1995.01.26 / jedrothwell@de / Re: The Griggs Test Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Griggs Test Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 09:16:06 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Tom Droege writes: >Having seen the device and having heard Griggs' presentation, do I return >home and start building one? If I do, it is a positive assessment. If >I do not, it is negative. There is no other meaningful test. > >I assure everyone that I have sufficient resources and contacts to do >what is required. Don't be ridiculous Tom. You *do not have* sufficient resources. You could not get a GG into your house or your basement, and you are not going to spring for a three phase electric power hookup. You do not have heavy lifting equipment or welding equipment in your basement. If you want to claim that you might return home and then have someone else build a GG at a properly equipped machine shop -- okay, maybe you could do that. Or, if you want to suggest that you could build a miniature version of the GG powered by a large DC motor, that might be do-able. But you could never build a full scale industrial version of this device by yourself at your house. (At work yes, Fermilab could handle it!) There have been many suggestions here and by private e-mail that someone should build a miniature version with a DC motor for use in a laboratory experiment. I have no idea whether a small one would work or not. If it did not work, that would not prove anything about the big ones. It took Griggs and the others who have built these machines many years to make them work on the large scale. It might take several more years to learn what can be scaled down to what proportion. I myself think that scaling it down is a waste of time. I would aim to improve efficiency with the large units. There is no point to having a 100 watt GG that I can think of, except possibly in order to perform tests to find nuclear products. I do not know much about these tests, so I cannot judge whether you need a small GG for them or not. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / I Johnston / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:01:41 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : Let me clarify that comment, before people come down on me like a ton of : bricks: Well, you asked for it... Since the front runner in the explanation stakes is probably stored heat, and since back of the envelope calculations have repeatedly shown that the stored heat effect could account for over an hour's excess heat, it isn't possible to evaluate the device in five minutes (Jed), fifteen minutes (any air conditioning technician*, pace Jed) or an hour (any competenet person (pace Jed). Ian * And for god's sake, please learn the differnce between an engineer and a technician. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / I Johnston / Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:07:15 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University John S Vetrano (js_vetrano@pnl.gov) wrote: : In article <950123134714_76570.2270_HHB28-1@CompuServe.COM>, : 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote: : : > (A) Jim Griggs of Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Rome, Georgia) gave a magnificent : > presentation with new data on *massive melting* that has occurred on the : > periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminum rotors on several occasions. He also : > described re-welding of melted material to the rotor surface -- an even : > higher-temperature effect, he said. He had one such rotor unit there and you : > could see and feel it. Fantastically high temerpatures would be required to : > do that and this is NOT ordinary cavitation. : Dr. Mallove, I'm not sure what you mean by fantastically high : temperatures. I can melt an aluminum can in my campfire. Also, melting : and welding of a given metal both require the same temperature. Unless of : course the extra metal is steel. Did he have an analysis of the type of : metal that was re-welded to the rotor? Where did it come from? This : interests me very much, as do the "images" on the rotor that were : mentioned in this forum some months ago. Much attention has been paid to : the chemistry and heat content of the water/steam that comes out, but it : goes through quickly whereas the rotors are in there for a long time. I : might mention that it is possible to dissolve gases in aluminum. Remember, gang, how vehemently Jed has assured us that the gadget must be in thermal equilibrium, and that stored heat is a ridiculous theory because the rotor cannot possibly be hotter than the fluid around it. And now theothet half of the double act tells us that the rotor has reached very high temperatures. Bingo. The idiots have started shooting each other in the foot. Ian cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / I Johnston / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:20:42 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: : Looks like John is the only one in the group capable of following : instructions. I asked you all to use the standard "Griggs Questions" : heading for questions to be considered during the Griggs visit. Come : on, everybody, load me up with clever thoughts. If you use the standard : heading I am more likely to find them. OK question number one: * Can you observe the machine producing - according to Grigg's calculations - excess heat for more than n hours continuously, n to be discussed on s.p.f - I would suggest 3 hours, for practicality. We have heard a lot of claims about performance for very short periods, but only assertion about the steady state possibilities. Ian Since Eugene now tells us that the rotor can reach melting point, I suggest that n = 1.5 * m_r * c_r * (T_m - T_o) / (m_w * (h_o - h_i) - W_s) where m_r = mass of rotor c_r = specific heat of rotor material T_m = melting point of rotor material T_o = output temperature of water Q_w = volume flow rate of water m_w = mass flow rate of water h_o = specific enthalpy of water at outlet h_i = specific enthalpy of water at inlet W_s = input power (however determined) In short, the excess heat should continue for considerably longer than could be accounted for by heat storage in the rotor cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Jed Rothwell / Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Dunsmuir needs a nap Date: 26 Jan 1995 17:39:40 GMT Organization: CFRA Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. 'Seventy-Percent' Dunsmuir") writes: ". . . when somebody lies and is immediately told that they are lying, it can be very irritating. Just stop lying here and on CompuServe and I'll stop announcing the fact." And how about yourself, idiot? You pick a number out of a hat, waltz in here, and tell us that electric power plants are 70% efficient. Anyone who bothers to check a handbook on energy or an encyclopedia can see you don't know what you are talking about. You make up nonsense numbers because you are too lazy to read a book. You expect us to believe anything you dream up. And you tell me I have a credibility problem?!? Gimmeabreak. Announce all you want. You demonstrate to everyone that you are a fool and such a lazy ass that you will never bother check the simplest, most well documented facts. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Tom Droege / Re: The Griggs Test Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Griggs Test Date: 26 Jan 1995 17:46:25 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com says: > >Tom Droege writes: > >>Having seen the device and having heard Griggs' presentation, do I return >>home and start building one? If I do, it is a positive assessment. If >>I do not, it is negative. There is no other meaningful test. >> >>I assure everyone that I have sufficient resources and contacts to do >>what is required. > >Don't be ridiculous Tom. You *do not have* sufficient resources. You could >not get a GG into your house or your basement, and you are not going to >spring for a three phase electric power hookup. You do not have heavy >lifting equipment or welding equipment in your basement. As I said before, "I have sufficient resources and contacts to do what is required." Who are you Jed, to say I do not? Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Tritiated water Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tritiated water Date: 26 Jan 1995 20:42:12 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , amati@netcom.com (Tan Ha) wrote: > Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote: > : In article , eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson) wrote: > > : > If you could somehow create > : > a liter of pure DHO, it would immediately decompose into 250 ml of D2O, > : > 500 ml of DHO, and 250 ml of H2O. [...] > : Er, no. If it's pure D2O, it'll stay pure D2O. However, if you have a > : 50/50 mix (not that the weight difference is meaningful anyway, but by mole > : fraction, not weight fraction) then one recovers the proportions you've > : cited. Protons and deuterons exchange rapidly in (room temperature and > : hotter) water, so the proportions of H2O, HDO, and D2O are dependent solely > : upon the relative abundances of D and H in the mixture under consideration. > > > Whaddya mean "er, no" Thomas? Note that Mark said "pure DHO", not D2O. > Doesn't the remainder of your paragraph agree with what he said??? > > Please confirm or deny... > Confirm. I misread DHO as D2O , as I usually see DHO written as HDO. My apologies. --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Pete McNamara / Electroweak theory a dream? Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch (Pete McNamara) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Electroweak theory a dream? Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 17:03:16 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin In article <3g2476$528@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes: > >Pete: The electroweak theory statements given were based (in part) on >reported statements from Weinberg after he was awarded the Nobel, to the >effect that the Nobel committee was taking a big chance. Then after the >W and Z were claimed to be found, he reportedly said. "There is such a >feeling of confidence now. It isn't like we were making it up as we went >along." Unquote. > It seems to me that the above statement was made *after* the theory was confirmed by experiment. When one creates a new theory, one generally 'makes it up' as one goes along. If some experimental evidence that the electroweak theory had problems existed, then it would be a different story today, but that evidence doesnt exist. >Sorry to drop names but to make a point.......... > Drop all the names you like, as long as you're making a point. >The elecrtroweak theory still needs the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson >is unproven , because there is no way to detect it (assuming that it >exists). Without the Higgs, theory basis is in trouble. > You're right that the Higgs boson is the missing particle. That it is impossible to detect is not so clear. The fact that we haven't seen it *yet* doesnt mean it's not possible to detect, it just means that it's too heavy to make in our accellerators. Right now, the mass of the Higgs is unknown, and could be anywhere between about 60 GeV to 1000 GeV. If it is very heavy, it may never be possible to produce one in a lab, but that doesnt mean that there would be no way to detect it if it exists. Generally speaking, the Higgs is expected to decay to a pair of the heaviest particles which are lighter than it. Maybe a pair of b mesons, or a pair of Z bosons if heavy enough. You would be able to detect these, and maybe use them to reconstruct the Higgs. >Just cause one is skeptical does not a crackpot make. Electroweak theory >is an elaborate theory that requires on to believe spin 1 particles can >be charged (W- W+) and that a boson (Zo) similar to the photon, exists at >a definite mass (energy) only. It's a fairly elaborate theory, that's true, but that doesnt mean it is untrue. (it might be, but not as trivially as you suggest) The theory doesnt require this kind of belief, it simply predicts these particles. There is absolutely *no* experimental doubt that the Z boson exists. By this I mean that if you look at the e+e- cross section, is drops off slowly with energy, but as you approach 90 GeV, the cross section suddenly shoots up by orders of magnitude, reaches a maximum, then drops off again. This peak in the cross section is because you are sitting very close to the mass of this Z boson. There is a lot of evidence which can be *easily* explained by the W bosons, and in the next year or two, LEP will begin to run with energy sufficient to make a pair of W's... They know what the theory tells them they *should* find in the cross section at these energies, and when they run there, they will be able to check whether there are W's there quite easily. > We must suspend what we know about >particles in general, to believe these. And, isn't it also part of the >theory that a couple of quarks have appear first before the W? If the W >is only supposed to last about 10^-25 sec, how is there time to form two >( mixed species) quarks, and then assemple the W? How is it possible >for quarks to conjugate into the W? And the Zo is supposed to create a >pair of electrons or muons just like a regular photon. Why do we need it, >a regular photon creates pairs? > I'm not quite sure what you mean about a pair of quarks needing to appear before a W can appear. In a typical decay involving a W, you start with a b quark, which radiates a W-, and turns into a c quark. The W- exists for some very short time, then decays into a (for example) electron and neutrino. The b quark was formed from something before this decay, and the c quark will continue after it. The W is not made up of quarks, it is a fundamental particle, and it mediates these kinds of decays. As I said above, the cross section for an electron positron pair to turn into a photon decreases with energy, and is well known. When you get to the neighborhood of 90 GeV, there is a huge peak, or resonance, which can't be explained by the photon. That's one reason that you need a Z. >This is definitely thread creep, and I don't pretend to be an electroweak >expert . If we continue perhaps a new thead would be in order. > Hope you followed this to the new thread... >Regards: Tom. > > > Cheers, Pete cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmcnamara cudfnPete cudlnMcNamara cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / 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: 26 Jan 1995 19:12:38 GMT Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy In article <3g6oc0$8m8@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes: >,<3fubvk$1rm@borg.svpal.org> <3g0rco$gru@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: >Distribution: > >>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: > >> (snip) >> Again, I notice that you simply dismiss the question of the >energy/angle >> distributions of events as "unimportant"...... > >Robert: i don't recall simply dismissing angle/energy distributions. No, you didn't dismiss them ... worse, you *ignored* them. And you continue to do so in this post. They *have* to be explained by any theory that proposes to replace the neutrino. And those handwaving "other neutrals" you propose, won't do...because they wouldn't match what is observed. >What i questioned, at your insistence, was the claim to have seen 100000 >neutral current events. Never said I had (though others do). What I have is order 100,000 *neutrino* events, of which approximately 1/4 are neutral current events. The rest are charged current (ie. contain a muon) events. Both event samples have the energy/angle distributions of the hadron showers, and energy/angle distributions of the muon (CC case only) that agree with what is predicted by the standard model. > I want to know if it is likely for so many >events. Aren't there other neutrals that can explain the same >signatures? No, frankly, there aren't. I've already dealt with, in previous posts, the possible other neutrals. None explain the data. First of all, you must remember, that there is *literally* 1km (1000 m) of steel and dirt between the beam dump and the detector. Feel free to name a "neutral" that can penetrate that. (I know of only one: the weakly interacting neutrino). Secondly, things like photons, K0, neutrons (to name the most common neutrals) would NOT give a signature of missing momentum transverse to the beam direction (the hadron shower angle distribution). And, certainly, not with the correlations we observe. And before you suggest something like skyshine, let me also state for the record that we observe the rotational symmetry about the beam axis. This is not what one would expect if you want to believe that the "something" bypasses the 1km berm, given that the detector sits on an asymmetric plane (dirt below, air above). > If we are getting more "event candidates" than cross section >theory says we should expect, then questions are valid. Most are Huh? We don't get more events than theory