1995.02.10 / Bryan Wallace / The Farce of Physics Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: The Farce of Physics Date: 10 Feb 1995 16:12:03 -0500 Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida [ Article crossposted from sci.physics ] [ Author was Bryan Wallace ] [ Posted on 10 Feb 1995 15:18:36 -0500 ] This post is in reply to the William S. Lawson lawson@pax.llnl.gov 07 Feb 1995 20:05:53 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup "sci.astro". Bill wrote: >A key point that all these "conspiracy theorists" overlook is how much the >average scientist would love to disprove the general theory of relativity. It >would be a guaranteed free ride to Stockholm. I find Bill's view on this matter to be very naive. To document my opinion I would like to quote the following statements from N. David Mermin's article titled WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PRIZES? (PHYSICS TODAY 42(1), 9 - 1989): ... I realized that the honor system had become a destructive force shortly after having assumed certain administrative responsibilities. Before that I had never thought much about it one way or the other, occasionally submitting essays on behalf of deserving people I thought had been overlooked, noting with pleasure the good awards, and with irritation or amusement, the bad ones. Only recently did I learn ("How innocent can you get!" you will say, dear reader--you who have known the dark side of awards longer than I, and yet have never spoken up publicly against the whole business) that these things are systematically sought after by organized campaigns, routinely consuming oceans of time and effort. ... With regard to the pathological and political nature of the dominant established politicians in modern physics, and their attitude toward anyone who dares to challenge the sacrad relativity theory, I present the following material from my book "The Farce of Physics"(starts on page 95 of the double- spaced manuscript): ...Concerning Dehmer's comment "In choosing appropriate persons to review the numerous manuscripts, the journal editors use various methods that reflect their own style and areas of expertise," I would like to present the following example of how this has worked for me. On 3 June 1969, I submitted a paper, "An Analysis of Inconsistencies in Published Interplanetary Radar Data," to PRL. The last paragraph of the referee report sent back August 15 states "It is suitable for Physical Review Letters, if revised, and deserves immediate publication if the radar data can be compared directly to geocentric distances derived from optical directions and celestial mechanics." I revised the paper as the referee recommended and resubmitted it 21 August. The editor, S. A. Goudsmit, sent me a reply 11 September, in which he stated that the paper had been sent to another referee and rejected. I sent a letter 13 September, complaining about the use of the second referee. I received a reply from Goudsmit on 23 September, in which he then stated that he had made a mistake in saying the paper had been sent to a second referee and that it had actually been sent back to the first one. He did this, in spite of the fact that there was absolutely no correspondence between the two reports. They were obviously typed on different typewriters, the first was completely positive, while the second was strongly negative and made no mention of the first report! I eventually published a revised version "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space" in a less prestigious journal.[18] At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation. In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, in our time it is heresy to claim there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant.... The above unfair treatment I received in trying to publish a paper challenging Einstein's relativity theories, is not an isolated incident. As an example, as I mentioned in Chapter 6, in a June 1988 letter I received from Dr. Svetlana Tolchelnikova from the USSR, she wrote that thanks to PERESTROIKA she was writing me openly, but that her Pulkovo Observatory is one of the outposts of orthodox relativity. Two scientists were dismissed because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein. It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be considered as contradiction to his theory. It seems the same situation is true for her Academy. Lest one thinks that this sort of repressive behavior with regard to relativity theory happens only in the USSR, I have heard or read many horror stories of this happening to scientists throughout the world. To document the nature of the problem within the US, I would like to make several quotes from a book on this problem by Ruggero M. Santilli who is the director of The Institute for Basic Research: This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme hostility I have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the conduction, organization and promotion of quantitative, theoretical, mathematical, and experimental studies on the apparent insufficiencies of Einstein's ideas in face of an ever growing scientific knowledge.[23 p.7] In 1977, I was visiting the Department of Physics at Harvard University for the purpose of studying precisely non-Galilean systems. My task was to attempt the generalization of the analytic, algebraic and geometric methods of the Galilean systems into forms suitable for the non-Galilean ones. The studies began under the best possible auspices. In fact, I had a (signed) contract with one of the world's leading editorial houses in physics, Springer-Verlag of Heidelberg West Germany, to write a series of monographs in the field that were later published in ref.s [24] and [25]. Furthermore, I was the recipient of a research contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, contract number ER-78-S- 02-4720.A000, for the conduction of these studies. Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other senior physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a point of preventing my drawing a salary from my own grant for almost one academic year. This prohibition to draw my salary from my grant was perpetrated with full awareness of the fact that it would have created hardship on my children and on my family. In fact, I had communicated to them (in writing) that I had no other income, and that I had two children in tender age and my wife (then a graduate student in social work) to feed and shelter. After almost one academic year of delaying my salary authorization, when the case was just about to explode in law suits, I finally received authorization to draw my salary from my own grant as a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University. But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and possibly others had declared to the Department of Mathematics that my studies "had no physical value." This created predictable problems in the mathematics department which lead to the subsequent, apparently intended, impossibility of continuing my research at Harvard. Even after my leaving Harvard, their claim of "no physical value" of my studies persisted, affected a number of other scientists, and finally rendered unavoidable the writing of IL GRANDE GRIDO.* * S. Glashow and S. Weinberg obtained the Nobel Prize in physics in 1979 on theories, the so-called unified gauge theories, that are crucially dependent on Einstein's special relativity; subsequently, S. Weinberg left Harvard for The University of Texas at Austin, while S. Coleman and S. Glashow are still members of Harvard University to this writing.[23 p.29] My book "The Farce of Physics" explores and documents the fact that modern physics is little more than an elaborate farce. The book contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people including Albert Einstein. It is meant for anyone who is interested in this subject, and I have attempted to reduce the technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach the widest possible audience. The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and religion were not separated. The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at the base of all of natural science, religion, and technology. This book 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. 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. 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. A publisher has picked up the book for summer release of a low cost paperback version that will have an epilogue that will bring it up to the present time. I will post additional details on this when they become available. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / Gregory Hansen / Re: Ion Beam Fusion Originally-From: hans0174@gold.tc.umn.edu (Gregory L Hansen) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 22:50:26 GMT Organization: University of Minnesota In article , Sigma9 wrote: >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 > What types of research do you do? (From the tone of your message, can I assume you don't work with tokamaks?) cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenhans0174 cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / Scott Silvey / Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat? Originally-From: scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How much would a fusion reactor eat? Date: 10 Feb 95 17:17:44 Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF) Thanks for your somewhat extensive reply to my questions! You addressed just the issues I was curious about. In regards to FRC reactor designs that you mention have such great advantages... is this the linear type of reactor that has funny potatochip- like reflector magnets on the ends? Why is it this design handles a different type of fuel (D/He3 vs D/T)? Is it because the containment mechanisms between FRC and Tokamak can only handle plasma of certain dynamics and temperature or something? Also, how does He3 compare to T in terms of expense? I suppose He3 can only be mined from rocks or something, but T could theoretically come from a breeder, right? Thanks, Scott cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnSilvey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Gary Steckly / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 01:53:01 GMT Organization: Communications Canada Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com : (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: : > However, since there are two others of us who are also interested in seeing : the : > presentation, I don't see any conflict here. : Marshall: : Tom has expressed strong reservations about having you and your pal along : with him when he visits Griggs. : Please respect his wishes. Allen...give it up...it's over already ;-) I realize it's a bit confusing when these messages cross the international dateline and all, but Marshall didn't go. This is Friday, Tom's trip was Wednesday...it's all done. Part of the confusion was apparently due to some Usenet posting delays, but just check the posting dateline and it will become clearer. regards Gary : -- : Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) : I am his Highness' dog at Kew : Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? : [Alexander Pope] : PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / Bruce Scott / Re: Summer University on Plasma Physics Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Summer University on Plasma Physics Date: 10 Feb 1995 16:02:16 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching Klaus Woerle writes: : > : >Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995 : >The Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP) in Garching near Munich : >is organizing a Summer University for Plasma Physics: 25 - 29 Sept. 1995. [...] Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) answers: : Could they include a course on the application of the Virial Theorem : to the PLASMAK(tm) model of Ball Lightning, in spite of its internal : discontinuities of current, plasma and fields. The Virial theorem gets discussed only in passing, during the MHD lecture which is only 90 minutes or so (fluid dynamics has to get discussed first, then the ordering, then the flux conservation...). After that the focus shifts to the experiments here and to ITER. That's too bad. While people do need to be kept informed, there isn't enough time to discuss basic physics apart from the introductions to kinetic theory ("what's a guiding center drift?") and MHD ("what's MHD and what are magnetic forces?"). It is a bit technically oriented, with perhaps too much detail. A session on alternate concepts would be nice, especially since the high- density Z-pinch in London is really getting going; we'll see what we can... -- Gruss, Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / Cameron Bass / Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 22:42:08 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article <9502101603.AA41025@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, Richard A Blue wrote: >I find it amazing to see people go on at length concerning the role of >ultrasound in the operation of the Griggs device without any mention >of even the crudest of measurements involving ultrasound. What is actually >known concerning the ultrasound that is supposed to be produced when >the pump kicks into its "over unity" mode? My understanding is that >ultrasound at kilowatt power levels can be remarkable destructive yet >we are told that the Griggs pump operates for extended periods with >no significant wear and tear. > >As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs >pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it. Is there >possibly a problem with this data? Having asked this question before, the answer is: A: Jed assumed it to add big words to his postings. As with other things, Jed apparently does not understand the difference between cavitation and 'ultrasound'. He clearly does not know that they need have nothing to do with one another. Anyway, evidence, schmevidence. True believers don't need no stinkin' evidence. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / John Logajan / Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Date: 11 Feb 1995 06:33:56 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. David Seghers (seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com) wrote: : >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. : Excellent idea!! I vote for it, if we are voting that is. Tom, are you : up for this? I should point out that Scott Little has made several impassioned pleas for someone to send him a working device. So my $20 donation to the cause will also apply if Scott Little gets the nod instead. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip Date: 11 Feb 1995 07:20:32 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: > Since the majority of newsgroup contributors who have expresed an > opinion here wish Tom to go alone, I will withdraw any plans to go to Griggs > > All I can imagine is that there is some type of ego trip here. > > I have had a third party who follows this group express an interest in going Actually, I think the optimal number of people to go is 2---but it is best if those two already know eachother well enough so that they don't step on eachothers toes or waste time getting acquanited---they should already know how to work together. Thus, I think the real problem with you going on the same day is (1) you and Tom are strangers, and (2) you wanted to bring more people with you. I think > 2 people is worse than 1 person in this circumstance. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Barry Merriman / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: 11 Feb 1995 07:29:09 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: > Your objectives and > mine are somewhat different. I plan on making measurements and documentating > whatever I can. I plan on determining the errors of each and every This is exactly why you should *not* go---since you and Tom have differing objectives, you will necessarily need to compete for Griggs attention, and want to pursue different lines of investigation, thus limiting the ability for the inquiry to proceed in an uninhibited way. And, since you are intent on documenting things, that necessarily makes the process more sluggish. The purpose of Toms visit is a "breadth search" for clues. You are talking about a depth search, so to speak. But the breadth seems more advisable for a first go round. As Jed has said---you can;t realistically expect to do significant measurements in 1 day. But you can get a lot of thinking and surveying done. If there is some unusual artifiact to uncover, that is the best way to start looking. As I noted before---two people should go , ideally, but they should have a common agneda and know how to work together or otherwise to much time is wasted in communication between visiting parties. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / 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: 11 Feb 1995 07:32:19 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3hhlok$m33@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > > I should point out that Scott Little has made several impassioned pleas > for someone to send him a working device. So my $20 donation to the > cause will also apply if Scott Little gets the nod instead. > > Good point, and I agree---in fact he may even be better than Tom for this; but: didn't Little say he had a calorimetry lab? I don't see that calorimetry has anythign to do with quantifying the griggs device. Its seems one has only to measue accurately the electric power into the unit, and the temp and volume of the effluent. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / John Logajan / Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Halo-nuclie and the Omegon Date: 11 Feb 1995 07:52:05 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: : To get this you only have to assume that the nuclear potential : has gone to zero in the region of interest. You do not need any : force to explain this very slow exponential fall-off. If the "long tail" means a low probability of finding the sub-particle there, then it really doesn't seem to fit the picture of a "halo" which implies frequent occupancy of that remote point. Contrarywise, frequent occupancy would seem to suggest that it is not part of the "tail", but part of the main body of the wavefunction. No? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / John Logajan / Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Heard any good ultrasound lately? Date: 11 Feb 1995 08:03:20 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: : As far as I am able to recall the evidence for saying that the Griggs : pump produces ultrasound is that Jed Rothwell "heard" it. Is there : possibly a problem with this data? Surely there can be no doubt that 60 HP of turbulent energy into a liter or so volume of water is going to generate a few phonons! :-) I don't think the question is so much whether there is ultrasound, but rather what is the spectral density of various chaotic sound components. Is the spectrum highly spread? Is it concentrated in certain frequency ranges? Is it mostly chaotic? Or is there a high degree of periodicy? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:15 -0500 (EST) Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes: -> Please just leave it like that and go some other day. (Or not at all, if you -> effect on Griggs' work.) Sorry, but this is BS. I am getting a little tired of it. I already posted a message several days ago saying that I will not go at the same time as Tom. What more do you all want, blood? Let look at what is going on here. For the life of me I cannot figure it out. Last month Tom leaves a message saying that those who are interested in joining him would be welcome in the pursuit of truth when he goes. Later I EMAIL him, taking him up on the offer. I thought I was doing him a favor, as he has already invited interested parties. Then Tom decides to change his mind, and uninvite those who responded to his invitation. But for some reason he never EMAILs me back to tell me we are no longer welcome. If an invitation is withdrawn, is is common courtesy to let the invited parties know. Instead, in a severe breach of NET ediquitte, he posts the private message I sent him in the Usenet group, without my consent. A simple EMAIL to me, and I would have cancelled. For some reason he posted this offer from me in the Usenet group, and got everyone here all riled up about it. I have no idea why. Then on top of that he adds a line in his posting which reminds me of the kid who claims that if you don't want to play his way, he will take his ball and go home. Absolutely none of this was necessary. I don't know if Tom is wanting to back out, and trying to find a scape-goat, if he is worried that observers will see errors in his analysis, or if he is on some type of ego trip. Or if he had some other unfathomable reason for doing this. Anyway, I am no in a somewhat awkward position. I wanted to join a group going to analyse the device. I was really not interested in leading a group. I am not on some type of ego trip. I only want to try and find some answers to a mystery. However, after this fiasco I am afraid I no longer have faith in Tom's objectivity. Therefore I would like to put together or join a team of 3 or 4 investigators. I would be perfectly happy to let someone else lead the group if they wish. I feel all involved should at least have a degree in science. At least one should have a degree in physics. We need a person familiar with error analysys (I am), analyzing phenominia which appears to violate known laws of physics (I was part of the scientific Argus team in 92), is skilled in electric power measurements (I am an EE), steam tables (Jed and Matt), has Masters degree or greater in Physics (Matt), is experienced in writing scientific papers (Matt, I think, will have to check), calorimetry, is well versed in QM (nobody yet), sonoluminance (nobody yet), chaotic fluid flow (nobody yet), and any of a number of other diverse disiplines. I am very much against anyone on the team receiving any type of enumberation. We need to distance ourselves as far as possible from any claims of fraud, or being bought. I don't want any judgemets clouded by receipt of who someone could call special interest money. Matt and I are within easy driving distance of Rome Ga. If a third party has to fly in we might consider letting the cost of the ticket be defrayed, but I think that should be the limit. I would like one member to be an outspoken skeptic (a real skeptic which can point out errors in our analysis and holes in our theories, not one like I see here sometimes which ignores or makes up evidence to the contrary). I realize we most likely will not be able to get a team as well rounded as I would like, and limit it to only 3 or 4 individuals. But I would like us to do the best as we can. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.11 / Matthew Nevai / Stupid question Originally-From: xerces28@pcnet.com (Matthew Nevai) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Stupid question Date: 11 Feb 1995 06:36:53 -0500 Organization: PCNet, Connecticut's Internet Provider : With regard to meeting goals of humans. What better then a human? : : : : Or. Why fusion reactors? cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenxerces28 cudfnMatthew cudlnNevai cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 13 04:37:04 EST 1995 ------------------------------