1995.02.07 / Edward Lewis /  tweaties
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: tweaties
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:12:18 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In the December, 1994 issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the observation of tiny ball
lightning in several cold fusion experiments, and he suggests that
people use nuclear emulsions.  Sufficient evidence of the production
of things that can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the
many kinds of plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the
EB-filament paper by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.
Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure of
ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).  This is substantial proof, in my opinion.  Some of
the ring traces are very similar, and some of the other traces are
similar too.  I'd also like to suggest that people use nuclear
emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion and plasmoid experiments.
Many of the plasmoids produced by electrolysis and discharge are the
same.  And people have known for a long time that plasmoids and
discharges are associated with neutron production.  They are the locus
of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Tom Droege /  For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For the Groups Consideration
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 7 Feb 1995 16:40:09 GMT
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 17:49 -0500 (EST)
Organization: fermilab

I recently received the following message:

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 17:49 -0500 (EST)
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Resent-To: DROEGE@STORM.FNAL.GOV
To: Droege@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
Reply-To: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
Resent-Message-Id: <01HMQINYBOMC005PD5@FNAL.FNAL.GOV>
X-Vms-To: IN%"Droege@FNAL.FNAL.GOV"

Tom,
 
Matt Scudiere who works for Martin Marietta (they operate ORNL in Oak Ridge)
and I plan to drop by Hydrodynamics when you are there to learn what we can
lean what we can about the device.  I spoke with Griggs today, and he indicated
it was fine with him.
 
Looking forward to seeing you and this "magic" machine.
 
                                                                Marshall
 

After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be 
best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer.  I 
at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the
press that had asked to come along.  I have no particular need to make
this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
small problem is that I have already spent of order $150 on a cheap plane 
ticket and am not sure I can get a refund.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / J Dewdney /  supercollider info??
     
Originally-From: dewdney@unixg.ubc.ca (Jonathan W Dewdney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: supercollider info??
Date: 7 Feb 1995 03:17:59 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada


I'm looking for information of, and relating to, the (failed) supercollider
project. If anyone knows any articles, or names of people responsible or who
worked on the said project, that would be of great help. I'm an
architecture student in canada, and I'm doing a (hypothetical) thesis
project, as a renovation of the built remains of this project as a museum
of particle physics. Can anyone give me a hand on this?? i'd sure appreciate
it. Thanks,
                                Sincerely, Jonathan Dewdney.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendewdney cudfnJonathan cudlnDewdney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 /   /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 19:16:52 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Gregory L Hansen wrote:

> tokamaks get 90% of the research money.  Why is that?  Are they the best 
> possibility because they are the best design, or only because they've had 
> the most development?
> 

Tokamaks aren't neccessarily the best possibility of an energy source. 
The only reason that they get so much money is that they have the best 
salesmen. CERN isn't any better than superconducting supercolider, CERN 
just has better salesmen. Getting an idea to fly in sience is 10% 
developing the idea and 90% selling the idea.

	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion computational experimentalist

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 7 Feb 1995 04:26:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3h5nom$fkj@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
writes:
> (Michael Huffman) says:
> >
> >My name is Michael Huffman.  I've developed a small, tabletop device that
> >works on some of the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.

>> the entire machine can be made
> >for around $150. 
> 
> What is really needed are good experiments.  I agree with Dick Blue.  
> First we need an experiment where the COP is 1.000... .  Then we can 
> change conditions and will know if we have gone to 0.95 or 1.05.
> 
> Tom Droege


In this case, I don't think so. Instead, I think it would make the
best use of everyone's time for the claimer (here, Mike Huffman),
to simply provide us (say, Tom) with what he considers to be a working
device, for testing. Since he says _he_ knows how to build them
for $150, why don;t we use the remainder of the Griggs Trip Fund
to simply buy a working model from _him_ for testing. Further, he
should also procide what he considers to be a suitable test protocol.

Then, the tester (say, Tom) can use the designated device in the designated
test, and see if it measures at over unity.

At that point, one can try to diagnose where the error is, if any.

The general point is this: given that the target experiment is 
``anomolous'', it seems like a bad idea to try and get to that 
point through a series of ``standard'' experiments (i.e. using
devices, techniques and experimenters that are all ``ordinary''),
because, if the null hypothesis (i.e. nothing out of the ordinary)
because the anomolous regime may be small or nonexistent, and thus easily
missed.

Instead, its better to start from the already identified anomolous
point, and work our way back to ordinary conditions, and see what 
changes in the process.


So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device
to Tom Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee 
( ~$500, to cover costs and labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery  
of the device plus testing instructions?


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.06 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: oops... (hot) fusion jargon correction
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: oops... (hot) fusion jargon correction
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:32:15 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <3FEB95.14400211@max.pfc.mit.edu>, nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu wrote:

> (NdYAG)	neodymium yttrium arsenide garnet 

Like the movie, Aluminum and Old Lace?

You were right the first time.

Bruce Liebert

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Fusion Digest 3270
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3270
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:26:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
[SNIP]
>>>                                      ...  "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
>>> FREE LUNCH"
>>Amen brother.


>Though apparently the innkeeper has forgotten to charge us for
>the 6 x 10^24 kg planet, the large fusion reactor 1 AU away,
>the supply of fresh water, and the 3 billion years of R&D to
>produce the wheat and beef on our table.

>    --bks

>--
>Bradley K. Sherman              Institute of Forest Genetics
>bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov                           P.O. Box 245
>510-559-6437   FAX:510-559-6440       Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
><a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/~bks">Dendrome Project</a>
_______________________________________________________
You get the bill when you leave the restaurant.

