1995.02.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Biblio update; ICCF-4 papers in FT 07-Feb
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 09:27:08 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote:

> britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>  
>> Tritium, measured from aliquots taken out, rose to three times the original
>> level and stayed there.
>  
> Could someone explain this to me.  Tritium has a 12.3 year half life.  There is
> no natural source for tritium that I am aware of.  Therefore, how can there be
> any tritium to start with?  If there is none as I would think should be the
> case, then three times 0 is still 0.  Anyone know where background tritium
> could come from?
>  
>                                                                 Marshall
There are several reasons for a nonzero initial tritium reading. Firstly, the
heavy water used by people is, I believe, often recycled from nuclear labs
and sometimes contains tritium. This needs to be checked, of course.

Secondly, tritium is detected instrumentally by a scintillation count in a
"cocktail", which causes light flashes from tritium decay. The photomultiplier
detecting the flashes has some noise, so even if there were no tritium there
at all, there would still be a background reading; in fact, this background
sets your measurement sensitivity - you hope to get some comfortably large
multiple of the background, to be sure you have something significant.

Thirdly, what with all the nuclear reactors, fusion labs and H-bombs being
tested, I believe there is a measurable level of tritium in the atmosphere
everywhere. This interferes with those people who look for volcanic tritium;
can they be sure, if they find some, that it comes out of the volcano, or
maybe just wafted in out of the air? Around nuclear facilities, the T
concentration is higher. One of the "strange" results for tritium is that of
Storms who worked at Los Alamos at the time. He had two cells going, but with
very different starting times. They both "fired" with tritium at the same time.
If you subscribe to the idea that a 'cold fusion' cell needs some induction
period before it goes off, then this is indeed strange. If, on the other hand,
you note the fact that at LANL, there is sometimes tritium in the air and
wafts into labs, then... Storms rejects this more plausible explanation,
maintaining that the measurement was isolated from the lab environment.
There are, of course, also those (the volcanic tritium seekers) who suspect
that tritium is produced within the Earth by 'cold fusion'. This would set
up an equilibrium tritium concentration in the atmosphere.

Lastly, if you do have some tritium in an electrochemical cell and you
electrolyse for a long time, you must make allowance for the fact that the
lighter hydrogen isotope (deuterium) is preferentially electrolysed (Bockris
and Fleischmann are both expert at this). This means a steady enrichment of
the less preferred isotope, tritium, in the solution. There is some discussion
about the parameters involved. So if you observe an increase in tritium, you
must demonstrate that it is significantly greater than the enrichment effect.
Most papers claiming tritium mention this.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Question
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question
Date: 17 Feb 1995 00:30:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I am trying to explain what I think my contract with you all is.

I will go.  I will listen to what he has to say.  I will try to figure 
out what he is doing.  I will try to understand his instrumentation
technique.  I will try to understand how he approaches a problem. I will
write a report stating my observations.  

But there is no way on such a trip that I can render either opinion
below:

1) Griggs has an over unity device.
2) Griggs does not have an over unity device.

Stating either one could get me sued.  You have not put up enough to 
buy liability insurance.  

In article <3huhuj$72@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>In article <3hte3j$4fa@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)  
>writes:
>> This is pretty much what I plan(see below) to do. 
>
>> Then the real test of the Griggs device.  Does he show me something
>> that causes me to attempt duplication?  My pledge to you is that I 
>> will attempt duplication if my visit convinces me that the Griggs 
>> device is over unity from whatever cause. 
>
>What exactly does that mean? I sincerely expect that Griggs has a procedure
>which gives him aparent over unity results, and that superficialy
>one can;t spot the problem. But---I have a very very...very high expectation

I am being very careful not to make a statement like the above.  I am going
to look.  I will be open to be convinced one way or the other.  Since I
cannot state 1) or 2) above without a zillion dollars of insurance, you
will have to observe me a while to tell.  It will be easy.  If 1) you 
will hear me write that I have rented a space in an industrial park with
three phase power. 
 
>that he has not discovered a new power source. Whether its all a measuring
>artifact or some more obscure cause, I can't say.
>
>So, the only realistic reason to attempt duplication is to find out 
>why it _doesn't_ work, not to prove that it does.

If I think is doesn't work, why bother.  I have done my duty doing 
experiments that did not work. 