suggests...we get very close to what we expect. The ratio of neutral currents ot charged current events is a measurement of the weak mixing angle (sin^2{\theta_W}), which in turn can also be expressed in terms of the ratio of the mass of the Z and the W. And guess what...the two independent measurements are well within agreement. >working from the premise that the neutrino acts a certain way, I that the >neutrino does not. We both agree, i believe, and most correspondents >agree that background can fake these records. No. Everyone but yourself, (and others equally uninformed about what is actually seen/measured in these experiments) *knows* that these events can not be faked by backgrounds. You're still ranting and raving against a primitive experiment done nearly 20 years ago. Yes, back then some of there observed events *were* backgrounds faking a neutrino event. Since then, we've become more modern, more sophisticated, better shielded, much better instrumented and just plain smarter about the whole process of detecting these events. And it is quite clear to all but the most stubbornly self-blinded that it would be impossible for backgrounds to constitute a significant portion of the event sample. > Those who are trying to >prove theory, must rationalize which are false and which they can >construe as proving the theory. Ah, what was that you sent me by mail yesterday about how *I* was "insulting"? *THIS* (along with you "delusional" comment) is a far more insulting than anything I could ever hurl your way. "Rationalize"? Theory makes a prediction, a quite clear one ... we go and construct a beam and detector to measure this prediction. We then compare as much as we can (not just existence, but the measured characteristics) with what the theory predicts. And we find excellent agreement...and thus we conclude that the theory is "proven". Until a better one comes along that can explain *all* of the data. > The problem with particle physics, as >presently framed, is that it is free to propose any force or any >particle, needed to make the theory plausible. Then to silence the Not to make the "theory plausible", but rather to *explain* what is seen. At least in this case. Neutrinos are accepted because the they are neccessary for conservation reasons, but also (more recently) because we have measured events that can NOT be explained by any other means...events that have structure predicted by the theory. Predicted before the measurements were done (and thus no "tweaking" was done). >critics, will claim experimental evidence that "proves" the theory. But, >if one reviews the experiments, the conclusions are very, very, "far >fetched". Name someone other than yourself that considers the detection of neutrinos (by 10+ independent experiments) "far fetched". >> Trust me, we'd see any incoming tracks in this detector......just >> as in the first picture in the postscript file I've referred you to >twice >> already, one can make out the remnants of an old cosmic ray muon >> entering from the top. > >Yes, that is the evidence I would like to have seen that the first >detectors were active. Proving that you never did look at those event pictures I gave the URL for. If you had you would have seen (1) a charged current event (2) a neutral current event (3) a dimuon event (generated by charm production from d or s quarks, or more mundanely, simple pi/K decay). And then down in the lower right corner you'd have seen 3 pictures of events taken when our "test beam" was active. These were charged particles brought around the berm and into the detector (during well defined time periods, so that can't be the source of our "events"). What you can clearly see in all three pictures is .... tracks in the first ~32 detectors (of 592 layers). Besides, in the neutrino event pictures you can see random noise in these detectors. In fact, looking carefully at the first event picture, one can make out the mostly faded track of a cosmic muon which travels through roughly 1/3 of the detector (it's a little sparse on hits because much of the ionization has recombined and thus the hits are spotty)...including whole region upstream of the event itself. Want to look again? Here's the reference: http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/ !my home page http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/composite_e733_p.ps !postscript file http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/neut_descr.html !description text If you can't access this via the WWW then feel free to mention that next time and I'll be more than happy to mail you the ~1Mbyte file. If you have uudecode & unzip I can send a smaller version if you prefer. > That certainly is what would definitely show a >neutral particle caused the event! Been there, done that. > However, that does not exclude other >neutrals than the neutrino, in my view. Another test is if the neutral >event occurs any where along the detector volume. Been there, done that, too. Do you seriously want to see the event vertex distribution, or will you believe me when I state that it is indeed (as expected for neutrino events) flat with depth. > If the record always >starts at about the same place, it definitely would indicate trigger >timing effect. Huh? The event pictures I referred you to has three events in three quite distinct positions. You honestly think we don't check these things? You think you're sooooo smart and we're sooo dumb that we wouldn't notice this sort of thing? Come on! I'm sure I mentioned the flat vertex distribution in a previous post. >> Besides, other experiments have a near 0% dead time system....and >> they too see no incoming tracks. > >Yes, see Cahn and Goldhaber, p.379 about the first claim to see the >neutral current. Very clearly Gargamelle is contaminated with neutrons >and gamma rays, both of which can fake out what is trying to be proved. If you had *honestly* read the Gargamelle paper (pg394-396) you would see that literally half of the paper is devoted to the question of backgrounds...and they are adequately dealt with in this paper, given the limited statistics. Since then others have done similar and complementary experiments and analyses.....and found that the backgrounds are under control and NOT responsible for the majority of the events in question. You Tom present a very quickly moving target. Over you posting history you've shifted in you position...I'm not clear _what_ you believe: (1) neutrinos exist, but *none* have been observed (2) they have been observed, but their cross section isn't linear in E (3) CC events have been observed, but the NC's are all due to "neutrals" (4) ???? >To discount these they imagine a reason to exclude neutrons or other >neutral particles. But see how biased the statements are made, it >presupposes that neutrino beams exist, and neutrinos react in the shield >to produce the neutrons. Now i believe in neutrinos, i just question how >the literature begs the acceptance that neutrinos can penetrate without >reaction, then have the neutrinos react within a small volume detector >almost on command, creating a jet of particles. Huh? The neutrinos interact throughout the berm, we just filter out (veto) triggers that would arise from their resultant hadrons/muons *before* they enter the detector. As for the "small volume" crack, ah, during the 87-88 run there were 4 detectors in the neutrino line. Simultaneously...so we know it isn't something "magical" about our distance from the production point. I also don't consider a detector 3m by 3m in cross section and 20m long ... small. [..getting long ... so due to my non-expertise on Kamiokande II, I won't comment on Tom's, ah, "complaints", and will rather stick with his more egregeous conclusions about detection of high energy neutrinos] >>You never addressed........how..all managed to measure a linear >> dependence of cross section with neutrino energy. > >Come on, Robert, the reason that the cross section increases is because >when energy of the accelerator is raised you create more particles, and >neutrals that can produce more false positives. Sure they all No. No. No. Brookhaven might have done that, but FNAL didn't. For instance in E594 they used the FNAL main ring to produce secondaries. They bent, with magnets, all of the charged particle to one side and dumped the neutrals into a absorber. They then selected a narrow momentum range of the charged particles (with magnets and collimators) that they let travel down the decay pipe (dumping the rest into absorbers, again). Those that didn't decay in that space, were absorbed by the beam dump. And the whole