Cheers,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  Tingod /  Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
     
Originally-From: me@tingod.demon.co.uk (Tingod)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WAKE UP YOU SCIENTISTS (was Non-conservation of energy)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 22:00:15 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

Sigma 9 (aavd@unm.edu) said:

>I don't think you fully understand what has happened here. The 
>destructive interference of the two overlaping beams does not destroy any 
>energy. It merely converts the energy into a direct current photon (or 
>something very close) What your saying is like saying that a photon at 
>its crest has more energy than a photon at mid-wave. That's absurd. Your 
>experiment just converts the photons energy into a form of potential 
>energy (which is unusually hard to extract, but that's not the point) The 
>thing is that the energy has not been destroied. It is still conserved.

What is a direct current photon? Photons do not have crests or mid-waves.  
Not knowing what these fantacies are I cannot comment.  However the idea
that the light's electro-magnetic energy is, at the extinction point, 
suddenly converted into potential energy (position energy) could only be 
taken seriousely if you had given a brief description of the energy- 
type-change-proccess; but you didn't.  Anyway if this were true it would 
also be a major discovery in physics. 
Your short lecture on elementay fusion was interesting. I remember 
reading similar stuff prior to graduating and spending several years 
in nuclear and particle physics research work.
You say fusion is not an attempt to create something out of nothing. 
If however you had accurately read my piece you would be aware that 
I did not say it was; or anything else about fusion.

>It was a nice try,but..no
It was a poor try at a rebuttal.


Harry H Conover said:

>Perhaps if you would explain the hypothesis, rather than conveying the 
>subject with a .gif, you might get a more spirited debate.

>Given the subject matter, many of those here with scientific training are 
>reluctant to invest in the effort to download and interpret a .gif file 
>because, if the basis of the hypothesis cannot readily be explained 
>adequately in text it, like the MRA device, is likely a the product of 
>overactive and under-informed imaginations.  

It is generally accepted that diagrams, particularly of experimental 
apparatus, make the understanding of the issues much easier.  
Also anyone making a genuine attempt to explain the observed phenomenon
will find the diagram of the light paths essential, 
and easy for reference.
It is hardly my fault if your group of scientifically trained people
are to lazy to spend a couple of mins. to produce a picture that purports
to demonstrate a new phenomenon of physics. Presumably these scientifically 
trained people would refuse to accept 100 dollar bills if offered by 
a stranger in the street.  Perhaps if this group of scientifically 
trained people were to actually carry out the experiment for themselves, 
which I always thought was what sceintifically trained people would
                         
naturally do, they might make a meaningfull contribrution.

D A Chalmers
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenme cudlnTingod cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Bryan Wallace /  The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: The Farce of Physics
Date: 7 Feb 1995 17:48:10 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

[ Article crossposted from sci.physics ]
[ Author was Bryan Wallace ]
[ Posted on 3 Feb 1995 10:59:38 -0500 ]


This post is in reply to the David M. Cook dcook@linux5.ph.utexas.edu 20 Dec
1994 13:48:46 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup
"sci.physics".

David wrote:

>...
>Most physicists and astronomers don't work with GR and don't need to.
>Still, I could easily find a dozen people here who understand the theory
>extremely well and probably a dozen more who have a pretty decent grasp of
>it.
>...

In my reply to David I would like to quote from a recent article on the
subject.  The article was by Ivars Peterson and was titled "A New Gravity? 
Challenging Einstein's general theory of relativity."  The article was
published in the December 3, 1994 Volume 146 issue of SCIENCE NEWS and starts
on page 146.  The following material was taken from the article:

  ...
     Einstein rejected the Newtonian view that masses somehow produce a force
  that permeates the surrounding space and influences the motion of any
  bodies within range.  He interpreted gravity as the curvature of space and
  time itself, with bodies traveling along the "straightest" possible paths
  through the dimpled spacetime continuum associated with the presence of
  masses and energy.  Heavier bodies would simply create larger dimples and
  greater curvatures.

     Now, the Cavendish experiment has a new role in elucidating a possible
  shortcoming of general relativity as formulated by Einstein.
     Einstein's theory fails the Cavendish experiment, insists Huseyin Yilmaz
  of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts University in Medford,
  Mass., and Hamamatsu Photonics in Hamamatsu City, Japan.  In other words,
  the equations of general relativity have no solutions in which two bodies
  of finite size actually attract each other.
     "Thus, strictly speaking, according to general relativity, and apple
  detached from its branch would not fall to the ground," Yilmaz declares.
     It's a startling and highly controversial assertion.
     "Many people realize that there's something wrong--that general
  relativity doesn't have the physics in it that one thinks," says physicist
  Carroll O. Alley of the University of Maryland at College Park, who has
  been working with Yilmaz. ...
     They have also been trying to get the attention of their colleagues,
  with limited success so far.  Yilmaz and Alley presented papers describing
  their ideas at a meeting on fundamental problems in quantum theory,
  organized by the New York Academy of Sciences and held last June at the
  University of Maryland, Baltimore County.  Additional papers will appear in
  "Frontiers of Fundamental Physics (Plenum, 1994).
     A few people have been sympathetic.  "General relativity has many
  mysteries," says Willis E. Lamb of the University of Arizona in Tucson. 
  "Einstein certainly could have done things differently.  What Yilmaz is
  trying to do seems quite plausible."
     "These are not matters that can just be brushed away," Alley contends. 
  "These are serious considerations." ...


     The Einstein equations are notoriously difficult to solve, not only
  because there are 10 of them, in contrast to the single equation of
  Newtonian gravitation, but also because they are nonlinear.  In other
  words, the gravitational effect, or potential, of a pair of masses isn't
  simply the sum of the individual gravitational potentials.
     Moreover, these potentials depend on energy and momentum flow.  This
  flow, in turn, is determined by the spacetime curvature, which is set by
  the potentials.  "Spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move; and mass
  grips spacetime, telling it how to curve," says John A. Wheeler of
  Princeton University.
     The circularity embedded in general relativity adds to the formidable
  challenge of solving the Einstein equations.  Where they can't solve the
  equations directly, theorists often resort to special mathematical
  strategies to approximate the equations and obtain particular solutions.
     Introduced in 1915 by Einstein, general relativity proved immensely
  appealing to physicists, despite its complexities and the horrendous
  difficulties of solving the equations for realistic situations involving
  more than one body. ... For example, it's clear that general relativity, in
  its present form, is incompatible with quantum mechanics. ...
     As a challenge to the relativity community, Yilmaz and Alley have
  proposed a setting in which they claim general relativity fails to show
  attraction between two bodies.  The problem they consider is the
  gravitational interaction between two nearby slabs of matter -- two
  parallel plates, each with an area much greater than its thickness --
  separated by a vacuum.
     In this case, the geometry is simple enough to allow a solution in
  general relativity.  Calculations by Yilmaz and Alley indicate that the
  slabs don't attract each other.  They remain stationary, staying right
  where they started. ...