Tom Droege
 
>
>I.e., its primarily an intriguing  puzzle or an exercise---not a route to a new
>energy source.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Donald Qualls /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: silent1@ix.netcom.com (Donald Qualls)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 20:10:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <D43r9G.Fs1@freenet.carleton.ca> as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek 
Lai) writes: 

>
>
>	Hi guys.  A while back, I posted an article asking for info on
>Cold Fusion.  Thanks to all of you who replied.  It really helped a 
lot.
>
>	Well, I have another question for you guys.  If you could get 
your
>hands on some heavy water, platinum and palladium, how would you do the
>Cold Fusion experiment?  What equipment would you use?  What would be 
the
>dangers of conducting the experiment?  I got a hold of Fleissman and 
Pon's
>article in the Journal Of Analytical Electrochemistry, but the stuff in
>there is way over my head  (I'm still in high school).  What would I 
have
>to watch out for?
>
>	Basically, what I'm trying to ask is what pointers can any of 
you
>guys give to me in doing this experiment?  ANY help would be 
appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>(signed)                                      
>Derf of Ottawa, Canada.              Five out of three people have
>E-mail:                                trouble with fractions.
>as969@freenet.carleton.ca
>

Hmmm...let's see here.  I think I'd want to make the palladium electrode 
in a tubular form, with thin walls (or, as a poor second choice, as a 
sheet sealing a glass tube), and connect the interior to a vacuum pump 
and/or gas chromatograph, to watch for the species of gasses migrating 
through the metal from the D2O solution (deuterium? protium? 3He? 4He?). 

Just to be really safe, I'd also probably want to put the electrolysis 
cell in a shielded calorimeter, with a few hundred pounds of cast 
paraffin or polyethylene or a BIG light-water bath (cheap neutron 
absorbers) around it, and possibly a little lead sheeting against gamma 
radiation.  I'd want to keep both geiger and neutron counters 
(integrating, of course) running anytime the test cell is hot, with 
probes both inside and outside the shielding, and put the whole test 
cell apparatus on a nice accurate scale so I can correlate changes in 
temperature with changes in mass (in case some of the calorimeter bath 
boils off).  I'd want an integrating wattmeter on the leads into the 
cell, to keep a running tab on the energy put in relative to energy lost 
by conduction and other paths and stored heat inside the calorimeter.  
I'd want a thermistor or thermocouple probe in contact with the 
palladium, to read sudden temperature changes at that point (the 
calorimeter wouldn't pick up short fluctuations), and I'd want to be 
able to monitor the composition of the evolved gases from the test cell 
with an accuracy that would let me see if any of the deuterium is being 
"lost."

And, of course, I'd want the apparatus to support opening it up and 
changing the electrode to test different electrode materials, 
electrolyte compositions, crystal structures, heat treatments, etc.
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| silent1@ix.netcom.com | First thing you do, hang all the lawyers.    |
| Owner/Operator of     |                                              |
| TableTop Publications |    -- William Shakespeare                    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken  |
| for those of the reader.                                             |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensilent1 cudfnDonald cudlnQualls cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 17:29:36 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3hump4$m53@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
>From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
>Subject: Re: Did Tom go to Rome?
>Date: 16 Feb 1995 05:11:00 GMT

sorry...my mistake...I jotted the dates down incorrectly on my calender.

regards 

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing for o/u on Griggs hydrosonic pump
Date: 16 Feb 1995 23:07:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: I will continue trying to work out tests for each of the theories that have
: been proposed thus far.

A modification can be made to the Rothwell method (barrel) for running
extended time tests.  In the barrel test, the amount of input water is
weighed and its temp recorded.  Also the amount of water in the barrel
is weighed and its initial temp is recorded.   At the end of the test
the delta weights and temperatures are taken again.

In the modified experiment, intermediate buckets worth of water are
removed, weighed, and their temperature checked -- and then the water
is discarded.  On the input side, additional amounts of cool water are
weighed, temp recorded, and added.

If the barrel water gets too hot to condense all the steam, then for each
two buckets of hot water removed, a bucket of cool water could be added,
for example.

This eliminates the need for flow meters and the potential for over
or under reporting the heat content of escaping saturated steam (since
the steam is not allowed to escape.)

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / James Duncan /  Info Needed on Tritiated Water
     
Originally-From: jduncan@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (James B. Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Info Needed on Tritiated Water
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 21:02:48 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

:I am separating micro and picocurie amounts of tritiated water (HTO) 
:from water and am in need of tabular data on bond strengths, lengths, 
:etc.  Any source or sources would be appreciated.  Also any source or 
:sources of MO calculations on HTO (or DHO or D2O) water clusters would 
:also be appreciated.  Please send any communication to 
:jduncan@beta.tricity.wsu.edu  Thank you in adance.  I would also like to 
:hear from anyone who is interested in the above mentioned area.: 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjduncan cudfnJames cudlnDuncan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't buy no untested gadgets!
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 23:19:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <J48YMid.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     Not astonishingly, I don't send anyone to Parker Hydraulics to 
>>     test their devices before I buy one.  On the other hand a 
> 
>If the machine you buy from them costs $10,000 to $20,000 and you do not
>test it in advance then you are extremely irresponsible. Naturally, if you
>have already purchased that model and you know it works and it fits your
>needs, that's different, but if this is the first time you are buying one,
>and you accept it sight unseen and pay in advance, you are asking for trouble.
>I would never in a million years hire you for a purchasing department.

     So you send someone from the purchasing department?  That's
     an interesting choice.  You certainly might get a more complete
     purchast order.

