1995.02.12 / Bruce Hamilton / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 16:55:41 GMT Organization: Industrial Research Limited In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: >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? Given that this message, and the one you posted "several days ago" both arrived here today, it is quite possible that Alan may not have seen your earlier message. The news propagation is strange... >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. I *really* worry about the objectivity of research performed by people who fail to assimilate all the data. You should know as well as I that the above *conveniently* omits significant data points - specifically Tom asking the group for guidance on several issues. You surely read our comments, and to me it was clear, Tom should go it alone or with a number *he* was confortable with. Thus, the onus was on you to email Tom and ask if your presence was OK. If you have not been reading about the trip, then surely you would email Tom to check?. I recall at least two posts from me, and some from others saying that only two should go, one to question, one to record. You have conveniently decided those posts could be ignored - fine they are only opinions. However they were aimed at Tom, consequently he formed his decision around them. >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 If an invitation is withdrawn, is is common courtesy to let the 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. The invitation was discussed by the group, Tom posted that he had heard the message. surely most people would have checked to see if the original offer was still open, given the discussion. >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. Once again, I worry about your ability to separate facts. The post was seeking guidance, based on the groups view. In other words Tom was checking to see if he misheard the message. It was not a severe breach, it was a minot breach, if that. Posting the message ensured that he did not add unintended bias - certainly he should have asked, but that assumes he knew the conventions. >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. Fine. All I ask is that you make it very clear that your trip is totally separate to Tom's. I contributed to send Tom to provide an overview and a perception. I have no wish to be associated _in any way_ with a group of enthusiastic scientists trying to quantify and write a detailed scientific report on the Griggs device after such a brief period of setting up, calibrations, and measurements. This will probably come as a shock to you, but your measurements will probably be classed by me alongside Jed's. I await your report with interest. For the reasons why I have doubts about quantitative science coming from such measurements, read my earlier posts. I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame, but if it waddles like a duck.... Bruce Hamilton cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Barry Merriman / Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets! Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets! Date: 14 Feb 1995 00:06:55 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <9502131814.AA25418@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: > Look folks! Anyone can stir water. When I see the suggestion > that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs > device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which > consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can. $500 is for a device that, according to its creator, is representative of his over unity claims (and, hoepfully, Griggs as well), plus a protocol for observing said over unity claims. If following that protocol does not lead to that result, or one can spot the flow in the protocol, one concludes the device is under unity, and forgets about the entire line of enquiry. That is worth $500. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Barry Merriman / Re: Trip Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Trip Date: 14 Feb 1995 00:15:47 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <9502131151.AA05037@suntan.Tandem.com> HFC6ASHWOOD@cluster.north-london.ac.uk (", DAVID ASHWOOD ;-) writes: > > Hello, I am new to this forum so if what I state has already been stated then > I apologise now.... > > I write concerning the preposed trip and some peoples suggestions that the > Marshall visit be made on a separate day. Would it not be better, for future > analysis, for them to witness the *same* experiment? This helps in several > ways: > 1) It is surely harder to fool a few people then to fool 1 person on > 3) The scientific method doesn't break down when more than 1 scientist > is involved. In some ideal world, yes. As an exercises in understanding how humans interact, though, (1) contemplate the meaning of the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth". (2) read The Mythical Man Month to understand why adding people to a project may result in reduced efficiency. (3)Finally, try going to dinner with a large number of people (say 5 or more) and watch the conversation dynamics. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Barry Merriman / Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Date: 14 Feb 1995 00:22:47 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: > PS. We only have two on the team right now. We need some more people who can > bring expertise in fields such as fluid dynamics, chaos theory, QM, and we need someone who can support the role of skeptic, to point out errors, or holes in each and every possible explaination. The idea that you can crack this problem with a massive blast of experts seems quite misguided. I seriously doubt you need experts in any things like chaos, QM, Fluid dynamics, etc. What seems most likely is you need to do a lot of careful study by 1 or 2 people who understand electrical engineering (esp motors) and mechanical engineering (esp. fluid pumping systems) well, who have the attitude that this thing is not really over unity and we are going to tinker with it till we find out why. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Barry Merriman / Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Date: 14 Feb 1995 01:03:17 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3hot4n$2uj@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > > The idea that you can crack this problem with a massive blast of > experts seems quite misguided. I seriously doubt you need experts in > any things like chaos, QM, Fluid dynamics, etc. What seems > most likely is you need to do a lot of careful study by 1 or 2 people > who understand electrical engineering (esp motors) and mechanical engineering > (esp. fluid pumping systems) well, who have the attitude that this thing > is not really over unity and we are going to tinker with it till > we find out why. > Just to emphasize my point: an analogy would be debugging a piece of code: when there seems to be a bug in performance, I don't convene a panel of specialsists in VLSI, magnetic media, operating systems, compiler design, condensed matter, cosmic rays, etc...Even though in principle it could be due to any one of those effetcs. Instead, I just methodically keep reproducing the bug, while simplifying and isolating the buggy behaviour until the cause manifests itself. It doesn;t hurt to have another person around, familair with the problem to bounce ideas off of---but beyond that, its just careful, methodical, rational testing. The most important thing to have is time for many iterations, and freedom to simplify things as much as possible, change out potentially defective components, do blank runs, etc. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Barry Merriman / Griggs Question Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Griggs Question Date: 14 Feb 1995 01:15:18 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE Tom (and others): I suggest the most important thing you can get from Griggs is a precise description of exactly what he does to compute an over unity performance (for each of the independent ways in which he does so). Ideally, this would be a logical description coupled to a step by step demonstration, from start to finish, from setting up the instruments through plugging the final numbers through the calculator. The point his: the most important thing you can do in your visit is probably discover exactly what the _claim_ is. Since, in all reality, his device does not produce more energy than it puts out, it is all an artifact of a specific procedure, and so that procedure---being one of zillions possible---has to be spelled out precisely, preferably beyond verbal/logical description, and instead at the operational level: i.e. here's exaclty what I do to produce this over unity calculation. This is something that would be worth recording on video tape, in its entirety, but minimally maybe you could tape record + snap key photos. As any mathematician knows---the error in the proof is always in the parts that were assumed obvious. You can't really start to guess what those are without seeing the precise procedure, completely. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / V Thannickal / Re: COLD FUSION CULT Originally-From: sajith@athena.mit.edu (Varghese Mathew Thannickal) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT Date: 12 Feb 1995 19:14:23 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: |> arctorch@aol.com (ArcTorch) writes: |> |> -> I also would request that everyone remember the most fundamental law of |> -> life, a law that transcends even science itself: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING |> -> AS A FREE LUNCH" |> |> You must live in a different reality than I do. For me the air, sunlight, |> rain, spring water, blackberries and many other things are free. |> |> Marshall |> hear, hear,hear... cudkeys: cuddy12 cudensajith cudfnVarghese cudlnThannickal cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: Ultrasound Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ultrasound Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 07:46:08 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) [SNIP] > No, the question is why 'we' care about sound that is a > consequence of the cavitation. Observation that we have > been offered absolutely no energy spectrum just begs the more > fundamental question, to wit, 'Who cares?' > > The observation that one can cause localized bubble formation > using appropriately directed ultrasound seems to have no > bearing on Griggs device at all beyond Jed's and others' apparent > misapprehensions. > > dale bass _____________________________________________________________ There is one other outlandish possibility: Sound at various frequecies may be connected to ZPE by forced oscillation of non-linear elements. (Anything from molecules to quarks). So even if the chance is small, I for one would like to know, especially as there is a reasonable chance that "something" is going on. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / 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: 13 Feb 1995 06:30:08 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3hfusd$1d5t@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes: > That I believe is the spirit of the > patents law as well (like the hologram display with mag bubbles is > someone else's contribution, but display with *phase* using circular > polarization and reversing it to make a realtime "hologram camera", > is mine (owned) - US pat, 1990). > Does it actually work---i.e. have you ever built a prototype? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jed's cool steam hypothesis Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jed's cool steam hypothesis Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 12:28:43 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I remarked that Dick Blue and Jorge Stolfi are spouting nonsense, as usual, because the steam from the Griggs unit is dry. stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes: "YOUR data, Jed, YOUR barrel tests, YOUR article: Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 ("blank") ("excess") ("excess") ---------- ---------- ---------- Output heat captured: 27,000 btu 19,000 btu 27,000 btu Mass of condensed "steam": 26.0 lb 32.0 lb 42.0 lb Heat contents of "steam": 1038 btu/lb 594 btu/lb 643 btu/lb Would you care to quote the steam table entries that match the last two numbers?" Perhaps it would help if Stolfi would read that article before drawing conclusions from it. As I stated -- about a million times -- all output from the Griggs unit goes into the barrel, including the separation tank condensate. When you pour a bucket of hot water into the barrel along with the steam, total enthalpy is less than it would be for an equivalent mass of dry steam. "I 'got the idea' by taking your report at face value." Incorrect. You dreamed up the idea by deliberately misreading the report and ignoring the evidence. That is how you "skeptics" work -- you ignore everything that does not fit your preconceptions. For example, you only look at the short "barrel tests" and you ignore the extended duration flow tests and the calibration with the rotor without holes. Why? Because these tests disprove your "stored heat" hypothesis. You automatically reject any data which disproves your ideas. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 12:31:22 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) 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." I believe Scott Little has a conventional calorimeter, and he wants something the size of a CF cell to put into it. The Huffman device is far too big and too powerful to fit into an ordinary calorimeter. I have been investigating unconventional calorimeters based on things like used refrigerators that might work. At this point, I do not think any calorimeter will be necessary, because the device itself acts as one. It is somewhat crude, but it can be made accurate and precise enough to measure the effect with assurance, at a very high S/N ratio. This has not been done yet (to my satisfaction), but I think it will be done soon. We shall see whether there is excess heat or not. I suggest we give Huffman a little breathing space before rushing into additional confirmation tests by third parties. Of course, Little must have a lab full of equipment that could be used to test the Huffman device: thermocouples, power meters, coolers and the like. If he wants to spend a few weeks rearranging the equipment to accommodate the device, perhaps he should get one. I think it would be a good idea for Marshall Dudley to get one as well. Let me point out that the patent will be assigned a number and published soon. Anyone will be free to get the patent and fabricate a machine for testing purposes. It is not as difficult or expensive to make as the Griggs device. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Josef Frisch / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:51:15 GMT Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Never argue with a fool. --- Joe Frisch --- cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenfrisch cudfnJosef cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / jedrothwell@de / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 12:39:04 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: "I don't see that calorimetry has anything to do with quantifying the griggs device. Its seems one has only to measure accurately the electric power into the unit, and the temp and volume of the effluent." Calorimetry is the science of accurately measuring electric power into the unit, and the temperature and volume of effluent. That is exactly what must be done to verify and quantify the device. Merriman also writes: "As Jed has said---you can't realistically expect to do significant measurements in 1 day." I don't believe I said that. At least, I did not mean to say that. What I said was you cannot realistically expect to do definitive measurements in one day. You most certainly *can* do *significant* measurements in a day. You can do very important, significant, key measurements in an hour. Tom proposes to do no measurements at all. That means he will learn nothing, and see nothing. Without a self-sustaining device, the only possible way to learn about an excess heat device is to use instruments. A person cannot see or sense the level of electric power. You cannot know whether a barrel of water weights 300 lbs or 400 lbs just by looking. Therefore, the only way to learn about this device is to take instrument readings. Given the nature of these claims and the controversy they have caused, it is essential that you compare the on-site instruments to your own, because the ones on site may not be calibrated properly. Merriman says, "the purpose of Toms visit is a 'breadth search' for clues," but you can see no clues without instruments. Trying to judge the situation by appearances alone, or by talking to Griggs, would be like trying to diagnose a disease without blood tests, x-rays, thermometers, or even a stethoscope or a tongue depressor. Throw away your instruments and you abandon science in favor of voodoo. You might just as well turn off the lights and work in pitch darkness. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / James Stolin / Re: Ion Beam Fusion Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ion Beam Fusion Date: 13 Feb 1995 17:28:31 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote: >Keeping anything at 100 million degrees is thermodynamically damn hard for >anything smaller than a star but you can see that once the energy production >just starts to exceed loss rate a little bit the whole thing may start >providing a whole lot of net energy very quickly, especially considering the >increase of nuclear x-section with energy in the high-energy tail of the >distribution. > >Thus, plasma fusion reactors will be big and expensive and produce >buttloads of energy. Matt, Do you have any comparisons for exisitng plasma fusion devices that differ only in size? It looks like one may be able to take an existing plasma fusion design and scale it up by a factor of two or more and correlate the results. Thanks. - James B. Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - FKNF40A@prodigy.com cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / ZEBASTIAN / Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull Originally-From: zebastian@aol.com (ZEBASTIAN) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion not real!!! Bull Date: 12 Feb 1995 20:41:03 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I want to know more. First I've heard of the 56 stuff. John Sebastian cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenzebastian cudlnZEBASTIAN cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / ZEBASTIAN / Re: COLD FUSION CULT Originally-From: zebastian@aol.com (ZEBASTIAN) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION CULT Date: 12 Feb 1995 20:44:19 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Consider that per kilo-watt not produced cold fusion is a real bargan vs. hot fusion. John Sebastian cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenzebastian cudlnZEBASTIAN cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / Richard Arnold / Priorities for hot fusion .h. Originally-From: Richard Arnold <100441.606@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Priorities for hot fusion .h. Date: 12 Feb 1995 22:24:52 GMT Organization: Home The appearance of some good hot fusion postings in the last week (re ion beam fusion) encourages me also to comment on priority issues in (hot) fusion. On 7 Feb 1995 Gregory L. Hansen asked: > 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? This is basically a question about fusion support priorities, which began to be answered by Philip b. Snyder (pbsnyder@flagstaff.princeton.edu) : > Well, I'm not terribly sure the 90% figure is accurate. In the US, the > inertial confinement fusion budget is largely in the Dept of Defense > budget rather than the DoE budget, so you might be missing it. In fact, even within DOE the inertial budget has been, for over a decade, a big fraction of the amount spent on Tokamak research. > A bit of history: The US controlled fusion program began after WWII > and started as a classified effort intending to realize fusion > power with the kind of swiftness with which the a-bomb and h-bomb > were realized. In the early years, a number of different approaches > were tried, including beam-target, beam-beam, z-pinch, theta-pinch, > mirror machines, stellerators, and numerous others. > > The results however after 20 years using many different > approaches, were quite disappointing. The results on the > other side of the iron curtain were similarly frustrating > and both sides decided to give up secrecy and collaborate. This continued to be true, but only in magnetic confinement. When ICF surfaced in about 1970 it was considered weapons research and no international collaboration was allowed, at least officially. This is still true in the US, UK and France. There are no US-sponsored international conferences on ICF which are open to all foreign researchers. The magnetic fusion community has leaned heavily on the idea that ICF could not be commercialized because there would be too many classification restrictions. Thus, the only practical path to fusion could be MCF. This is the main reason Europe has funded only MCF up till now. However, it was very widely agreed by 1975 that ICF scientifically had as much if not more potential for real fusion power. The real cornerstone for fusion power through ICF came when some of us proposed heavy-ion drivers in 1976. The technology used in big high-energy physics accelerators could be teamed up with H-bomb design techniques to make a very convincing Heavy-ion fusion (HIF) system for a reactor. Underground explosive-driven experiments first reported publicly in 1988 further confirmed the high confidence in ICF for reactor applications, although all details still remain secret. As articulately expressed by SLAC director Burt Richter in his letter to Science, v.263 p.453 (28 Jan 1994) as quoted by Peter Seidl, seidl@next1.lbl.gov, in sci.physics.fusion "Heavy ion drivers for inertial confinement fusion" on 10 Feb 1994 , HIF has repeatedly been given a high priority by review committees ever since, but the reports remain secret, and US funding has remained negligible. Much noise has been made by some policymakers about the problems of keeping the "secrets" of thermonuclear weapons design from proliferating if HIF is used as a basis for a fusion reactor, since HIF depends on indirect (thermal X-ray) drive for the fusion capsule, which is central to fusion explosive devices. This argument doesn't hold much water since there are books available on H-bomb design principles, but it provides a convenient argument for some people who don't want any fusion power to be developed "on their watch". For them, funding MCF presents no problem, because of the eternally receding horizon for success. In spite of the MCF lobby, and against opposition from the big-laser-building empire created by Livermore, some hopeful souls at Berkeley persist, as described by Joe Chew, JTCHEW@lbl.gov, on 9 Feb 1995: > to write a descriptive pamphlet about our latest project on > the road to ion-beam fusion, ILSE (Induction Linac Systems > Experiments), which in a partial form called Elise has > finally been approved for funding. In fact, I've been supposed > to write it for about 2 or 3 years now -- every time I was > about to start, either the project changed or .... Fortunately for the future of fusion, there are more extensive studies elsewhere such as Germany and Russia on the more conventional RF linac + storage ring heavy ion driver architecture. Unfortunately, any driver which is big enough to ignite a fusion burn will be expensive, and still years away from a construction start. A proposal from several institutions is now being considered by the European Commission to fund a preliminary design study. My own work is in the areas of finding a lowest-cost concept for such a machine and/or concepts for adapting accelerator projects now on the books such as RHIC, LHC and UNK to use heavy ions to ignite fusion capsules. It's sad to see that the Livermore (laser) ignition facility for ICF has to be justified in the 1996 budget highlights as a make-work project for bomb designers who otherwise might go on welfare and maybe sell their knowledge to "undesirables" as feared in Russia : From Rusty Perrin (RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov) on 7 Feb. 1995, > As a key element in the Department's science-based stewardship program, > the NIF will provide research opportunities that will attract world-class > scientists and engineers... (to stay behind the classification fence.) So, fusion priorities are set for a lot of reasons, and not always with fusion power as the goal. ....R.A. cudkeys: cuddy12 cuden606 cudfnRichard cudlnArnold cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Richard Milton / Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 23:05:21 GMT In article <3he8g4$k3h@stratus.skypoint.net>, John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) writes: >Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: >: 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? > >Count me in for a $20 donation on this. Count me in for $20 as well. Richard -- *****************************¦******************************** Richard Milton ¦ 10 Pembury Road ¦ "Nothing is too wonderful to be Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX ¦ true if it be consistent with United Kingdom ¦ the laws of nature." Tel/Fax: 0732 353427 ¦ richard@milton.win-uk.net ¦ Michael Faraday ============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.15 / Akira Kawasaki / On to Griggs (wasRe: Don't buy no untested gadgets!) Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: On to Griggs (wasRe: Don't buy no untested gadgets!) Date: 15 Feb 1995 03:29:06 GMT Organization: Netcom In crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: > Does Griggs pay the consultant if it turns out that he is sadly mistaken? > As Griggs wound up his presentation on the Hydrosonic Pump, he held up open arms on scientists visiting him to study his pump. But he made clear that to spend his time, its ok. To cost him: no. This was at the January 21, 1995 MIT IAP Cold Fusion Day organized by Eugene Mallove. In his advertisement leaflet, Griggs does not claim over unity or excess heat for his pump. What he is pointing out is the anolomous heat output from his pump that he cannot account for on his engineering background alone. He felt perhaps the pump effects might be related to the Popular Science article on cold fusion. This is where Mallove and Rothwell visited his company to do tests on his pump. The result of the visit and tests over several days becomes written up in the #2 issue of 'Cold Fusion' magazine (June, 1994) with the title: "The Hydrosonic Pump: An excess energy device?". I would recommend Tom Droege to read the article before his visit. It would help him design his experiments to independantly determine the Griggs pump analomy. Perhaps a definitive assessment of the effect can be made which either contradicts, corrects, refines, or corroborate the article's initial results. To him or anybody else making the visit(s), I wish them good science and good data. I may have gone over or mangled old grounds again. So be it. -AK- cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Jollie MM / Re: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb Date: 13 Feb 1995 18:20:15 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Tritium