  ... Alley and Yilmaz contend that general relativity seems to work because
  researchers must use approximations to solve the Einstein equations, and
  they incorporate within these approximations extra information not
  contained in the theory itself. ...
     General relativity plays a key role in the operation of the Global
  Positioning System (GPS), the array of satellites operated by the U.S. Air
  Force for military and civilian navigation. ... Indeed, small unexpected
  discrepancies continue to plague the operation of the GPS. ...

     But general relativity is an awesome, gigantic beast.
     Although students now routinely encounter general relativity in college
  courses, many issues remain in the domain of specialists.  Understanding
  the subtleties and intricacies of particular aspects of general relativity
  requires extensive study and attention to detail.  Extracting physical
  meaning out of the tangled mathematics is also a tricky proposition.
     Thus, it isn't easy for any one person to grasp the full theory in all
  its details.  Relativists often specialize, developing a distinctive
  viewpoint and becoming the leading authority on a particular aspect of the
  theory. ...
     "The predictions of [general relativity] are fixed; the theory contains
  no adjustable constants, so nothing can be changed," Will wrote in a Nov.
  9, 1990 SCIENCE article marking the 75th anniversary of general relativity. 
  "Thus every test of the theory is potentially a deadly test.  A verified
  discrepancy between observations and prediction would kill the theory, and
  another would have to be substituted in its place."

   In S. Chandrasekhar's article titled "Einstein and general relativity:
Historical perspectives"(Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212-1979) wrote:

  ... On this account, it would have been entirely sufficient to generalize
  the Newtonian theory to allow for such small departures which may arise
  from the finiteness of the velocity of light since we expect the Newtonian
  theory to be exact if the velocity of light could be considered as
  infinite. ...

   On page 84 of the double-spaced manuscript of my book "The Farce of
Physics" we find that near the end of his life in 1954, Einstein wrote to his
dear friend M. Besso:

  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
  concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
  my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest
  of modern physics.

On page 139 of my book, In my letter to Hollingsworth of 25 October, I wrote:

     I am afraid that Shapiro has pulled a fast one on us, the data you
  sent me can't be used for a test of the relative velocity of light in
  space.  There is very little difference in the distance between the radar
  stations so I can't show that the false theory shows the planet Venus in
  different places at the same time while the true theory shows it in the
  same place.  There is almost no difference in the observing time so I
  can't show that the false theory shows Venus doing a jig while the true
  theory shows it moving in a rational manner.

On page 142 I wrote:

    Hollingsworth admitted that while the Lab's published center value for
  the astronomical unit had stayed virtually unchanged, the graphed
  individual values ranged over thousands of kilometers, and that the
  variations were related to the relative velocities.  He also admitted that
  the data I wanted existed, but he refused to release it without Shapiro's
  permission.

On page 169 I wrote:

    I also mentioned that the prominent British astronomer Dr. G. C. McVittie
  in both publication and correspondence has indicated that he has had the
  same sort of problem in trying to obtain meaningful information from
  Shapiro, and in a 1970 letter writes that the secrecy with which Shapiro
  surrounds his methods and his observational results makes him wonder
  whether there is something to be concealed.  In McVittie's paper, he points
  out the fact that:

    in the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, an exact solution for the
    gravitational field of a set of discrete bodies is possible only when one
    of the bodies is of finite mass whereas the rest are of infinitesimally
    small mass.  This is in contrast to the Newtonian theory of gravitation
    in which an exact solution for the field of two massive bodies is
    possible, complications arising only when three or more bodies are in
    question...[81]

In my post to this Thread of 06 Jan 1995 I wrote;

  ...       I have been contacted by a federal official on a number of
  occasions regarding the instigation of such an investigation.  This same
  official has also made an official request for the Magellan data, so
  elements of it may soon be available for anyone who wants to make an
  independent evaluation of the relative velocity of light in space.  I will
  post further details to this Thread as they become available.

In an email letter dated 19 Jan 1995 the official wrote;

  ... I'm getting some "run around" from NASA on the probe data. ...

   Modern physics is for the most part, a farce, because its foundation is
permeated by pathological and political arguments.  The foundation of these
arguments is the abstract mystic infinite mass/momentum/energy stationary
ether/space/vacuum/wave model that dominates modern physics.  It would be a
relatively simple matter to make a dramatic test of this model by an objective
analysis of the Magellan data.  The problem is trying to get the pathological
scientists and politicians that control the data to perform an objective
comparison of the stationary ether model to the alternative more realistic
conserved mass/momentum/energy dynamic ether/particle model, or to share the
data with those who would like to perform such an test.

  My book "The Farce of Physics" is now archived in many Internet libraries
and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from
Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's.  Also a free Hypertext
version for Windows 3.1 will soon be available from OmniMedia via anonymous
ftp and the free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp
from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get
farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called
farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the
uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that
will uncompress the .gz format.  There is a GZIP111.ZIP utility that will
uncompress the .gz format on a PC.  Also in the directory you will find a file
called farce-of-physics.gz which contains the complete up to date archival
discussion Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup "sci.physics" for
those without news-feed.  The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the
book is available via URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html  If
one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send the
request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size limit
for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB for
Chapter 3.  There is also a plan to publish a low cost paperback version of
the book in early 1995 that will have an epilogue that will bring it up to the
present time.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
Date: 7 Feb 95 20:10:35 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi folks, have a nice day :) ...........
I have finally received what I believe are all of the reports of 
Jim Griggs talk at the MIT CF day on 21-JAN-95. These reports
(and other spf articles), lead me to offer a tentative but rather
easily testable theory of operation for the Griggs device....
The basic claims by Griggs I derive from Ref1 where Prasad states...
Note my clarifications are in brackets [.......]