     Besides Jed, $10,000 is beans compared to setting up an engineer
     testing $10,000 devices offsite.  Clearly your experience must
     be academic...

>>     free trial period would be quit nice.  When can I expect to receive
>>     my 'Grigg's device' for a free trial?
> 
>Don't be silly; you are not a potential customer. 

     Everyone's a potential customer for 'free energy', Jed.

     I'm amazed at what a ridiculous fool you are to not see the 
     full scope of your idiotic claims.

>And if you were, you would
>have to discuss that matter with Hydro Dynamics, not me. I have nothing to do
>with the company; I do not represent them in any way, and I do not know what

     You certainly do.  You are an advocate for the company.
     You have been spewing ridiculous c$@p about them for quite a while now.

>>     Jed, you're really going to have to decide whether this Griggs stuff
>>     is easy or hard and stick with that line.  
> 
>Do not be ridiculous. It is absolutely inconcievable that *I* would spend
>$10,000 on any first-time equipment without either testing it in advance or
>getting it on a partial payment, trial basis. If I had any use for the a Griggs
>device I would demand those terms. If I bought a $10,000 gadget from *IBM*
>I would demand those terms! 
     
     And they'd laugh at you, and rightly so.

>As for "this Griggs stuff" -- it is easy for me, but quite impossible for you,
>because you wear blinders that do not let you understand even the simplest
>and most obvious truths.

     You mean like a bad experiment?  Hey, grasshopper, Griggs device 
     does not put out more heat than it receives in input power and 
     you can bank on that.  No amount of whining, spewing, dodging or 
     misleading is going to change that.

                         dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / 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: Thu, 16 Feb 95 23:00:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Hansrudolf Brunner (brunner@srztm311.alcatel.ch) wrote:
: [gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca] persuaded the keyboard to emit something like:

: : 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.

: Did I miss something here? On my calendar, I marked the 8. of March for 
: Mr. Droeges excursion. Are you sure it was on the 8. of February?
: If you are right, and "it's all done now", where are the results?

nooooo...my mistake...I plugged the date into the wrong month in my 
calender...sorry for the confusion.  Too much happening in Feb. I guess. 

Gary
: --
: /----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
: \ Hansrudolf Brunner  [3.333]                                                \
: / Alcatel STR AG   Friesenbergstrasse 75   CH-8055 Zuerich     Switzerland   /
: \ Ph.: +41 1465 2801 Fax: +41 1465 2994 Email: hansrudolf.brunner@alcatel.ch \
: / Network Systems Switzerland                    ALMA Software Development   /
: \--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \
: /   <<<<<<<<<< It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing >>>>>>>>>>   /
: \----------------------------------------------------------------------------\


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / TRAYLING GREG /  Re: If you could:how would you do a cold fusion experiment
     
Originally-From: SPINOR@TRIUMF.CA (TRAYLING, GREG)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could:how would you do a cold fusion experiment
Date: 17 Feb 1995 01:41:00 GMT
Organization: TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

   WARNING: cold fusion experiments can be very dangerous, something about
palladium absorbing so much gas that it can explode. (I know of one research
assistant who was killed already.) The research and techniques should be
thoroughly researched before fiddling around with it.
  (And if it ever did really work, I'd be worried about the neutrons myself.)
 Greg

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenSPINOR cudfnTRAYLING cudlnGREG cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: 17 Feb 1995 06:20:28 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D43r9G.Fs1@freenet.carleton.ca> as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek  
Lai) writes:
> 
> 	Hi guys.  A while back, I posted an article asking for info on
> Cold Fusion.  Thanks to all of you who replied.  It really helped a lot.
> 
> 
> 	Basically, what I'm trying to ask is what pointers can any of you
> guys give to me in doing this experiment?  ANY help would be appreciated.
> 
> 

Well, I have a small quantity of palladium wire, D2O and LiDO that
I would be willing to sell you (left over from the CF experiment that 
I never performed, because P&F fell apart about that time). $100 for
the whole shebang (which is about what I paid for it).


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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 /  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: Fri, 17 Feb 95 09:34:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
     "Seems to me that buying a device where the needle points to "over unity"
     is absolutely worthless from a scientific viewpoint.  The idea of
     science is that someone describes an experiment *and the theory behind
     the result*."
 
Tom has a terribly limited imagination. Let me suggest a scientific use for
such a device:
 
1. Buy the machine.
2. Figure out how it works; that is, develop your *own* theory.
3. Publish the theory and win the Nobel Prize.
 
Tom apparently believes that only pre-packaged science has any value. Other
people must invent the device and devise a theory to go along with it before
he will bother to look at it. He will not solve any mysteries himself or do
any original thinking, he will only attempt to verify other people's work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 /  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: Fri, 17 Feb 95 09:39:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     Besides Jed, $10,000 is beans compared to setting up an engineer
>     testing $10,000 devices offsite.  Clearly your experience must
>     be academic...
 