definitely comes from volcanoes. This is well established, this was known back as early as the 1950's or early 1960's. Check Kervran's work. A Friend... cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Jollie MM / Re: Joe Champion and Transmutation Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Joe Champion and Transmutation Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation Date: 13 Feb 1995 18:27:06 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Joe Champion and Transmutation >From: gordon.s@ix.netcom.com (GORDON SANDERSON) >Date: 8 Feb 1995 23:06:54 GMT >Message-ID: <3hbiqe$m9e@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> >Does anyone out there know anything about Joe Champion's past? >Apparently he had some fraud associated with his past. He is >promoting/researching the transmutation of elements and has had some >dealing with cold fustion researchers at A & M. Does anyone else >support his theories on transmutation? Dear Gordon: Joe Champion is partly a fraud partly onto something. What he is on to was given to him by Jack Keller, who is a good friend of mine. Bockris knows the story well because Champion defrauded him as well. Champion has got some of the direction right but his books are a complete rip-off. I know, Keller knows, Bockris knows, and Roberto Monti knows, but we aren't talking yet. Maybe by the next cold fusion conference. Don't waste time trying to replicate what Champion is doing. Look for Jack Keller's patent, which I wrote. A Friend... cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Jollie MM / Re: Real Fusion: Tired of all this BS Originally-From: jolliemm@aol.com (Jollie MM) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Real Fusion: Tired of all this BS Date: 13 Feb 1995 18:31:02 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) who are you A Friend... cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjolliemm cudfnJollie cudlnMM cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets! Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets! Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 16:11:02 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard A Blue writes: >Look folks! Anyone can stir water. When I see the suggestion >that $500 is a reasonable price to pay for a "miniature Griggs >device" I begin to wonder if I shouldn't market a kit which >consists of one Dremmel tool and a tin can. Are there any >takers - only $149.95 and I'll pay the shipping. Seriously, You're on, Dick! I'll take it. You send me the data showing excess, and then you let my designated agent into your lab to do independent testing, and if he agrees there is excess heat from your Dremmel-and-can device, I will wire transfer you the money. That's how the deal works, of course. How else? Do you think anyone would be so stupid as to buy a pig in a poke? - Jed cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 01:08 -0500 (EST) I am trying to work up a schedule of tests to be made on the Griggs unit. With several people there, we should be able to do several things at once. Anyway, the first and foremost test I think should be to determine if there is any apparent o/u operation. I don't think measuring power out vs. power in is the way to determine this since one can always argue that stored energy, as heat or something else, is being released during the "o/u" part of the cycle. I see only two ways to make sure that stored energy is not involved. The first would be to collect data over an extended run. However since the time available is quite limited, this is not feasible. The other method is to not compare input power to output power, but total input energy to total output energy. Therefore I propose the following protocol: 1. Calibrate all thermometers with each other. 2. Run water through the pump using whatever aux. pumps (or the mains pressure) without the hydrosonic pump being powered. Take temperature measurements of the inlet and outlet temperatures. this will allow us to compute what heat is added by the aux pumps or from the drop from mains pressure. 3. Start the hydrosonic pump. Take measurements of the inlet water temperature, outlet temperature and pressure, electrical power into the main pump motor, and power being transmitted through the shaft, and flow rate at least once a minute. Have all instruments being monitored between measurements to verify there are no deviations with a period less than twice the measurement period, to avoid aliasing or quantitization errors. 4. Make necessary adjustments for "effect" to start, continue taking data for 60 minutes. 5. Cut the hydrosonic motor. Continue cold water feed until pump returns to room temperature, still taking measurements of inlet and outlet temperatures and flow rates every minute. 6. Integrate the total energy for the entire run that went into the pump, and divide that into the total added energy that came out of the pump. Determine if this is <1 or >1. 7. Determine error limits on all measurements, and do an error analysis. Compute probability of errors accounting for an o/u result (if there was an o/u result). Does anyone see anything I am missing on this first test proposal? Note that with appropriate co-ordination we should also be able to do other tests simulatneously, such as exploring the "blue steam" issue if it should be visible. After the run, I would also like to take a sample of the water from the condensed steam and verify that it has the same heat of vaporization, and thermal mass of normal water. This is to check the theory that the device is not really o/u, but that somehow the molecular structure of the water is being changed so that it requires less energy to heat, or to vaporize. I will continue trying to work out tests for each of the theories that have been proposed thus far. I will post additional protocols when I have worked them out for additional tests. Marshall PS. We only have two on the team right now. We need some more people who can bring expertise in fields such as fluid dynamics, chaos theory, QM, and we need someone who can support the role of skeptic, to point out errors, or holes in each and every possible explaination. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Cameron Bass / Re: The Tesla Turbine Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Tesla Turbine Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:16:49 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article <168@milton.win-uk.net>, Richard Milton wrote: >One source of confusion is that you will find the word >'cavitation' used in the context both of marine turbines >and the Griggs device, but the meaning is different in each >case. Parsons coined the term cavitation to describe the >fact that a marine propellor rotating at high speed >loses propulsion because it creates a void in the water. In >the case of the GG, I understand that Cavitation is used to >describe the energy that is released from the collapse of >bubbles. Likely the same phenomenon, that is, cavitation around the pits at high speed creating local voids. I say 'likely', however, because like everything else in this extremely weak experiment, we have no direct evidence of cavitation. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.14 / Thomas Lockyer / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: 14 Feb 1995 07:46:47 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Josef C. Frisch (frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : Never argue with a fool. : --- Joe Frisch --- Joe: I don't consider anyone a fool. Ignorant perhaps or niave. BTW, did you recieve my FAX before or after your post? Regards: Tom. -- Thomas N. Lockyer 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 Tel. (415)967-9550 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / C Harrison / Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 20:26:22 GMT Organization: Fitful This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the University of North Carolina SunSITE server. Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online: (1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and (2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present). WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases. It does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(. 1. If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public WAIS server at the University of North Carolina: %telnet sunsite.unc.edu ... login: swais ... TERM = (unknown) vt100 It takes a minute to load ... < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source> 2. If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access. Many university campuses provide gopher as a public information service. 2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems", then from that menu select "WAIS based information". Since each gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to go from there. 2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion. You will find the searchable databases (typically marked ), as well as the primary-literature files discussed below. 2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'. Then follow 2a or 2b above. 3. If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or Lynx, you may use the following URL's: wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion Britz bibliography wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest newsgroup archive gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion 4. If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it. The Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the directory-of-servers. If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are available in the public domain. Try ftp-ing to one of these sites: sunsite.unc.edu think.com There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which are accessible by anonymous ftp. %ftp sunsite.unc.edu . . . >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion >dir The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate. Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / Bruce Hamilton / Re: More Thoughts on the Griggs Device..... Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: More Thoughts on the Griggs Device..... Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 18:29:45 GMT Organization: Industrial Research Limited In article <166@milton.win-uk.net> richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) writes: .... >Aluminium (which I understand the rotor is made of) stands >at one end of the "electrochemical series". It will >drive out of aqueous solution any metal ions of metals that >stand higher in the series if there is a suitable electrode >for that metal to be deposited on (such as a ferrous metal >casing). Griggs claims the rotor can be made from other metals, besides the amount of energy required for the claimed excess would result in obvious major mass changes in the rotor if that amount of energy was produced electrochemically. Bruce Hamilton cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / 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: 12 Feb 1995 16:47:56 -0500 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute 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. In article <3hhqb5$m33@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes: > >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. No, frequent occupancy is not needed. Halo refers to the fact that the rms radius of those two neutrons is larger (by quite a bit) than the radius of the core. It is quite dramatic because the core nucleons are tightly bound and thus have short tails, while these neutrons are barely bound and can be found at quite large radii. (And you use an r^2 weighting to get the rms radius, enhancing this effect, as does the measurement of total cross sections, since the tail nucleons are easily stripped to leave you in a non-elastic state.) What is the case is that the bulk of the probability distribution is outside the core -- most of it is, in fact, but it need not be localized in an orbital 'shell' around the core. Indeed, such localization is inconsistent with the poor binding. >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? No. ;-) In a case like this, the tail *is* the main body of the wavefunction. Graph it and you will see. Actually, this might be a good case to try with SciAn for a full 3-D realization of the density. I will have to assign this for an undergrad project. -- James A. Carr | 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: cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.10 / prasad / Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tiny *Griggs Type* Unit Date: 10 Feb 1995 14:57:17 GMT Organization: sometimes In article , ts_zemanian@p l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: |> |> Heck, no. I'll pitch in on this, but Mr. Huffman claimed he could make a |> tabletop GG with $150 in parts. I'd think the half a grand would easily |> _buy_ the unit lock, stock, and barrel, and then Tom could rip it apart to |> his heart's content. I think the issue that John Logajan was addressing is that a product represents more than just its production costs. What Huffman claimed was the bill-of-materials cost of $150. That may not be adequate compensation for Huffman's time spent on planning and implementation. Further, Huffman would deserve the right to charge for the intellectual property that might be realized in this product, whether as trade secrets or patents, assuming it works as claimed. If our *testing* reveals that it does, Mr. Huffman would certainly be entitled to a profit, and more importantly, to first name his price. Since we would be *testing* the device, we cannot take the stance that it *won't* work before testing it. It would be grossly improper to yank it off Huffman at a lower price under that pretext, even if it does eventually happen to fail. Personally, if