"While Jim says he had to sidestep over-unity [o/u] and claim it
simply to be very efficient, his "pumps" at customer sites are
definitely o/u, and at least some customers do appreciate the 
fact (or [heat out to AC power input] measurements if you will).
Gain factor generally seems to be 1.25 through 1.5 and the one at
the Fire Station seems to be doing 1.36 over the last two years,
if I heard right."

So, we have a pump which, with a "normal" rotor (no holes), will
generate heat by means of hydro-friction with an efficiency of
somewhat >90%. So far so good, I have no problem with this.....
When holes are drilled in the rotor and the pump "tuned" by varying
the input water parameters (flow and pressure I believe, from one
of Jed's posts), the device generates ultrasonics which by some
-unknown- mechanism, are responsible for the approx 1.35:1 ratio of
heat output to AC power input.(This is the "over unity" gain.)

Now, the "tuned" system -must- require -more- input current 
(and therefore power) -just in order to generate the powerful
ultrasonics- responsible for the   "...*massive melting* that 
has occurred on the periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminium
rotors on several occasions. ..." (Ref 2). Prasad in (Ref 1)
also states that "...2000 C is well within cavitation range.."
I still see no paradoxes here, as the extra (over unity) heat
could well be -provided by the ultrasonics- heating the water,
rotor and probably the casing of the pump; no -unknown effect-
is required to explain the extra heat; the nub of the problem
is that the extra power (& current) required to produce the
ultrasonics has apparently not been measured or accounted for.
If indeed there is an increase in the input power -to produce
the ultrasonics- then figures on the efficiency of the
conversion of the ultrasonics into the overunity heat should
be available. These figures have not been forthcoming or
mentioned by anyone, despite my request for them.
It is, of course, possible that the powerful ultrasonics are
being generated by negligible AC input power by some
 -unknown effect- ......... :) ..........

My question for Tom on his coming visit to Jim Griggs is.....
  "Could you please try to find out where the power for the
     ultrasonics comes from ?"
The smart money in spf appears to be on the powermeter not
reading the (ultrasonic) input power correctly.

Ref 1 .......Prasad's post to this news group, 24 Jan 1995,
              "A <<LONG DAY>> at MIT!"
Ref 2 .....Gene Mallove's post a "Brief Report on MIT IAP Cold
            Fusion Day."
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

The above text is solely my responsibility.
      
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:47:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950204164330.138739A-100000@pegasus.unm.edu>
Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu> writes:
>On 3 Feb 1995, Phil Snyder wrote:
>
>> For fusion of deuterium and tritium (the reaction with
>> by far the largest cross section in the energy range of 
>> interest), the fusion cross section has a maximum of
>> around 5*10^-24 cm^2 at an energy of around 70 keV.
>
>This is not entirely true. Although the cross section of a D-T
>reaction does peak at 5 barnes, it does so at just over 100keV,
>not 70keV.

In a study  delivered at one of those Miley lead aneutronic meets, 
someone presented a paper on burns with D-^3He (Maglich I think).  
Anyway, the jest.. ah! ..  gist of the paper was that between 
70 and 74 MeV (72.4?) the stuff burned well with a LOW ratio of 
D-D burns which otherwise produce  neutrons and muddy everything up.  
I think the number dropped from 5% to around 2% at this more ideal 
temperature.  I'm not remembering if that was a 50/50 mix or if they 
were also running it ^3He rich.. which is another story for changing 
the way we shall likely remember discriminatory differences with the 
advent of the the first fusion and aneutronic burners.  

>	-Sigma9
>	 C.E.O Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion theorist and computational experimentalist

Light ion??? you mean you don't fusion heavy ions with their antimatter
twins?   I thought anything was possible in theory... except real stuff.  
                     :-)
So how is G. Yonas these days, some of you (lifs) may know.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / I Johnston /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:00:33 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <D3Krnv.1tr@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes: 

: >
: >John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote:
: >
: >: An induction motor wants to run at its rated speed, and it would take
: >: many times the motor's power rating to make it run faster.
: snip
: >In short - it doesn't matter what you do, you won't get the motor to run
: >faster than synchronous.
: >
: >Ian
: >
: >PS Unless you put power in ... which might unscrew the rotor of the pump
: >.. devilish grin...
:  all that aside....

: I recomend you contact the comapany's that are supplying 0 to 150% slip speed 
: motors to Chrysler Corp for use in their electric vehicles. I think you will find 
: in the data books that there is a mode called *regenerative mode*, that does 
: exactly as implied; feeds power back through the buss. This feature is planned 
: for the use of regenerative power for the batteries. 

: I think your data is about five years old. You need to see what has recently come 
: out from any of the motor manufacturers. The way they do it is to make super duty 
: motors vis-a-vis larger armatures and higher temp insulations. The results are a 
: three phase motor that can be optimised to run at high effeciencies no matter 
: what the speed of the motor is and regeneration at over slip speeds.

Which is exactly what I said, dear boy. If the motor in this small
device is producing power it will have a maximum speed, and will only
exceed that if it's absorbing. Did you read the PS to my posting?

Are you now claiming that these small pumps produce mechanical power as
well as excess heat?

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Steve Lake /  JET Labs fusion stuff
     
Originally-From: Steve Lake <stevel@henleymc.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET Labs fusion stuff
Date: 7 Feb 1995 13:24:39 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

Hi,

I'm interested in something that I vaguely remember seeing on TV about 
a year ago. It was on a documentary about the JET nuclear fusion 
project here in good ol' England, and the bit I want to know about
was some "incident" in 1983(4) when the plasma "do-nut" inside their 
reactor twisted and lifted the whole thing 2cm off the ground.