No! Not academic. All of my experience is in private industry. That is why
I do not go around flushing $10,000 down the toilet; the money comes out
of *my pocket*. You steal your funding from the taxpayers of Virginia, but
I have to earn mine, so I am much more careful.
 
No doubt you are the type of fool who would pay an engineer $10,000 to
perform a one-hour teston the Griggs device, but I would never do that.
I have copies of engineering reports from excellent Atlanta firms that were
a lot cheaper than ten grand!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.18 / Barry Merriman /  Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Griggs device thermally insulated?
Date: 18 Feb 1995 23:56:31 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

Is the Griggs device thermally insulated on the outside?

Its seems to me that in order to be an efficient water heater
it must be---other wise its hot metal casing, exposed to the air, 
would be at the mercy of convective cooling to the air, which could divert
a considerable amount of heat away from its intended target (the water). 

On the other hand, Jeds description of measure the casing 
temp with a pyrometer suggests he had access to an exposed casing.

Which is it?


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.19 / Barry Merriman /  (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Jed) Question about  Griggs power measurements
Date: 19 Feb 1995 00:16:52 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Jed, could you give us a little more detail 
on exactly how you did your power in measurements?

I gather you used a Dranetz meter. What exactly is 
a Dranetz meter and how does it work? Is it the same
as an AC watt meter?

At least with an AC watt meter, aside from calibration issues,
there is the possibility that transient overloads in the 
(1) voltage or (2) current (which don't show up on the visible gauge, 
since the power factor may be << 1), or (3) deviations from a 
single frequency ac voltage could lead to erroneous readings. The
sames applies to a utility company watt meter, which works on these
principles. (Also, does Griggs run his motors off of 3 phase power
or single phase power?).

For example, I recall when NIST tested Joe Newmans free energy generator,
they found that it generated very large transient voltage spikes 
(probably because of the very long wires it used internally---JN's
theory was that long wires were essential for his effect) which 
confounded convential measureing equipment; when they used equipment
capable of handling the high voltages and transient timescales,
they found it performed well under unity, with less efficiency than
a standard electric motor (not suprising, since it was probably of
inferior design).

It seems to me that in order to rule out these possibilities, one
has has to either

(0) set it up to run off of DC current, which simplifies the 
power in calculation 

(though this could still miss some
transient power, so it would really only be definitive if
it showed less than unity operation; if it was still over unity,
you would need to proceed to:)

(1) Use a oscilloscope with a high voltage and current 
rating to carefully time integrate the power in

or

(2) Supply a known amount of energy, say by driving a
DC motor with a capacitor discharge of known quantity.

Probably the easiest of these would (1), all things considered.
Especially, a good digital o-scope that could do the time
integration of I(t)*V(t) would make it a snap (I don;t know if there
are any that do that, but I've seen em with so many features that 
that must be one of them :-).

Power in measurements are the only thing that could confound the analysis,
but given the precedent of the Newman machine, and the factor that 
electric power in is the least tangible aspec of this otherwise mechanical 
experiment, it seems it must be addressed.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / 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: 16 Feb 1995 23:09:33 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link



> Mike Kelsey (kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) Writes:

>100,00 events is an incredibly *LOW* rate, actually.  ........(snip)
> Each spill ......contains approximately 10^12 (that's 
1,000,000,000,000) protons
> Given the energies involved, they should end up with roughly the 
> same number of pions coming down the pike and decaying into muons
> and neutrinos.

Mike, I agree with the numbers but this all presupposes that the 
neutrinos follow the charged particle beam direction, and acquire energy 
from the beam's momentum.  The pions and muons must range out in the fast 
spill target and/or the beam dump and berm, before unloading their 
neutrinos.   Further, the records I have seen of (herky jerky) muon decay 
shows that the decay electron momentum is not along the path of the 
incoming muon.   Also, if the steering/focus  magnets cause the muon to 
precess around the field lines (as muons do at CERN when measuring the 
muon magnetic moment) decay particles come off at angles to muon momentum 
direction.  There are the other problems I raised in the (theoretical 
neutrino beam) divergence, and how accurately one can *boresite* the beam 
direction to hit that small (3meter square) flash chamber crossection.    
And of course the theoretical number of supposed neutrinos (if every 
thing works as theory planned) is not per sq cm, but per 9 sq meter.  And 
if the beam does not (theoretically) intercept the full volume, that 
reduces the fiduciary volume and theoretical detector sensitivity.   

Boggles the mind!  Mr. Hatcher et. al. have a very tough row to hoe.

 I'm willing to bet (one cup of decaf) the 100,000 *events* are all along 
the exact center axis of the flash chamber..    

If so the data is suspect!

Regards: Tom.