kit-and-kabbodle(sp?) was followed by the berm (ie. that nasty 1km of steel and dirt). Never did the primary proton energy change, and (I don't believe) never was other than the selected secondaries pointed in the direction of the detectors. Now they had 4 different beam conditions. (From memory) One where they selected secondaries of charge - and momentum 165 GeV, the other three with charge + and momenta 165, 200, 250 GeV. Now the*vast* majority of these pions and kaons decay with two body decays, so the kinematics are quite simple. And guess what...the cross section, after accounting for the flux of charged particles selected, rose just in the proportion that one would expect given the energies. >rationalize these away, but the fact remains that the remaining events >blamed on the neutrino, may also have an alternate explanation. Neutrino >"events" if we believe theory, seldom happen, yet the literature would Not "seldom happen", but, more precisely (and *correctly*) "interactions occur with at rates *per*particle* due to the small cross section... ultimately due to the `weakness' of the weak interaction". But we can, and DO!, deal with this problem of small _individual_ rates, but cranking up the total flux. # events is proportional to cross_section times flux. Each of those pulses had order 10^12-13 neutrinos in them...The size of the primary proton extraction was _set_ in order to generate such a large flux, so that we would be insured of a reasonable rate of interactions. >have us believe that the neutrino characteristics have been measured with >precision and certainty. Sure neutrinois exist, but they do not act the >way they have been theorized, in my view. And then you must explain the events we do observe. And remember you've got to do more than wave your hands about "other neutrals". For the charged current events I'll give you a couple observations explained simply by neutrinos, but difficult to explain using other possiblities: (1) the charge selection of the secondaries vs. the charge of the muon (2) define a variable, say, "y" = E_{hadron}/(E_{hadron}+E_{muon}) Predict, using your "theory" and the standard model, the shape of this distribution. Note that it is different for events with mu^- vs mu^+, explain that difference as well. (3) Explain how something that bypasses the berm could balance the transverse momenta so exactly to make it appear as if the source were within the berm. Alternatively, explain how said "neutral" could penetrate the berm; explain the inconsistency with other measurements of the penetration properties of the proposed neutral. >Lets stop arguing who shot John and discuss just; What the neutrino has >that allows it to do all the wonderful things it is supposed to do? If >we get into that mode we will find that the standard model is the loaded >with unprecedented and crackpot ideas. Namely? Actually I _don't_ wish to get involved in a full blown "standard model is wrong" debate. I've purposely tried to keep this discussion fairly narrow and focussed based on your claims about neutrinos. Claims that you apparently can't back up so now you wish to move on to other "targets" that less you in a (possibly) less exposed position. > If these sci.physics groups just want sweetheart letters, as you claim, >it will do nothing but reinforce their specious ideas. I reserve the >privilege of politely disagreeing with any topic. I hardly consider your _initial_ comment (the one that spurred me to reply) on how physicists who measure the properties of neutrino interactions are "delusional" to be, ah, polite. >P.S. Let me remind you of the definition of libel. "Any false and >malicious written or printed statement, tending to expose a person to >public ridicule, hatred, or contempt or to injure his reputation in any >way." Take care. Hmmmm. Starting to feel the pressure so you start waving virtual lawyers at me? Now I *KNOW* that you're a crackpot. Making (very) thinly veiled threats concerning "libel" is the last refuge of the incompetent. Nothing I've said can injure your reputation worse than the things you yourself wrote. Fine, go ahead an try to sue. Heck you've encouraged me to make even a bigger stink and expose you to _more_ public ridicule/contempt, just with this one P.S. What a twerp you are. Me, I'm only adhering to the historical and familiar act of spirited public scientific debate. >Regards: Tom. -robert cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Matt Austern / Re: Electroweak theory a dream? Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Electroweak theory a dream? Date: 26 Jan 1995 21:30:31 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) In article <1995Jan26.170316.7873@dxcern.cern.ch> mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.c (Pete McNamara) writes: > >The elecrtroweak theory still needs the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson > >is unproven , because there is no way to detect it (assuming that it > >exists). Without the Higgs, theory basis is in trouble. > > > > You're right that the Higgs boson is the missing particle. That it > is impossible to detect is not so clear. It's also true that whether or not the electroweak theory requires a Higgs boson depends on just what you think the phrase "the electroweak theory" means. Spontaneously broken SU(2)xU(1) requires the Higgs mechanism, but that's a much more general statement than saying that it requires a Higgs boson; there are lots of ways that the symmetry can be broken. Is the symmetry-breaking mechanism actually just a single complex scalar doublet? Maybe; that's the simplest possibility, anyway, but not necessarily the most plausible. We won't know for sure until we do the experiment. Weinberg, I'm told (I don't recall ever having met him), uses the phrase "Standard Model" to refer to a spontaneously broken SU(2)xU(1) gauge theory where the symmetry breaking mechanism is an arbitrary number of complex scalar doublets. If you give him a funny look about that, he'll remind you who wrote down the Standard Model. -- --matt cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Richard Blue / Re: Griggs questions Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs questions Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 23:48:10 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Several people have questioned which claims concerning the GG have their origins with James Griggs and which come from Jed Rothwell. Jed has frequently responded that people with questions should call Griggs to ask him directly. I wish to pass on a report from Elliot Kennel who did just that and posted the following on Compuserve: I quote Elliot with his permission. "My assertion is that the Griggs excess heat claim has not been corroborated by outside sources on a device located at an independent lab. Griggs did not contradict this." As I read this, Griggs does not claim that excess heat has been confirmed at user's installations as has been reported by Jed Rothwell. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.28 / Robin Spaandonk / Another far out theory Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Another far out theory Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 00:19:33 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway My Dear Archimedes, lover of grand music, and far out theories, this one is especially for you. You have suggested that mitochondria may contain superconductors. I would like to take this theory a little further, and assume, that they do. Furthermore by using these superconductors, they are able to use the "Whittaker channel" referred to by T.E. Bearden to control ZPE, under certain very special circumstances. The first and foremost of these, is that they act in concert, and coherently. This allows them to establish various special sub-space patterns which achieve differing effects, depending on the pattern established. It has been noted by Bearden that when the "Vacuum Triode" of Floyd Sweet was being used it weighed less, and that when power drain reached its maximum, a great rushing sound was heard as of a strong wind, and the device actually levitated. Now it is my contention that when ZPE is extracted, this is usually done in a narrow band of frequencies, because we humans happen to find this convenient. Nature however immediately restores the distribution of energy over all frequencies. This redistribution process is detectable as white noise at all frequencies. However human senses are only capable of detecting frequencies in the audio and visual range, hence the "rushing or roaring" sound, accompanying the act of levitation by