Firstly, is it true. Did it really happen ?
Secondly, has anyone got any solid details on it.

Cheers

Steve

(P.S. sorry if this post seems a bit daft, i'm a computer technician, 
not a scientist 8-)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenstevel cudfnSteve cudlnLake cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 11:14:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>The question then is: does the GG remain in over-unity mode indefinitely,
>or does it cycle between the two modes?
 
As I stated previously, it flip flops. When the power draw drops, it is
in over unity operation. When the power draw goes back up, it stops producing
excess energy. However -- as I have said a million times -- this *cannot*
be due to stored energy because you can lock it into the low input power
mode and have it generate excess all afternoon, or all year, if you like.
Once you find the right combination of pressure and flow you lock down the
valves (literally: with a locknut) and you leave it running in that mode
indefinitely. If it was stored energy, after some period of time the effect
would fade out. Perhaps it would be 20 minutes or perhaps an hour. Surely,
it cannot be six months!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 11:15:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
 
     "Given the above, would it be reasonable to assume that power
     consumption drops, when the rotor is primarily surrounded by steam
     rather than water, leading to a drop in friction?"
 
I don't know. Perhaps it is surrounded by steam. In any case, when it goes
into this mode, the balance between input and output shifts dramatically. A
great deal of excess energy is generated. When the water level gets too low
and the rotor is mostly churning air and water vapor, the effect goes away.
 
 
     "(pity that the housing is not transparent)."
 
I believe they tried a transparent housing, but it did not survive. There is a
small window in the housing which allows you to gage the water level. The
newly reported replication from Huffman employs a transparent housing. I do
not yet have complete information on that, so I cannot vouch for it, but I am
investigating it.
 
 
     "This  raises the question, how much power does the GG consume when
     running dry, ie no water at all running through it, just air?"
 
It does not take much power. It depends on the motor size. As I recall the 30
HP motor drew about 4 KW in air alone.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ian's stored heat hypothesis
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 11:16:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The Griggs device and its replications cannot be running on stored heat for
two reasons:
 
1. It continues to generate heat much longer than any stored heat hypothesis
would allow; ie, it will generate heat continuously for months.
 
2. Blank runs generate no heat. For example, when a rotor with no holes is
employed, the C.O.P. is well below 100%. If the effect was due to stored heat,
then it stands to reason that since a rotor with no holes has more mass it
will store more heat. Unless, that is, you think the heat is stored in the
holes . . .
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /   /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: Sigma9 <aavd@unm.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:57:17 -0700
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Paul M. Koloc wrote:

> 
> Light ion??? you mean you don't fusion heavy ions with their antimatter
> twins?   I thought anything was possible in theory... except real stuff.  
>                      :-)


What would be the point of fusing antimatter when it takes the same 
amount of energy to create the antiparticles as you would get out of the 
reaction. Is it just me or does this seem a little counterproductive?


	-Sigma9
	 C.E.O. Digitalis Development
	 Light ion fusion computational experimentalist

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenaavd cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / Richard Blue /  Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 15:53:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As a contributer to the Droege travel fund I wish to express my
opinion concerning the trip.  I am in agreement with Tom that
what is needed is a minimization of competing and potentially
interfering interests as represented by the presence of other
parties.  It is unfortunate that arrangements for the trip
had to be made on such a public forum with the result that
the whole world knows about it.  I vote for keeping it simple.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:16:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>CERN isn't any better than superconducting supercol[l]ider

Just a hell of a lot cheaper. And no need to dig up another unspoilt part of
the country. And a genuine international venture, unlike the "you pay us and
we might think of letting you in the front door" approach that the US
normally takes in such matters. (Whatever became of Spacelab?)

Michael Kenward



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Ion Beam Fusion
     
Originally-From: m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk (Michael Kenward)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:17:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Tokamaks need huge amounts of energy to operate, but the people funding 
>the research must think they are the most efficient reactors because 
>tokamaks get 90% of the research money.  Why is that?  Are they the best 
>possibility because they are the best design, or only because they've had 
>the most development?
>

One reason for this is that when it came to picking the magnetic system to
favour, tokamaks were about the only configuration with any track record.

The tokamak became a favourite at the end of the 1960s. That was when the
Russians claimed high temperatures (by the standards of the day). Nobody
really believed them. So the Brits sent a team over to Moscow with a laser
to carry out some scattering measurements on electron temperatures in T3, I
think. These showed that the Russians weren't making it up. (Is there a
moral here somwhere for the cold fusioneers?)

The '70s saw a wave of similar machines being built, including PLT at
Princeton. This confirmed the stature of tokamaks and led to the
cionstruction of TFTR and JET, among others.

Since then a number of competing configurations have come along. None has
had the backing of tokamaks. To a certain extent this does not matter
greatly. As much as anything TFTR, JET and the next generation are there to
check technology. Unlike CF, we know that hot fusion works. The real
problem, and one that may never get solved, is to put it all together in an
economic system. If an alternative configuration comes storming in on the
outside it will be possible, but hard, to switch horses.

Michael Kenward

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Richard Blue /  RE: research on the Griggs device
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: research on the Griggs device
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:17:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Once again Jorge Stolfi provides a key insight into the problem of
the operation of the GG.  So Jed has actually delivered up data
that shows that the "dry steam" output is actually 50% by mass unboiled
water.  No wonder it does not look like steam.  While this fact might
not have any great effect of the water-barrel calorimeter measurements
I don't believe the same can be said for measurements based on mass
flow and steam tables.  Now let us speculate as to how the measurements
of performance in actual factory installations have been made.