--
Thomas N. Lockyer <lockyer@svpal.org>     
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212
Tel. (415)967-9550
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlockyer cudfnThomas cudlnLockyer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Mike Kelsey /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:06:49 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <D42pB9.GKr@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, panetta@finch.SLAC.St
nford.EDU (James H. Panetta) writes:
|> In article <3hb5ov$dv5@news.utdallas.edu>, iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
|> |> I think its a conspiracy.
|> 
|> You let them know, Ira.  You will have to be terminated.  
|> I'll have Pat do it after he comes back from the meeting.
|> 
|>      --Jim

Discussion of personnel termination in a public forum is prohibited
under Edict 12.  Your actions have jeopardized the organization, and
you shall be eliminated.

(LKHQWE(*&#ONDkjaweo8
NO CARRIER

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkelsey cudfnMike cudlnKelsey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.14 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Not quite muonic fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not quite muonic fusion
Date: 14 Feb 95 14:46:57 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199502070718.SAA27821@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>, 
rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
> Quick question for Dr. Jones, if he is still watching:

I lurk here occasionally now.  Teaching a new course along with research takes
much of my time.  I'm looking forward to hearing about Tom Droege's trip to
Georgia to study the Griggs device.
> 
> Would a negatively charged particle, with mass greater than that of a 
> muon vary the ratio of the production of T to 3He in D-D fusion?
> (Assuming it lived long enough). If a variation in ratio were 
> possible, what would the limits be?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
> 

Robin, I see no reason to expect that the T to 3He ratio from d-d fusion would
vary:  once the excited 4He nucleus is formed (from d+d fusion), it will decay
into T+p and 3He+n about equally -- shouldn't matter how the excited 4He
got there.

I have often reiterated the fact that in muon-catalyzed fusion, the branching
ratio is close to 1:1 for t+p and 3He+n channels for d-d fusion.  And this
*is* cold fusion, the only bona fide form of cold fusion in fact.
So how can claims of forming tritium without neutrons (e.g., Will, Bockris,
Claytor, etc.) be consistently supported?  And if tritons are formed by some
nuclear reaction(s) other than d+d fusion, why do not these tritons then
collide with ambient deuterons to produce neutrons from the secondary reaction:
  t + d --> 4He + n  ?
The fact is, both primary (d+d-->3He + n) and secondary neutrons (above
reaction) are *missing* in these experiments.  And secondary x-rays are also
missing.  So I think the case for "cold fusion" reactions which purportedly
produce tritium without producing neutrons is very weak indeed.

Note:  there is commonly tritium in D2O as it is purchased, and this tritium
can easily be concentrated in an electrochemical cell during its operation.
This is why P&F withdrew their claims of tritium production in 1989, if I
recall correctly.

Back to lurking and working.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / H Brunner /  Re: For the Groups Consideration
     
Originally-From: brunner@srztm311.alcatel.ch (Hansrudolf Brunner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For the Groups Consideration
Date: 16 Feb 1995 11:21:59 GMT
Organization: Alcatel STR AG, Switzerland

[gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca] persuaded the keyboard to emit something like:

: 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.

Did I miss something here? On my calendar, I marked the 8. of March for 
Mr. Droeges excursion. Are you sure it was on the 8. of February?
If you are right, and "it's all done now", where are the results?

--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
\ Hansrudolf Brunner  [3.333]                                                \
/ Alcatel STR AG   Friesenbergstrasse 75   CH-8055 Zuerich     Switzerland   /
\ Ph.: +41 1465 2801 Fax: +41 1465 2994 Email: hansrudolf.brunner@alcatel.ch \
/ Network Systems Switzerland                    ALMA Software Development   /
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \
/   <<<<<<<<<< It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing >>>>>>>>>>   /
\----------------------------------------------------------------------------\


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbrunner cudfnHansrudolf cudlnBrunner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 /  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: 16 Feb 1995 18:58:48 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <D43quu.Hzs@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, frisch@hebe.SLAC.Stan
ord.EDU (Josef C. Frisch) writes:

[I've set followups to sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators since I was
nicely requested to do so by a third party (the other listed group really
aren't relevant).  I'll be doing this in the future as well, but in
fairness I don't think I can direct only my reply to the restricted range
(though I encourage others to do the same...maybe acting together we can
control the spread of this thread).]

>Robert, 
>Thanks very much for posting the data to WWW. The data, of course, looks quite
>reasonable, although I'm a machine physicist, and not really qualified to
>evaluate the data. I can see, however, that the data my look confusing to someone
>who does not understand the measurements. 

This morning (16-Feb-95) I added a little more text explaination.  Hope it
helps.

>Another (very secondary, but readable)
>source for neutrino interaction data is given in "Physics Vade Mecum", which
>references "Review of Particle Properties, PHys Lett 204B, 1988". This gives a
>graph of neutrino cross section vs energy from about 10GeV to 200Gev. The data is
>from 10 different experiments, done at different sites. All of the data (above
>about 20GeV, where things get noisy) falls along a line giving a linear increase
>in cross section with energy. 