any of these o/u devices are eventually proven to work at all, and the physical mechanisms understood, I'd hold that the inventors of the individual gadgets would continue to deserve property rights to their specific contributions, irrespective of the general theoretical formulation, which might make many of these devices obsolete, and open up more possibilities. That I believe is the spirit of the patents law as well (like the hologram display with mag bubbles is someone else's contribution, but display with *phase* using circular polarization and reversing it to make a realtime "hologram camera", is mine (owned) - US pat, 1990). -- // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com. cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.12 / hatcher@msupa. / Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph sics.accelerators Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator Date: 12 Feb 1995 23:40:39 GMT Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy In article <3hlq10$mra@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes: >> Robert W. Hatcher (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu) Writes: > >> (snip) >> Huh? I've already shown you, with the plot of the observed energy >> distribution compared with theory that there is NO WAY IN HELL >> THAT THE CROSS SECTION IS ENERGY INDEPENDENT OR >> DECREASING WITH ENERGY. > >Whoa! Are you referencing to Figure C.1? There is a *higher* low energy >peak due to pion decays, and a *lower* peak at high energy due to >kaons. No linear increase with energy in those plots. Huh? You're making NO sense here...obviously you don't even understand the most basics of what you're arguing against. In plot 2.3 "Flux spectrum of the \nu and \anu beams" you see the characteristic *flux* of neutrinos as a function of energy. This is a two peaked distribution. The lower ones are from pion decay, the higher energy ones from kaons. This `flux' distribution comes from the simulation of the neutrino beam line characteristics. And if you were to compare it with the *observed* distribution of E_nu=E_shower+E_muon is WOULD NOT AGREE in general shape (ignoring normalization issues). It is only when you take that distribution and essentially multiply the count in each energy bin *by* the energy and smear it by the resolution (the Monte Carlo process) do you get the agreement you see in Figure C.1. To wit (for those of slow wit) the distribution in Figure C.1 is the convolution of (a) the predicted flux (b) the (almost) linear dependence of the cross section with energy (c) the detector resolutions. Let's take a simple example: assume we can neglect the resolutions (with the given binning we almost can) and assume that we normalize the distribution at the peak of the pion band (roughtly 80 GeV). Now what would we see at the kaon induced neutrino peak under (a) the standard model (b) your claim of no increase with energy? Well, the second peak is at roughly 240 GeV. So the two predictions differ by a factor of three (3). But what we see is that the standard model prediction *matches* the data. > I know there are electron type neutrinos and muon type neutrinos, but I >am reasonably sure that those neutrinos do not (cannot) penetrate light >years of lead, have a cross section that *increases* with energy, and >travel at the velocity of light. > >These three characteristics are mutually exclusive. You keep repeating these "claims" as if they were some kind of mantra. I've disproven the second claim, don't necessarily hold to the last (ie. I'm willing to give it up if someone shows them to have mass) and find the first to be a pretty meaningless claim unless you specify the neutrino energy (since the cross section, and thus probability of non-interaction, depend linearly (over a wide range) on energy). Also you, despite my repeated requests, have offered no evidence that these properties *are* "mutually exclusive"; instead you simply assert it. >> I don't see how....care to show us anything more significant than your >> blind assertion that they are. > >Sure. We know why the photon travels at (c) = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s from >Maxwell's equation, giving it a wave particle duality, momentum and >energy. How can the neutrino travel at (c) and carry energy and escape >the wave particle duality that all known natural entities require? Huh? You've mastered the buzzwords and you're sentance almost statisfies standard English syntax and grammar, but it doesn't make any sense. It's just meaningless bullshit. Who claimed that the neutrino doesn't participate in the "wave particle duality"? I certainly don't...nor does the standard model. >Every particle, including the photon, has a cross section that >*decreases* with energy, how is it possible fro the neutrino to violate >this rule? Phase space as someone earlier pointed out. That and the apparent point particle nature of the quarks in the nucleons. All you hand waving about "theory" doesn't change the fact that it is empirically *observed* to increase with energy. > Unless these (and other) questions have cogent answers, the neutrino >detection claims are moot. It is not a question of *disproving* all the >ambiguous experiments. The basis theory of neutrino actions has to be >justified. Failing that, it then becomes the experimenters job to find >an escape clause. Again I ask you (which you cut from my last response without a reply): If you wish to claim that what I have on tape (100,000+ events) are NOT neutrino interactions, then it behooves you to suggest a working hypothesis CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THE EXPERIMENTAL SETUP that explains the data to a better degree than the "neutrino hypothesis" (which is pretty damn well). Until you do you're just pissing in the wind (upwind, at that) with you fingers in your ears, mumbling "I don't hear you, I don't hear you". >Neutrinos exist, but cannot be claimed to have ever been *directly* or >*unambiguously* detected. Bullshit. You're just sore that your pet theory is wrong, wrong, wrong. And so you go around spewing nonsense that only be interpreted in essentially a limited number of coherent (but not logical) ways: All claims to have measure the properties of neutrino interactions are: 1) the work of a great conspiracy amongst the HEP community to preserve the reputations of those who proposed the standard model (as if young upstarts wouldn't love to show up the ol' farts, or the Europeans wouldn't love to prove the American's wrong) 2) due to gross incompetence on the part of over 100 different experimenters (on 10+ independent experiments) who don't know there detectors and beams well enough to see obvious factors of three or more in the energy distributions. >The reason particle physics has failed is that models should start with >energy, then we could tell how energy *knots* up into the several >particles, and we would *know* what characteristics (and particles) are >possible and which are not. Ah, so we *know* these properties independent of that we measure? We should accept you model (that disagrees with observation) based on your infatuation with it? >See for example "VECTOR PARTICLE PHYSICS" ISBN X-XXXXXXX-X-X for the >structure of the electron type and muon type neutrinos, knotted from an >energy model. A "structure" that doesn't agree IN AN IRRECONCILABLE FASHION with observation. >Regards: Tom. -Disregards: Robert. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / dowen@vaxc.cc. / Re: For the Groups Consideration Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration Date: 13 Feb 95 10:03:23 +1100 Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia Hi folks, have a great day, :) ........... In article , B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes, with my underlining, the following..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In article > mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: >>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? > > Given that this message, and the one you posted "several days ago" both > arrived here today, it is quite possible that Alan may not have seen your > earlier message. The news propagation is strange... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -------snip------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I strongly endorse that the "news propagation is strange", I have yet to recieve Marshall's article, . Sometimes down here I see posts arriving, during the same day, all from the US, but with posting dates differing by as much as 12 days ! Also some posts appear to be getting lost in the system, as I occasionally see responses to articles which -never- reach my part of the internet. Under these conditions misunderstandings can occur and cause tempers flare, resulting in flames, infighting and the formation of cliques. All of which distances "quality" folks from the group and the noise to signal ratio increases, causing less interest in the group......viz. Positive feedback. Roll on the moderated group Deiter, hopefully the single posting source will -at least- reduce "propagation strangeness". Till then folks please keep cool, stay cool........... Regards to all, Daryl Owen. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Richard Milton / Re: The Tesla Turbine Originally-From: richard@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Tesla Turbine Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:45:28 GMT In article <3039@giga.slc.paramax.com>, Patrick J. Smith (p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com) writes: >So, can anyone tell me, in a nutshell, what Tesla Turbines are? And >can the Griggs advocates comment on whether or not this is where Griggs got >started? Just curious. Tesla's turbine is nothing to do with Jim Griggs's device, Patrick. Briefly, Tesla invented a steam turbine in the early 1890s, at just about the same time that Charles Parsons invented his turbine in England. Tesla's is a conventional device in every respect except that its turbine wheels are merely flat discs (unlike the Parsons design which uses complex shaped blades to direct the fluid flow). The Tesla design in fact relies on the steam creating turbulence as it passes over the outside edges of the plates -- it is thus a very modern design in that it is in effect a 'chaos engine'. Tesla's design was ignored because there was a slump in the U.S. and his grandiose wireless schemes lost a lot of money. Parsons got his design accepted after he 'gatecrashed' the spithead naval review of 1897 with his boat 'Turbinia' (see my book "Forbidden Science" for more details). The debate is over the comparative merits of the two designs. Parsons turbines are very expensive to make and maintain; Tesla's would be much cheaper, especially to manufacture. Tesla supporters claim his turbine is just as efficient as Parsons's. One source of confusion is that you will find the word 'cavitation' used in the context both of marine turbines and the Griggs device, but the meaning is different in each case. Parsons coined the term cavitation to describe the fact that a marine propellor rotating at high speed loses propulsion because it creates a void in the water. In the case of the GG, I understand that Cavitation is used to describe the energy that is released from the collapse of bubbles. Regards Richard -- *****************************¦******************************** Richard Milton ¦ 10 Pembury Road ¦ "Nothing is too wonderful to be Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HX ¦ true if it be consistent with United Kingdom ¦ the laws of nature." Tel/Fax: 0732 353427 ¦ richard@milton.win-uk.net ¦ Michael Faraday ============================================================== cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnMilton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.02.13 / Dieter Britz / Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Excess baggage on Droege trip Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:35:48 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Gary Steckly wrote: > blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: > > > > 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. > > Unfortunate?! I thought that was the beauty of this little > experiment. A totally public funded, on a global basis, expedition > of scientific inquiry, supposedly unencumbered by preconceived notions > or vested interests. If one doesn't want the whole world to know > about something, one shouldn't solicit contributions from the whole > world to fund the trip. I thought this was going to be an exercise > in scientific democracy, but it seems to have turned into a secretive > little backroom meeting. Gosh, maybe televised courtroom proceedings > _are_ a good thing. > > > I vote for keeping it simple. > > A little too simple I believe. I fear Jed was right. If all we get > out of this is one more persons "opinions", this has been a wasted > effort. > Tom is a bit like an elected politician; we elected him and sent the money because we trust him. The details of how he handles this, we then leave up to him. If he feels that these persons would hinder him, then he should go by himself. In fact, it is not hard to see how they might hinder his intended quiet examination of Griggs or the machine. The extreme horror scenario would be one of our vocal propagandists being there, babbling all over the place and preventing Tom from focussing on anything for more than a split second. I'm not saying that the people who have suggested themselves do intend this sort of thing; but I am saying that I'd much prefer Tom to do it his way. If "democracy" gets its way, then I fear that Tom will not go - and this exercise will have been for nothing. Which might suit certain parties. Go, Tom, please, by yourself. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 15 04:37:04 EST 1995 ------------------------------