Now did I stir up a fuss when I suggested an effort to achieve a
C.O.P of 100% in a test device?  Perhaps I should clarify that by
saying that I meant to say nominally 100%.  Even learning how
"nominal" the results are can provide some useful insight into what
measurement problems there are.  Then, of course, if you can tune
the device for higher performance you should be able to move right
up to 100% and beyond.  Why not?

The other interesting idea that has been kicking around has to do
with torsional virbrations of the armature-shaft-rotor system.
If I were to look for a place where that sort of behavior might
cause measurement problems I would consider the dynamometer once
again.  There are both mechanical and electrical frequency responses
involved there.

I also agree with the analysis of what is involved in the transistion
from water-filled to steam-filled operation.  Certainly the drop
in input power is related to a decrease in the amount of water in
the pump chamber.  I can see this thing being a dandy relaxation
oscillator.  The cycle might go as follows:  Upon startup when full
of water the GG draws maximum power and quickly heats water to boiling;
As the pressure rises the water input rate drops and the chamber dries
out; The loss of water drops the power input and the pressure drops;
The water flow resumes cooling the pump interior causing a further
pressure drop;  The presence of more water increases the power input
and the cycle repeats.

Th mystery to me is how anyone would see such a device as something
likely to give reliable preformance in the long term.  My experience
is that pressure regulators, flow controls, flow meters, and control
valves are troublesome devices under the best of circumstances.  Add to
that dirty water, cavitation, mechanical vibrations and steam and I
see a system that is designed to keep the mantenance staff well employed.
No wonder they like it!

As for $150 test devices, as yet untested - anyone can heat water by
shaking or stirring.  If you are inclined to experiment I would suggest
just using a paint stirrer on a drill motor and a 5-gal bucket of
water.  Stir it to your hearts content!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  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: 7 Feb 1995 18:09:22 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3h6fs9$7bk@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>,<3gmg80$la2@borg.svpal.org> <3gnaub$10ju@msunews.cl.msu.edu>: 
>>Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes:
[for those "out of the loop" ... I got tired of this whole thread and the
limitations of this type of forum (simple ascii), so I sent Thomas a
collection of readily available pictures and plots on the topic of neutrino
detection.  The event pictures can be found on a link from my home page
    http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/
but Thomas couldn't access them through his limited link.  The other
diagrams where xeroxes of figures from my thesis.  I guess I should convert
those as well and add links :-)]

>> So for calibration reasons we bring a charged particle beam into 
>> the detector (at 53mrad angle)  Just so you don't get ideas.....
>> there is no way that where confusing events from the two sources:
>> there are *seconds* between the fast extraction.....and the slow spill.
>
>Yes, I agree that there is a clear distinction, if one can see the 
>incoming charged particle track.  

Take my word for it, they're there.  I simply omitted the prop-chambers
in order to enhance the detail of the flash chambers.  Certainly not to
hid anything.  If you *really* insist I can recreate new pictures...
(at least of these events since I've got them in various easily accesible
files).  But, yes, the incoming charged tracks *are* seen in the prop
chambers.

>                                  The flash chamber pictures you sent 
>clearly show the small angle in the test panels.  Esp. the muon and 
>bremsstrahlung in the lower right panels.  I would have liked to seen the 
>proportional counter panels along with the test ones to further verify 
>the angles from the top views.

Well, you might look at the dimuon event picture and compare the two (+/-
10degree) vertical view flash chamber panels with the proportional chamber
panel.  I think you'll find that everything is up to snuff.  <shuffle,
shuffle, sift, sift> we quote a angular resolution (for the muon) of
74 mrad/E_{\mu}.  Some of that simply comes from the inherent physical
process of scattering as the particle transverses the detector.  For the
test beam, I've quoted the *average* (or design) angle of the incoming
particles.  But there's an inherent spread.  So don't try to calculate
the angle from a single event with a short lever arm.

>As you pointed out in the mailed information, the computer has a *cute* 
>time reconstructing the tracks from the flash tubes..   It does require 

I'm not sure what you mean by *cute*.  Make no mistake, we're not trying
to reconstruct all the tracks in the hadron shower, just those of the
muons.  The hadron shower is treated as a "blob" and only the overall
angle and energy flow are measured.

>some adjustment to correct parallax from the +-10 degrees vertical tubes, 

Well, beam muon (and cosmic muons) were used to map out the detector and
provide alignment calibration.  Once alignment issues are dealt with,
then the simple matter of the +/-10 degree pseudo-stereoscopic nature
is easily dealt with with some simple math.

>to be sure.  The grids of the proportional counters do provide a rough 
>guide, as can be seen in the CC, NC and diMuon events in your post.  
>
>Clearly, unless these events are artifacts of the detection process, the 
>examples do show a neutral entering the detector and causing a shower of 
>charged particles.  

Thank you.

> One thing disturbs me, do all your events show a centering along the 
>axis of the detector.  I would expect that events could happen along the 
>edges as a result of the theoretical divergence, unless the detector is 
>biased by the computers reduction of the data.

If you look at the figure demonstrating the Energy vs. Radius distribution
you'll see that there *is* a "centering" inherent in the beam itself. But
then add in our usual cuts to remove poorly measured events (for instance
we require that the vertex (where the charged particle appear to originate
from) be some distance away from the edges ... to ensure containment of
the event) and you'll find, by construction, that the events left are
"centered".  It's just an artifact of the process of throwing away the
events that are only half in the detector.  The same cuts and restrictions
are made on the theoretical (monte carlo simulation) side to make sure we
compare apples to apples.  Besides such edge events don't make instructive
pictures (since I limited myself to one each of the important neutrino
physics processes).  Okay, so you "caught me out" trying to pass off events
I found to be `clean' as being `typical'. :-)  Rather I'd like to claim
them as `representative'.  In the process of analysis we, as physicists,
often reject noisy or hopelessly unreconstructable events, and events in
regions of phase space (ie. with some physical characteristic) where we
*know* (from theory or our understanding of the detector) that we _can't_
do a good job of simulating the process.  The test is in comparing good
theory to good data and checking for a match.  A match that I think you'll
see if you look carefully at those distributions I passed on to you.