In previous "discussions" with Tom I supplied references to the plot you
mention.  For many years it was published every two years in the Particle 
Data Group review, but this last edition (1-Aug-94 Phys Rev D) didn't 
include it...probably becuase it is soooo well established.  One can also
find it in Phys Rev D45, 1-jun-92 part II, pgIII.82

I encourage others to look up such references.  You'll note that E733 isn't
one of the listed experiments -- that's because we've never published a 
_absolute_ cross section which is what these are.  But that doesn't mean
that we can't tell the difference between a cross section that is flat
or decreasing with neutrino energy and one that rises linearly.  

>Maybe it would help in your "discussion" if you show a plot of total cross
>section vs energy. The phase space may be confusing. 

Alas, I have no convient way of scanning in that plot...

-robert
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhatcher cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Scott Little /  Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Precise Description of the Over Unity Calculation
Date: 16 Feb 1995 14:27:59 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

snip

>(Note: I apologize for using such a barbaric computer language.

BASIC is hardly barbaric.  Despite it's name, it is a high-level language
that has been developed to a highly refined state.  Its bad reputation
comes mainly from snobs (spelled Cnobs) who don't like the fact that
BASIC does not impose any structure on the programmer (e.g. you don't have
to declare variables, etc.)  This allows sloppy people to write really 
sloppy programs in BASIC...commonly called "spaghetti code".

For everything from dashing off little number crunchers to writing fairly
complex data acquisition and control programs, I say you can't beat 
MicroSoft's QuickBASIC with it's "run from within the environment" 
capability.

I admit, however, that for powerful application programs like word
processors, spread sheets, etc. BASIC is not the tool to use.  


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Alastair Mayer /  Re: Where tritium comes from
     
Originally-From: alastair@firewall.ihs.com (Alastair Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where tritium comes from
Date: 16 Feb 1995 11:10:42 -0700
Organization: Information Handling Services

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
[ stuff on 'natural' background tritium deleted ]
: fear.  Much of the total inventory of tritium is maintained in a
: stable, solid form as tritium hydride.  Among the metals favored for

Solid tritium hydride, eh?  Is the freezing point significantly different
from deuterium hydride or plain old protium hydride?  So what happens
whe the refigerator fails?

[.snip.]

: Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenalastair cudfnAlastair cudlnMayer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Derek Lai /  If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
     
Originally-From: as969@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Derek Lai)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If you could, how would YOU do a cold fusion experiment?
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:00:52 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet


	Hi guys.  A while back, I posted an article asking for info on
Cold Fusion.  Thanks to all of you who replied.  It really helped a lot.

	Well, I have another question for you guys.  If you could get your
hands on some heavy water, platinum and palladium, how would you do the
Cold Fusion experiment?  What equipment would you use?  What would be the
dangers of conducting the experiment?  I got a hold of Fleissman and Pon's
article in the Journal Of Analytical Electrochemistry, but the stuff in
there is way over my head  (I'm still in high school).  What would I have
to watch out for?

	Basically, what I'm trying to ask is what pointers can any of you
guys give to me in doing this experiment?  ANY help would be appreciated.






--
(signed)                                      
Derf of Ottawa, Canada.              Five out of three people have
E-mail:                                trouble with fractions.
as969@freenet.carleton.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenas969 cudfnDerek cudlnLai cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 / Henry Spencer /  Re: Orbiting satellites
     
Originally-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Orbiting satellites
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 18:21:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <bigfoot.792405393@pentagon.io.com> bigfoot@pentagon.io.com (Bigfoot) writes:
>  1. What is the minimum altitude above the earth, for a satellite to be 
>     put in orbit around the earth ? How do you calculate that minimum 
>     orbital altitude ?

There is no single minimum; it depends on how affected your satellite is
by air drag and how long you want it to last.  The lowest orbital altitude
of any real practical interest is about 150km, and orbital lifetime there
is only a day or so; it's useful only as a short-term parking orbit.  The
later Apollo lunar missions used a parking orbit at about that altitude.
-- 
There is a difference between                      |       Henry Spencer
cynicism and skepticism.                           |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.16 /  jonesse@acoust /  Scheme to probe radioactive nuclei using negative muons
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scheme to probe radioactive nuclei using negative muons
Date: 16 Feb 95 10:46:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Muons can be used to probe radioactive nuclei, such as 9Li and 11Li recently
under discussion here.  As the negative muons cascade down to lower
levels, they probe the electromagnetic environment, and emit hard x-rays to
provide the desired information.  After replaying the discussion, I will
outline a method whereby muons can be trapped by short-lived radioactive
nuclei to permit structure studies.