Floyed's VTA, and the occasional bright light display that is associated with UFOs and which I will return to shortly. Now back to the mitochondria. It is now not surprising that in order to attain such a state of coherent operation, a centralized control mechanism is required. Such a mechanism exists in the human brain, in a particular centre. It is usually activated when someone enters a special state of trance. This state is sometimes referred to as a special state of grace. It has on occasion been achieved by monks in the middle ages who have succeeded in levitating while in prayer. It may help to point out at this time, that the mitochondria are more likely to switch to this mode of operation as a means of supplying energy to the body, when other forms of energy are in short supply, that is when one is starving. This may be the very reason why ascetics starve themselves to attain spiritual communion (spiritual communication through the "Whittaker channel"?). I now return to my previous mention of special lighting effects accompanying the use of ZPE. Could this be the origin of the "Aura" or "Halo" said to surround the especially holy (i.e. those using the "Whittaker channel" for spiritual communication)? It is also possible that the brain-centre does not of itself have the ability to establish the requisite patterns, but only opens a communications channel through which God then provides them. Such use of ZPE by mitochondria would "explain" many of Christ's miracles, from walking on water to a 40 day famine, to healing the sick (use of ZPE within the "patient's" body to combat disease - see various discussions of "orgone energy" etc.). It would seem that if the "Whittaker channel" actually does exist, then those who are especially adept at its use, might be able use it to transport themselves as well, thus explaining the appearance and disappearance of "angels" accompanied by "bright light" described throughout the bible. It has long been my belief that eventually all seeking of the truth must lead to the same place. As both science and religion strive to this end, it seems only logical that the two should eventually meet. I suspect that my small missive may be an indication of that meeting place. It has not been my intention to offend, and I would hope that any who do feel offended by the above will be able to find it in their hearts to forgive me. My apologies also to those who's work I have referred to, without giving proper reference. Some how it did not seem appropriate in this particular document. And lastly, my apologies to God, Who least of all I wish to offend. Robin van Spaandonk Fiat Lux cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Gregory Hansen / Ion Beam Fusion Originally-From: hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu (Gregory L Hansen) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Ion Beam Fusion Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 23:48:42 GMT Organization: University of Minnesota Hello. I'm interested in fusion by shooting an ion beam at a target. Seems to me it should be much easier and cheaper than 80 million kelvin and immense pressures inside a tokamak. But I've been having trouble hunting down references. Can anyone give references to ion beam fusion, high current energy efficient accelerators, that sort of thing? cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenhans0174 cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Harry Conover / Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Date: 27 Jan 1995 00:34:06 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote: : conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) asked: : : "Now, Jed, tell us all loudly and clearly: What kind of fuel does an : electrically fired boiler use, and how do we compute efficiency?" : : And I responded that here in Georgia, electrically fired boilers run on : coal and fission. We get some hydroelectricity too, I should add. Harry : writes: : : "I rest my case. This, from the same guy that posts claims of : 300% energy efficiency for an electric motor-driven water pump!" : : What case do you rest, Harry? What is your theory? Do you think electricity : shows up at your door for nothing? Didn't anyone ever tell you that it is : generated in coal burning electric power plants. Go stand next to a railway : some day, and you will see great long trains passing by carrying millions of : tons of coal. Where do you think they are going? What do you think they : are doing with the stuff? Obviously, Jed, the term 'reference frame' means nothing to you. If you ever study a scientific or technical subject, you'll learn it to be a most important concept, since without specifying your reference frame, you can claim almost anything your want. (Of course, Jed, you do this all the time.) As difficult as it will be to accomplish with you, let me try to illustrate this basic analytical concept for you using a rather simplistic model. Suppose that I wish to discuss the subject of energy efficiency. Since I wish to communicate some intelligent point, and not simply wave my arms, it is incumbent upon me to first define my frame of reference. Lets say, as a trivial example, that I wish to discuss the energy efficiency of a fuel fired boiler. In limiting the context of my comments to a limited frame of reference, in this case 'the fuel fired boiler', I have eliminated ambiguity and any intelligent reader will realize that I am not discussing operation of the boiler in conjunction with an energy distribution system, or the cost of acquisition of the fuel. It becomes clear to all that I am considering only the boiler system itself. Having now established the context or frame of reference for my discussion, I can proceed to my comments without fear they will be misunderstood. Context: Fuel fired boiler system Measure: Energy efficiency Computation: Energy Input/Energy Output Fuel: Gas: Thermal energy supplied to the burner Coal: Thermal energy supplied to the burner Electricity: Electrical energy supplied to the heating element Please notice, Jed, that I did not shift my frame of reference when going from Gas or Coal to electricity, as you did, because to do so would be stupid, and would produce a meaningless comparison (as you did). Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Harry Conover / Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: DoE stats on power plant efficiency Date: 27 Jan 1995 01:44:59 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : Computation: Energy Input/Energy Output Whoops, I slipped up and posted the Rothwell computation for Griggs energy efficiency. :-) (Just kidding, Jed.) Obviously, the correct version is: Efficiency = Energy Output/Energy Input Sorry. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Harry Conover / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: 27 Jan 1995 02:01:12 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : : There are no avenues to explore. The techniques used to measure heat have been : in the textbooks for the last 150 years, unchanged. It is a gigantic flow : calorimeter. Unless you think 4.2 joules does not equal a calorie, or one BTU : is not a pound of water raised one deg F, there are no open scientific : questions to discuss vis a vis calorimetry. Jed, 4.18 Joules = 1 calorie, not 4.2. This is an error of nearly .5%. If the balance of your measurements are off by as much, I can understand why you mistakenly believe you have "excess energy" and why I repeatedly keep asking for your error analysis. Harry C. ps. A friend of mine once said: "It doesn't matter if you're dealing with an incompetent or a fraud. Your defense should be identical for either." cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Harry Conover / Re: The Griggs Test Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Griggs Test Date: 27 Jan 1995 02:26:04 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : : Don't be ridiculous Tom. You *do not have* sufficient resources. You could : not get a GG into your house or your basement, and you are not going to : spring for a three phase electric power hookup. You do not have heavy : lifting equipment or welding equipment in your basement. : Jed, having worked with Tom, I assure you that he is **very** resourceful. (Do I sense a panic setting in?) Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Chuck Harrison / Re: MRA independently tested Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: MRA independently tested Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 01:59:22 GMT Organization: Fitful In article <3g6lfq$lqq@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says... > >In article <3g65jm$31l@boris.eden.com>, Scott Little says: >> >>Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) [...] > >OK, everybody, this is how it's done!! Anyone trained in science can >look at this paper and see that it has the proper form. Not only that, >reading it one sees that it has the proper content to be believed. Aww, Tom, how can you say that? Not an error bar in sight! This is a qualitative test of a conventional hypothesis with a complete mechanism. And it's a good job of it. You, like most of us here, are uncomfortable with similarly-developed data on the GG. It's not because Puthoff & Little exhibit Droege-like attention to experimental error (e.g. they seem to be aware of the power lost in the ammeter but not in the voltmeter). The difference is that the GG hypothesis (over-unity) is unconventional, and the mechanism is quite speculative. This, also is pretty normal. Under Bayesian probability theory, the effect of particular evidence on your estimate of likelihood depends on whether you thought it was probable in the first place. It's easy to convince a man-in-the-street engineer or scientist that the Puthoff/Little measurements were correctly made, because they gave the result we expect. It's hard to convince the same engineer- in-the-street that Griggs' measurements were correctly made because the results are so unusual. That's why people (including you) go there to visit! I'm afraid that (based on past history) I am forced to doubt you when you say a paper like this, with no error estimates, would "really catch [your] interest" if it had given an answer you didn't expect. Keep your spectacles on, Tom; you're our eyes & ears! -Chuck it gave an unc cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Chuck Harrison / Ti:H:O - Reifenscwheiler etc Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Ti:H:O - Reifenscwheiler etc Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 02:19:51 GMT Organization: Fitful Behavior of Ti:H:O Surfaces 26 Jan 95 The titanium-hydrogen-oxygen system exhibits much interesting behavior, including, but not limited to nuclear phenomena (of uncertain repeata- bility) such as Reifenschweiler's anomalous tritium activity [1] and "Italian style" cold fusion [2]. I have been puzzling over the published literature on Ti and have recently been formulating ideas about its surface chemistry. I would very much appreciate contact with other individuals who have knowledge in this field, as I have been working in a partial vacuum [bad pun :-) ]. I briefly sketch my latest ideas below; I think they have meaningful support in the experimental literature, but in this sketch I have not put in any citations. Several relevant articles can be found in [3]. At room temperature, vacuum-deposited pure Ti films form grains of the alpha phase, hexagonal close packed (hcp) crystal structure, and predominanly expose the {0001} surface which has a planar hexagonal lattice. Imagining a close-packed billiard-ball surface, we see recesses (or "pockets") among the balls, each with three-fold symmetry. There are twice as many pockets as there are Ti atoms (i.e. billiard balls). Now, considering the second-to-surface atomic layer, we find each atom located directly under one of these pockets. Pockets like this we call "B sites" on the surface. The other half of the surface's pockets have no underlying atom and we call them "C sites". A fresh Ti surface is chemically very active; here we are specifically concerned with oxygen and with hydrogen isotopes. These atoms occupy the surface pockets, and can also diffuse into the bulk lattice. When a clean Ti film under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV, ~1e-9 torr or better) is exposed (at room temperature) to molecular hydrogen H2, it is rapidly sorbed. This occurs in several steps. The molecular H2 is physisorbed by Van der Waals forces near the surface. Then the molecule is dissociated into H atoms which occupy adjacent pockets on the surface (chemisorption). At this stage, one adatom is in a B site and one is in a C site. The B sites (the ones with a second- layer atom underneath) have a deeper potential well than the C sites, so the adatoms can rest stably there. From the C site, the adatom (which is in a transient excited state due to the release of the chemisorption energy) can follow one of two paths: (1) hop on the surface to an adjacent B site, or (2) penetrate the surface layer and dissolve into the bulk lattice. Experimentally, it appears that (1) is about 30 times as likely as (2). Thus, under dilute conditions, all but ~1.5% of the hydrogen is adsorbed onto the surface layer and settles into the B sites. Diffusion into the lattice is impossible from the B sites because of the second-layer atom. In bulk Ti at room temperature, hydrogenation proceeds until the surface B sites are fully occupied. After that, sorption virtually ceases. There are three different ways to overcome this obstacle and add more hydrogen to the system: (1) raise the temperature, (2) lower the temperature (!), and (3) work with thin films. Raising the temperature increases the thermal energy of the adatoms, allowing them to become mobile on the surface and hop to C sites, from which they can be absorbed. This is a common way of hydriding Ti metal. Lowering the temperature works through a different mechanism. At near liquid N2 temperature (90K), the thermal energy is low enough so that physisorbed H2 molecules are retained at the surface. (At room temperature the physisorption bond is too weak to be stable.) At low temperature, hydrogen is first chemisorbed rapidly up to full occupancy of the B sites. Further sorption occurs much more slowly, and it appears that the new rate-limiting step is penetration from the surface C sites to the bulk lattice. This phenomenon has been observed on thin films but I have not seen it reported for bulk Ti. In thin films, the surface-to-volume ratio is quite high, and a third mechanism can come into play. Hydrogen is only slightly soluble in the alpha-phase (hcp) lattice; above an atomic ratio of H:Ti ~ 0.0012, a phase transition occurs and small zones of titanium hydride begin to precipitate in the face-centered cubic (fcc, or cubic close packed, or "gamma" phase) structure. In a high surface-to-volume-ratio preparation, the 1.5% of the sorbed hydrogen which actually dissolved in the lattice is enough to initiate precipitation of the hydride *before* the surface B sites become saturated. When a patch of surface converts to gamma (fcc) phase, the potential of the surface is modified slightly (the Fermi level changes) and the depth of the "B" wells is reduced. [The fcc phase exposes its {111} face which exhibits the same planar hexagonal symmetry, with B and C sites, as the hcp {0001} face.] This makes it possible for adatoms in the B sites to hop out, even with their room-temperature thermal energy, enter an adjacent C site, and enter the lattice. The thin film continues to absorb hydrogen, albeit more slowly, and close to full stoichiometry (TiH2) can be reached. As the hydriding continues, there can come a point where a positive-feedback effect kicks in: the adsorbed surface hydrogen, finding itself on a newly-transformed patch of hydride, promptly enters the lattice. This causes more hydride to form, encouraging more surface adatoms to enter the lattice. Very quickly the entire surface population of adsorbed hydrogen is incorporated into hydride. This kind of "step function" phase change has been observed experimentally. So far we have been discussing hydrogen and titanium only. Oxygen also adsorbs on Ti, and when it does so it "poisons" the surface for hydrogen absorption, even well above room temperature. Oxygen, like hydrogen, is a diatomic gas which dissociates and chemisorbs. Oxygen preferentially adsorbs to the C sites (those without underlying second-layer metal atoms) and will penetrate from there into the lattice. At room temperature a surface layer several atomic layers deep incorporates oxygen atoms before a sample becomes saturated. Oxygen blocks hydrogen absorption by preventing access to the C sites which serve as gateways to the bulk. It also blocks desorption of hydrogen which has previously been adsorbed into the B sites. This is because normal desorption can be activated below 200C by two small steps: first an atom hops to an adjacent C site, then combines with an adatom in an adjacent B site to form a free H2 molecule. If the C site is blocked by an O atom, the temperature must reach ~350C before (1) the H has enough energy to hop *over* the O and reach