>Regards: Tom.

Hopefully this will put an end to the "delusional physicists think they
are seeing the interactions of neutrinos" rhetoric from you.  I think I've
got a pretty damn convincing demonstration that we are *indeed* seeing
such events, and furthermore we are measuring characteristics of those
events, comparing them to the theory (the standard model) and finding
excellent agreement.  Certainly enough agreement to rule out theories that
don't have such characteristics as "cross section rises linearly , in the
regime of interest, with neutrino energy" and "the `y' distribution of 
events from neutrinos and anti-neutrinos have different shapes".

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 /  b12811@asbd19  /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: b12811@asbd19 ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: 7 Feb 95 13:26:00 MST
Organization: AlliedSignal, Phoenix, Az

-
Mike Griffin has earned a place in MY kill file just below good ol'
Archimedes...
-
Greg A. Weaver

   All opinions contained herein are unintentional, 
   and are not the responsiblity of AlliedSignal Co.,
   unless they were to have monetary value, in which 
   case, the usual yellow dog clause would probably  
   be applied by the company.                           

AlliedSignal Aerospace Corporation
Phoenix, Az.  
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenb12811 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Mike Griffin /  Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell knows (almost) everything
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 23:12:35 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division

In article <1995Feb7.132601.1941@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com>  writes:
something about his kill file.

George,

Let me guess, you're not a cold fusion skeptic!

Cheers,
Mike

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  More Thoughts on the Griggs Device.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Thoughts on the Griggs Device.....
Date: 8 Feb 95 10:08:15 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :) .........
In my last posting on the Griggs device (7 Feb), I made the
fairly logical assumption that the hydro-friction effect would
constanty provide the majority of the heat output and that the
ultrasonic (resonance?) effect, when it kicks in, provides the
excess or "over-unity"heat.
However there is (at least) one other feasible possibility worth
consideration, that the Griggs effect when it flips in during the
tuning process, is then responsible for the generation of most if
not all of the heat output.
Currently, the only way that I can visualise a reduction in the
amount of heat generated by the hydro-friction effect is by a
a drastic alteration to the rotor/steam/water interface.
One possibility as to how this might occur is to postulate that
the ultrasonics -vapourise all (or most) of the water in the pump's
cavity-. This raises the interesting possibility that the ultrasonic
effect, when it kicks in, is then operating in a totally/mostly
steam vapour enviroment. Is there any way of checking this, I
understand that a hi-tech glass window on the pump shattered, how
about a tough endoscope, or may be light pipes, possibly building
AC conduction sensors into the pump casing etc, etc.....
I would be very interested in other opinions on all the above.
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

sensors
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / William Beaty /  Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny table top Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 00:48:33 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: I recomend you contact the comapany's that are supplying 0 to 150% slip speed 
: motors to Chrysler Corp for use in their electric vehicles. I think you will find 
: in the data books that there is a mode called *regenerative mode*, that does 
: exactly as implied; feeds power back through the buss. This feature is planned 
: for the use of regenerative power for the batteries...

If I understand how induction motor regeneration works, I think you have
to LOWER the operating frequency of the drive, so the slip will go
backwards and reverse the output phase, which then pumps energy back
into the electrical system.

In a "jet pump" induction motor like Huffman uses, if the water turbine
produced mechanical power, it WOULD create overspeed and reversed slip. 
For small slip, it might take considerable power to push the rotor into
overspeed. But at higher speeds, the rotor's rotation frequency would be
so much higher than the drive frequency that the rotor would expel the
fields and no longer feel much drag.  The same thing happens with "flying
train" type maglev with DC magnets over aluminum tracks. 

I'm not saying this is definitely what happened.  I AM saying that simple
induction motors may not be so simple, torque-wise.

I'd much prefer to see the experiment done with DCPM motors, with a diode
in series to give a "freewheel ratchet" action.
-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon
Date: 7 Feb 1995 20:27:42 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3h3aqp$a8e@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>
>They say that halo-nuclie have been detected, such as 11Li (lifetime 0.0085
>seconds) by Klapisch at CERN in the mid 1970's.  Further that Tanihata at
>LLL found evidence by 1985 that 11Li was essentially a nucleus of 9Li 
>"surrounded by a diffuse halo (tens of fermis thick) formed by a dineutron
>orbiting at great distance from the nuclear "core," well beyond the range
>of simple [pi] meson exchange."

Well, this is mostly true.  The 'orbitting' image is just that, however. 
What one can say is what the rms size of the halo neutron distribution 
looks like based on somewhat crude measurements using total cross 
sections.  I have had a hard time talking people into doing radioactive 
beam experiments (Li-11 on a proton target) at high enough energy to 
map the neutron distribution more precisely. 

>That halo-nuclie can exist for 8.5mS beyond the range of the normal postulated
>strong force is quite illuminating if true.  There must be another longer
>range nuclear bond in operation, or the strong nuclear force has properties
>not yet fully explained.

This does not seem to be necessary.  Certainly it would come as a 
surprise to those who have been calculating the structure of this 
system.  You get very long tails on the distribution (and it is the 
tails that dominate an rms radius as well as total cross section 
measurements) whenever a state is very weakly bound.  In this case, 
rather than all of the nucleons having similar removal energies as is 
the case in most cases you think of, the protons are pretty tightly 
bound in the Li-9 core (along with many of the neutrons) and two of 
the neutrons are barely bound.  The e^{-gamma*r} long range part of 
Psi(r) is governed by gamma, which scales as the BE, as one learns 
in elementary QM.  That is why a short-range force can bind the 
deuteron but leave it with a large radius.  

>Their second article in the same issue is about the "omegon", which among
>other things, explains alpha decay in terms of a 1/9th fractional charged
>particle -- where they find correlations in the existing experimental data
>between alpha particle exit energy and Z (# of protons) of the parent nucleus.
>
>The "omegon" then is a longer range nuclear force than the pi meson (strong
>nuclear force) and may have bearing in CF.