In article <3heofh$5f4@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, 
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <3hemhk$5bv@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> I wrote:
> 
>>In article <3hcdg3$2nh@stratus.skypoint.net> 
>>jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>>>
>>>They suggest a binding energy between the core and the dineutron of
>>>about 0.3MeV.
>>
>>Right, and that means a wavefunction that is mostly tail. 
> 
> and forgot to add that what makes the physics of Li-11 interesting 
> is that there are indications (but no solid proof) that it is not 
> a di-neutron around a core, but rather two neutrons on opposite 
> sides of the core. 
> 
> First indications suggested that what happens is that the mean 
> field of the Li-9 core acts to stabilize the otherwise unstable 
> di-neutron, an interesting result.  However, this would not be 
> reasonable for such widely separated neutrons unless there was a 
> long-range force, which is probably what these guys are writing 
> about, although conventional calculations seem to work out without 
> invoking any new force (which could cause real problems elsewhere). 
> Anyway, the nature of the experimental data does not force any 
> particular limits on any models just yet. 
> 
> What I did not comment on, and should have, is my puzzlement as to 
> why this is in a fusion journal.  As an explanation for cold fusion, 
> this leaves a lot to be desired -- this is hardly an aneutronic or 
> radiation-free explanation.  People would be dead if this were the 
> mechanism.  As nuclear physics, however, it raises lots of interesting 
> consequences that should be spelled out and checked. 
> 
> -- 
>  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Tallahassee, where the crime rate 
>     http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is almost twice that in New York 
>  Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  City.  Reported crimes, that is.  
>  Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  A subtle statistical detail.  


Indeed, there is much that could be learned about 9Li, 11Li and other nuclei
using muons as probes.  But lifetimes are short; about 180 ms for 9Li and
10ms for 11Li.  So how can we trap muons (lifetime 2.2 microseconds) in order
to make the study?  The trick is to use the Ramsauer effect, whereby 
deuteron-muon atoms travel through solid hydrogen as if were transparent,
until the d-mu encounters a Z>1 nucleus, then muon transfer to that nucleus
is very rapid.  Here is the picture:
            
-   11Li    |
   -   beam |
       -    | Target of solid hydrogen + 1% deuterium frozen on a foil
           -|
          - |
        -   |
      -
    - Muon- beam

1.  Solid H2+D2 target stops radioactive nuclei and muons
2.  p-mu atom forms (about 10^-10sec), then mu transfer to form d-mu is fast
3.  d-mu atom slows quickly to E of approx. 2 eV, at which energy H2 is
  TRANSPARENT to d-mu due to Ransauer effect (first observed by Alvarez 1956)
4.  d-mu atom encounters radioactive nucleus, and muon transfers very
  rapidly to it
5.  Muonic x-rays disclose charge distribution in 11Li (etc.)

I thought of this sequence a few years ago; independently, I believe, another
physicist in Japan thought of it.  Hopefully it will be tried at RIKEN,
in Japan.

One would be particularly interested in a probe of 56Ni and 11Li.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 /  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: Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:20:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I remarked that I would not even buy an untested product from IBM without a
trial period (or low down payment, or something like that). Dale Base
suggested that IBM would laugh in my face if I demanded such terms. That is
incorrect. First of all, IBM never laughs in anyone's face. In the old days
they might have chuckled behind your back, but nowadays they are contrite.
Second, even in the unlikely event that they did laugh, a sensible customer
would simply go to some other large, reputable company that offers an
unconditional money back guarantee during a trial period. Dell and many others
offer this kind of written sales contract. During the first 90 days (I think
it is) you can return their equipment with no questions asked for a full
refund. I am sure they honor those terms, which they advertise widely. With a
small company, even a written unconditional money back guarantee might not be
sufficient. They might not have the money to return. A partial payment or an
escrow account might be appropriate.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Mike Kelsey /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:50:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <3i0lvd$4se@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
|>  <3hrbdk$slm@borg.svpal.org> <D41uv7.MJD@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: svpal.svpal.org
|> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> > Mike Kelsey (kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) Writes:
|> 
|> >100,00 events is an incredibly *LOW* rate, actually.  ........(snip)
|> > Each spill ......contains approximately 10^12 (that's 
|> 1,000,000,000,000) protons
|> > Given the energies involved, they should end up with roughly the 
|> > same number of pions coming down the pike and decaying into muons
|> > and neutrinos.
|> 
|> Mike, I agree with the numbers but this all presupposes that the 
|> neutrinos follow the charged particle beam direction, and acquire energy
|> from the beam's momentum.  The pions and muons must range out in the fast 
|> spill target and/or the beam dump and berm, before unloading their 
|> neutrinos.   

No, they don't.  Particles decay in flight.  The particle itself has no idea
whatsoever that it is moving.  It thinks it is quietly at rest, waiting
patiently to decay at some random time given by exp(-t/t0), and that the entire
Universe, in the form of a steel vacuum pipe, is moving past it at nearly the
speed of light.  Maybe this is the entire source of your confusion.   Particles
decay with an exponential time distribution, beginning from the momentum they
are created.  They do NOT have to decay at rest in the laboratory frame; at the
same time, they *always* decay at rest in their own reference frame.

