regards: Tom.






--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 19 04:37:11 EST 1995
------------------------------