Do they explain how it affects BE calculations in mass 2 and 3?  It should 
have important effects on the deuteron, and there is little room to work 
around those calculations. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull
Date: 7 Feb 1995 20:30:18 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <singtech-0602950110450001@ip-salem-22.teleport.com> 
singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
>
>In 1956 it was found that a lightly ionized volume of D2 gas produced a
>detectable number of fusion reactions without any of the reactant
>Deuterons having sufficient energy to surmount the Coulomb Barrier.  They
>wrote it off as "Wave Mechanical Tunneling" or "Barrier Tunneling" or
>"Quantum Tunneling".

1956 happens to be when muon catalyzed fusion was seen.  Coincidence? 

Might you post a citation to the work you refer to above? 

It should be noted that even "hot" fusion takes place by tunneling. 

>Want to know more?  Want to know the truth?

I want to know the paper where this experimental observation was published. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit
Date: 8 Feb 95 12:35:52 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day :)..........
I just missed out on contributing to Tom's trip but hope that does not
disqualify me from offering some suggestions re the following post....
If a working unit is to be purchased, could it be fitted with a DC motor?
This will simplify the power input measurements, unless you -want-
to investigate the possible input power phasing problems.
							Regards to all,
							Daryl Owen. 
In article <3h6sop$e8r@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
 --------------------------------------------------------
> In article <3h5nom$fkj@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
> writes:
>> (Michael Huffman) says:
>> >
>> >My name is Michael Huffman.  I've developed a small, tabletop device that
>> >works on some of the same principles that Jim Griggs is developing.
> 
>>> the entire machine can be made
>> >for around $150. 
>> 
>> What is really needed are good experiments.  I agree with Dick Blue.  
>> First we need an experiment where the COP is 1.000... .  Then we can 
>> change conditions and will know if we have gone to 0.95 or 1.05.
>> 
>> Tom Droege
>  
> In this case, I don't think so. Instead, I think it would make the
> best use of everyone's time for the claimer (here, Mike Huffman),
> to simply provide us (say, Tom) with what he considers to be a working
> device, for testing. Since he says _he_ knows how to build them
> for $150, why don;t we use the remainder of the Griggs Trip Fund
> to simply buy a working model from _him_ for testing. Further, he
> should also procide what he considers to be a suitable test protocol.
> 
---snip--- 
> 
> So: Mr Huffman---would you consider presenting a working device
> to Tom Droege for study, if, say, a suitable fee 
> ( ~$500, to cover costs and labor ) were paid for the construction and delivery  
> of the device plus testing instructions?
> 
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
> 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.09 / Bill Page /       Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
     
Originally-From: 060739@acadvm1.uottawa.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Tom Droege's trip to visit Griggs
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 04:47:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
After some debate here, I had come to the conclusion that it would be
best to make a quiet trip to see what Mr. Griggs had to offer.  I
at least made clear that the press was not inviting a member of the
press that had asked to come along.  I have no particular need to make
this trip.  So I would not object if some other went in my place.  One
...
>>

Tom,

As one of the contributors to the "visit Griggs fund" I would greatly
prefer that *you* visit Griggs quietly and *alone* as it had seemed to have
been agreed here. I think that we (the contributors) should strongly
discourage Marshall and his colleagues from visiting Griggs at the same
time that you had planned to visit.  If they do wish to visit Griggs, it
should be at a different time.

I, for one, am anxiously waiting for a report of *your* impressions.
Please continue to plan the trip as has been agreed here.

Sincerely,
Bill Page

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden060739 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: GG
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG
Date: 8 Feb 1995 01:06:02 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Robin van Spaandonk:] This raises the question, how much power
    > does the GG consume when running dry, ie no water at all running
    > through it, just air?

The figure of 4 kW was posted by someone (Jed?).  I always assumed it
was for the 20 kW unit that Jed tested, but I may be wrong.

Presumably, those 4 kW are largely due to friction at the 
bearings in the GG itself, which must withstand ~80 psi
and support a 1/4 ton rotor.

I wonder how much of those 4 kW end up in the water, and how much is
lost to ambient, in normal ("wet") operation.  I suppose the major
paths are

                              + --> ambient/motor
               + --> axle --> +
               |              + --> rotor --> +
  bearings --> +                              + --> water
               +                 + ---------> +
               + --> housing --> +
                                 + --> ambient
               
Let's say the water inside the pump is at 320F.  Any guesses as to the
axle temperature near the bearings, and the heat flows along each
path?  (From the pictures it seems the axle's diameter is about 5cm.) 

--stolfi

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.08 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A CANTICLE FOR GRIGGS....Unlikely....
Date: 8 Feb 1995 01:39:14 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil

 
    > [Daryl Owen:] Now, the "tuned" system -must- require -more-
    > input current (and therefore power) -just in order to generate
    > the powerful ultrasonics-  [...] the nub of the problem is that the
    > extra power (& current) required to produce the ultrasonics has
    > apparently not been measured or accounted for.  If indeed there
    > is an increase in the input power -to produce the ultrasonics-
    
Quite the opposite, Jed has repeatedly stated that the 
"mysterious heat-producing phenomenon" always manifests
itself by a sudden *drop* in the input power---40%, 
in the published experiments---while the output temperature
stays constant.

Note the miraculous coincidence: when the "Griggs effect"
kicks in, it not only starts producing 10 kW of extra heat, but
also somehow reduces the viscosity of water by just the right amount
to cause the motor load to drop by 10 kW.

Amazing? Wait, there is more --- this miraculous coincidence happens
with liquid water at 150F or dry steam at 320F and 80 psi,
and with any size of pump and motor.

    > responsible for the "...*massive melting* that has occurred on
    > the periphery of his Hydrosonic Pump aluminium rotors

May I ask how many kg of aluminum were melted in that event?

--stolfi

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb  9 04:37:05 EST 1995
------------------------------