Relativistic kinematics.  In the rest frame of the decaying pion, for example,
we have pi -> mu nu_mu, where the muon and the neutrino come out with equal and
opposite momentum vectors (p(mu) = 30 MeV/c), with direction that is
essentially isotropic as far as a detector is concerned.  m(pi) = 140 MeV,
m(mu) = 106 MeV, and m(nu) <<< m(pi), so we can neglect it, just as we would
the electron mass.  We have E(mu) = 110 MeV, and therefore E(nu) = 30 MeV.

Now.  In the laboratory frame, consider an incident pion at, say 100 GeV.
Since you are worried about the divergence of a neutrino from the incident
pion direction, let us consider the worst case, where the decay axis just
happens to be exactly perpendicular to the direction of motion.  Then, the
decay particles have p_perp = p(mu,rest).  We have for the relativistic boost,
gamma = 10^5/140 = 714, and beta.gamma = 714 (since m(pi) <<< E(pi,lab),
we can approximate E(pi,lab) = p(pi,lab)).  Since we have hypothesized a
decay perpendicular to the beam axis, we get p_long(mu,lab) = beta.gamma*m(mu)
= 75.7 GeV, for a total momentum p(mu,lab) = SQRT(p_long^2 + p_perp^2) = 75.7
GeV (there is a difference at about 1 part in 10^6, which is suppressed because
I'm only using 3 significant figures).

The neutrino in the lab frame carries 100 - 75.7 = 24.3 GeV of which 30 MeV is
perpendicular to beam axis (remember, this is the worst case, maximum
divergence; most neutrinos will have a much smaller ratio of p_perp/p).  In
this case, the divergence angle theta = arcsin(.030/24.3) = 1.23E-3 radians.

For a 1 km decay berm, this means that a nominally collinear neutrino beam
will have spread to a maximum of 1.23 meters radius (2.46 meter spot) at
the E-733 detector, which is smaller than the detector's area.

[...]
There are the other problems I raised in the (theoretical 
|> neutrino beam) divergence, and how accurately one can *boresite* the beam 
|> direction to hit that small (3meter square) flash chamber crossection.    
|> And of course the theoretical number of supposed neutrinos (if every 
|> thing works as theory planned) is not per sq cm, but per 9 sq meter.  And 
|> if the beam does not (theoretically) intercept the full volume, that 
|> reduces the fiduciary volume and theoretical detector sensitivity.   

Simple geodesic techniques, just like they use when building skyscrapers, can
do relative-position surveying to within a few centimeters, over a distance of
well over a kilometer.  Are you now going to claim that standard engineering
techniques, as outlined in the Uniform Building Code, are *also* suspect,
because when they are applied to physics they violate your pet theory?  Or
are you going to claim that (a) special relativity is false because
calculations based on it violate your pet theory; or (b) that the alleged mass
you claim for the neutrino is sufficiently large (on the order of tens of GeV),
that my divergence calculation above is wrong?  Either way, it is you that have
the long crackpotty row to hoe, Mr. Lockyear.
						-- Mike Kelsey
-- 
[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
 "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire
  off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark
  near the Tannhauser Gate.   All these moments will be lost in time,
  like tears in rain."                                    -- Roy Baty
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenkelsey cudfnMike cudlnKelsey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 /  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: Fri, 17 Feb 95 12:44:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Even the Wright Brothers (Where have we heard of them?) did not simply
>throw together an airplane and set off on a flight around the world.
>Are we then to believe that every attempt at stirring water is going
>to produce over-unity operation and possibly even cold fusion?
 
These statements make no sense to me whatever. But, in any case, the
answer to the first question is: No, they did not just "throw together" an
airplane. It took them about five years to get off the ground, and an
additional two years to make a reasonably reliable machine. Key dates
were 1903 and 1905, the patent was granted in 1906, and recognition came
in the fall of 1908. The first flight around the world was performed soon
after First World War, by a fleet of U.S. Army boat-planes.
 
The second question has nothing to do with the first, but in any case:
No, we should not believe that every attempt at stirring water will produce
over-unity operation. The classic water stirring experiments performed by
J.P. Joule and the blank (null-rotor) work by Griggs and others confirms
this fact. Anyone who attempts to replicate Griggs will find that it is
terribly difficult to make a device that reliably and consistantly produces
excess heat. Huffman claims he has done so, with considerable effort. His
claims have not been verified yet, although he does have some interesting
data. I expect his machine will be tested by some independent party soon.
If may turn out that he *has* done it. To answer Dick's question: if that
happens then I am sure some of us will believe it, but pathological
"skeptics" like Dick Blue will dream up some absurd fantasy reason not to
believe it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.02.17 / Tom Repetti /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti)
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:03:35 -0600
Organization: LITCO

> 
> Discussion of personnel termination in a public forum is prohibited
> under Edict 12.  Your actions have jeopardized the organization, and
> you shall be eliminated.
> 

Not only that, but the energy output to wipe the memories of all the
humans who have read this thread is gonna be ENORMOUS. The Over-Commandant
ain't gonna like it; this'll cut into our profit margins bigtime. Way to
go, guys.

Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentqr cudfnTom cudlnRepetti cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 19 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