another H atom on the next B site, or (more likely, I think) the oxygen overcomes its surface-to-bulk activation energy and quietly gets out of the way. This behavior is evident in Reifenschweiler's data. The technique used by Reifenschweiler, specifically the immediate exposure of a fresh film to 3H, followed by extended exposure to a not-too-good vacuum (~1e-5 torr), could be expected to lead to an interesting surface condition. We could have a "50-50" coverage of the surface, with H atoms on the B sites and O atoms on the C sites. This "hexagonal checkerboard" of Ti, O, and H in a regular lattice *may* have a relatively flat surface potential from the point of view of additional hdyrogen atoms attempting to chemisorb there. A flat potential surface (i.e. one in which the individual potential wells are not separated by high walls) encourages quantum delocalization of entire adatoms in a fashion analogous to the delocalization of conduction electrons in metals. It is possible (but by no means well-established) that QM theory supports a modification to nuclear reaction probabilities under these conditions. The "dry cold fusion" experiments which occasionally have shown nuclear reaction products on deuterided titanium have been performed with bulk Ti (sponge, shavings, lathe turnings, etc.) and many later protocols have been designed to encourage efficient absorption of 2H into the metal lattice. Ironically, these experiments seem to have performed less well than earlier ones in which sorption was quite small. This is slight evidence that a surface effect is involved. One may conjecture that, in successful experiments of this type, a 50-50 O-H "checkerboard" surface was obtained, at least in small regions, by pure luck. This is, of course, highly speculative. Whether or not the Ti-mediated nuclear anomalies are explainable by this theory of surface behavior, the analysis remains interesting from a "pure science" point of view, as well as having major technological implications for heterogenous catalysis and for hydrogen storage. I reiterate my invitation for interested parties to contact me. Chuck Harrison +-----------+ [1] O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles", _Phys Lett A_ 184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994). [2] E Botta, T Bressani, D Calvo, A Feliciello, P Gianotti, C Lamberti, M Agnello, F Iazzi, B Minetti, A Zecchina, "Measurement of 2.5 MeV neutron emission from Ti/D and Pd/D systems", _Nuovo Cimento A_ 105A(11):1663-1671 (1992). [3] C Harrison, "An Annotated Bibliography of the 'Reifenschweiler Effect'", internet URL file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/ physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt, 26 December 1994. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Dieter Britz / Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:36:34 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Dieter Britz wrote: > > Darryl Owen now supports the idea of a moderated offshoot group, and there > are others. I have thought about this and concluded that the motive for > such a group is in fact not to separate hot fusion from cold, but to set > up a group that deals with the science, rather than the money or the > propaganda or the snake oil, of fusion. So I now think we might be served > well with a group like spf.research (just a suggestion, following the > sp.research lead), that would include both hot and cold fusion.I have > nothing against the occasional postings by Bob Heeter etc. I do have a > lot against all the hype, the Plutonium postings and the epidemic of > irrelevant cross postings that have filled this group. Even skipping this > stuff takes up valuable time. > > We need a moderator. Any volunteers? When we have one, what is the next > step? Whom does one approach with a new-group suggestion? > Meanwhile, we did get a willing moderator, in the person of Scott Hazen Mueller, who has volunteered. He would do it semiautomatically. I propose we call the new group sci.physics.fusion.research (with some small misgivings about it but failing to find a better name) and I'll go ahead with it, unless someone gives me pretty good reason not to. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / MRA independently tested Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: MRA independently tested Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:04 -0500 (EST) Scott Little writes: -> An MRA device provided by Joel McClain and Norman Wooten was -> tested for power efficiency. The MRA is essentially a power -> converter, driven by an audio frequency AC voltage and producing -> a DC output. Our tests included meter measurements, made in the -> manner employed by McClain and Wooten, and digital oscilloscope -> measurements, which provided high-resolution recording of input -> voltage and current traces. Our meter measurements duplicated the -> results reported by McClain and Wooten which would appear to -> indicate over-unity (>100% efficiency) performance at certain -> frequencies, but only because the reactive behavior of the system -> is not properly taken into account by this measurement procedure. -> The digital oscilloscope measurements, which correctly account -> for the effects of circuit reactance, yielded a nearly constant -> 50% efficiency at all frequencies. Unfortunately this confirms exactly what I have been trying to say about this device. Too bad it took this long before someone who knows how to make AC power measurements got involved and put this issue to rest. If my suggestions on how to make the measurements had been heeded last Dec. this would have been discovered in the first few days of these postings. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Richard Schultz / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: 26 Jan 1995 17:38:31 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >A subtle error will produce a suble effect. Tell that to the designers of the Nimitz Freeway, or, for that matter, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Or, better yet, the astronauts of Apollo 1 -- after you dig them up. -- Richard Schultz ". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate." Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_ cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.27 / Frank Close / request to scott mueller Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: request to scott mueller Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:51:31 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Scott, Can you disconnect me from receiveing Fusion Digest until further notice. The CF issue seems to have now become totally submerged beneath noise and Bill Page has a discussion group on ICCF5 papers that seems nearer to the original spirit of the group. If something comes up in future I may resubscribe but in the meantime there is a flood of stuff demanding more immediate attention here at the lab. Thanks for moderating the group for so long. I may post stuff if anything relevant comes up, in particular about the Japanese work that I discussed with MITI etc. last August but which is still private. All I can say is it bears little relation to the claims put out hyping it on the net and this, in particualr, convinces me that much of the stuff put out by CFRA is either pure invention or simple misunderstanding following from basic ignorance. Either way, it has much reduced the newsgroup as a source of reliable information. Please feel free to post this; anyone who wishes to make ad hominem comments can thereby be assured that I shall not be reading them. I hope that the insistent claims made by CFRA on behalf of CF, with accompanying diatribes promising the ruin of John Huizenga, Morrison, SIR (sic) John Maddox, et al. are safely stored for posterity so they are not forgotten; the only question really is whether anyone will be left who cares. Reduce the list by one: Bye Frank Close cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / prasad / Re: Griggs Questions Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Questions Date: 26 Jan 1995 19:36:45 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center In article <3g5v9k$4ib@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: |> Looks like John is the only one in the group capable of following |> instructions. I asked you all to use the standard "Griggs Questions" |> heading for questions to be considered during the Griggs visit. Come ... ;-) Tom, I suggest that you take a good look at the photographs and video that Griggs showed us at the Cold Fusion Day at MIT. Video shows all the now-famous thermocouples etc. and the data acquisition computer.. (now, is the excess power due to a bug in the software? :] ) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / prasad / Re: A <> at MIT! Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A <> at MIT! Date: 26 Jan 1995 19:39:32 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center In article <3g60bk$4ib@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: |> Thanks for the nice report. Glad you liked it. Wish you a <> in Rome, GA! Your visit was asked about, BTW, and Griggs was happy to mention the date. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.25 / jim bowers / Re: Water heater sales Originally-From: jim bowers Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Water heater sales Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:17:17 EST Organization: Penn State University In article <3fmn9f$ouq@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) says: > >In article , wrote: > >>. . .They produce 10% to 30% excess heat. . . . >>It is not as efficient as a gas or oil fired boiler. . . > >I'm not an engineer, so maybe I'm mising something here. Did you change >the definition of "efficient" between these two sentences? On casual >reading, it looks like you are saying that a gas or oil fired boiler >produces *more* than 30% excess heat. actually that term is correct in this usage when you figure in the "efficiency" of producing the electricity to power the device. Jim Bowers cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenFQV cudfnjim cudlnbowers cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions for the Griggs visit ..... Date: 26 Jan 1995 20:53:32 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: [...] > Yes, I said that, but I surely did not mean that he should take *no > measurments at all*! None?!? That is absurd. That is exactly like going > to an art gallery and not looking at any of the pictures. It is true that > you cannot take in the full impact of every painting at the Freer Gallery > in one day, but you can see quite a lot. Tom proposes to go all the way > to the gallery, walk in the front door, look at the coat rack room, turn > around and leave town. > [...] > > I think that Tom's approach is designed to confuse the issue and prevent a > resolution of this absurd s.p.f. "debate." I think he plans to go there, find > some cockamamie reason not to believe it, and report that reason back here. > He does not have the guts to actually prove what he says, by bringing in > an instrument and showing a mistake. He will pretend there is a mistake and > he will weasle out of having to prove it by saying "I did not take any > measurements." A person who really believed he could find a mistake -- or not > find a mistake and verify it -- would do the job and get it over with. > I say put up or shut up; disprove it if you can. Tom does not dare try, so > he will take no measurements. He will describe the equipment he says. Big > deal! So what? I listed all the equipment months ago. Anyone who wants more > information on the instruments can contact GE or Eaton. Going to Rome to > get information you can get by fax just as easily is a waste of time. > Jed, I appreciate your efforts in bringing matters of interest before this forum, and I respect your honesty about the data you present, but we often disagree on interpretation. This, however, is a bit much. I don't recall seeing your name on the list of sponsors for this trip, so who are you to be raising such a ruckus over the planned events for the trip? In short, who asked ya? --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / A Plutonium / Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Moderated group, second (third) thoughts Date: 26 Jan 1995 20:34:51 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article Dieter Britz writes: > Darryl Owen now supports the idea of a moderated offshoot group, and there > are others. I have thought about this and concluded that the motive for > such a group is in fact not to separate hot fusion from cold, but to set > up a group that deals with the science, rather than the money or the > propaganda or the snake oil, of fusion. So I now think we might be served > well with a group like spf.research (just a suggestion, following the > sp.research lead), that would include both hot and cold fusion.I have > nothing against the occasional postings by Bob Heeter etc. I do have a > lot against all the hype, the Plutonium postings Brilliant idea, I hope all of the computer jocks such as Dieter who knows little about physics move over to this newly created kookdom, or fiefdom of spf.research. Its final name should be spf.research.goofballs. I nominate S. Jones for moderator or perhaps John Maddox after he is let go from NATURE will have plenty of time on his hands. And then all of you anti-CFers can hold hands, jump up and down, and watch reruns of the Captain Kangaroo show. Maybe John Baez with his bombed out sci.physics.research can give you advice on what not to do for your new group. cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Thomas Lockyer / Re: Neutrino magnetic moment Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Neutrino magnetic moment Date: 26 Jan 1995 20:08:46 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au) wrote: : > So, i assumed that if the neutrino has a small mass and is not a : > composite particle, then it should have a magnetic moment close to its : > calculated magneton inversely related to twice its small unique mass. : > If that mass is small, the magnetic moment should be enormous. : > : > Regards: Tom. : > : > -- : > Thomas N. Lockyer : > 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane : > Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 : > Tel. (415)967-9550 : ________________________________________________________________ : Perhaps my ignorance is showing here, but surely a particle can only : have a magnetic moment, if either it, or at least one of its : component parts, carries a charge? : If neutrinos are non composite particles, and we already know that : they themselves do not carry a charge, then how could they have a : magnetic moment? : Regards, : Robin van Spaandonk Robin: Yes, thats the problems for giving the neutrino mass! Every other particle in the universe that has mass also has a magnetic moment! The neutrino theory, violates another rule, all spin 1/2 particles have mass! These anomalies don't seem to deter the experimenters! The characteristics of the neutrino are quite different than presently accepted theory. I will send you a book that gives a better theory about the neutrino, "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-1-3 $6.95 postpaid. In that book, a structure is given to the electron type and the muon type neutrino, and the neutrino model shows that theoreticlly the neutrino is responsible for the mass of composite particles because it only spins in concert with the electron type structure. When free the neutrino model does not spin, so the theory does not have the problems of the standard model. You got to get the booK! It has the only precise model for the neutron and *requires* the electron and neutrino decay products from out of the rules of the model! Regards: Tom. -- Thomas N. Lockyer 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 Tel. (415)967-9550 cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.01.26 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Water heater sales Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Water heater sales Date: 26 Jan 1995 21:04:43 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: [deletia] > > The GG produces more energy in the form of heat than you input in the form > of electricity. > Perhaps. That point is in dispute. Willy nilly, so does a heat pump, however. > Unfortunatly, it takes a terrific amount of fuel to deliver that electricity. > By the time the electricity reaches your coffeepot / lightbulb / computer / GG, > two thirds of the energy have been lost. Most of the losses are at the > generator plant; others are in transmission (high tension power lines). > All true. > An electric furnace is terrible way to heat anything! It is a waste of money. > However, there are special situations and applications where you must use > electricity, so there is a limited, specialized market for these heaters. Not so. The folks who pour metal in foundries are not idiots, and have not settled upon induction heaters for the task due to gullibility. [deletia] --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 28 04:37:04 EST 1995 ------------------------------