1995.03.12 / Van / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci. stro,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.phys cs.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusio ,sci.physics.particle,sci.research Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 16:50:53 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Note the newsgroups posted to in this post. The things you are talking about should go to sci.phsyics. One of the reasons the other groups were formed to avoid this kind of post. ======== > From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) (1) Newsgroups: > alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci. (1)--(1)+-(1)--(1)--(1) + > physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.edu, \-[1] + > sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc, -( )--(1)--(1) + > sci.physics,sci.physics.computational. -(1) + > fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag, + > sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research [1] Re: The > Farce of Physics Date: Sat Mar 11 01:23:47 PST 1995 Organization: > Singularity Technologies, Inc. Lines: 54 Distribution: world > > In article <3jguql$qdn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, ncrich@ix.netcom.com > (Nicholas Rich) wrote: > > > > > I intend to check out your book. > > I'd also be interested to > know if you or anyone else has read the book > _The Big Bang Never > Happened_, Eric J Lerner, Vintage Books, A Division > of Random > House. > > > Finally, it likens todays BB religion to the > geocentricism of old. > Anyone knowledgeable on the subject have any > comments? I'd love to know > since I've never heard mention of this > book before, and this month's > time magazine seems to indicate that > the BB notion is more alive than > ever. Guess it's hard to change > and face reality when you've invested > your life's work in a > fantasy. > > Nicholas you idiot!, > > Now you have gone and done it! You have questioned the status quo! > > Why couldn't you have just left everything alone? Do you have even an > inkling of the damnable journey you have set off on? > > No. Seriously, you have joined the 'damned'. And a hearty welcome > aboard to anyone who has the courage to question the authority of > modern physics. > > Pythagoras once wrote: > > 'Having departed your house, turn not back, for the furies will be > your attendants.' > > Once you have started the journey toward truth you will be tormented > if you attempt to turn back without having learned all. > > Modern physics is a farce. I haven't read Wallace's book yet, only a > few excerpts but some of it appears on point. > > Now I have to consider you a friend - and I wasn't looking for > friends today. > > rsvp to your induction into the "company of the 'damned'" to me at > the email below. > > Best Regards, > > -- "It is dangerous to be right in > matters on which the established > authorities are wrong." > > Voltaire -- Van -- Email: vanjac@netcom.com cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.10 / jonesse@vanlab / Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Date: 10 Mar 95 18:23:39 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University In article , tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes: > In article , wrote: > >>I believe Aubrecht is wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude. >>Overall it works out to be 0.005%, which is *much* less efficient than >>technologies like photovoltaics or direct steam from sunlight. Note that Aubrecht's number for conversion of solar energy into biomass was 2% for sugar cane. Jed's reply, the number 0.005%, is unsubstantiated - it was obviously pulled out of the air. Yet Tom Kunich evidently buys it, as we see below. Later we will see who is correct. > >>The cost of harvesting and transporting and processing the fuel was estimated >>at about 8% by F. Ledig of the U.S. Forest Service, and between 6 and 10% in a >>study at Oak Ridge. > >>Overall, I think that a return to the biomass energy economy (essentially a >>pre-modern energy source) would be an ecological and economic disaster of the >>first magnitude. But I would have to see a detailed economic analysis to be >>sure. > > I would be interested in finding out why you do such a nice analysis of the > facts on this subject, yet ignore most of the hard evidence when considering > CNF. > > I suppose everyone has their weak points, but this article made me change > my mind about your capacities. If not your motivations. :-) > Facts, Tom? Jed comes up with an efficiency of conversion of solar to biomass of 0.005%, and therefore contends that author of _Energy_, Gordon Aubrecht of Ohio State University is "wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude." I have done some checking in the library, and I find that Aubrecht is correct; Jed is in error. You surprise me, Tom, by accepting a number obviously pulled out of the air in lieu of an energy researcher's published conclusions. Substantiation: "The maximum achieved photosynthetic yield of carbohydrates in the laboratory from red light corresponds to an energy conversion efficiency of 27% (10 quanta/mole of carbon dioxide fixed). Maximum yields in agriculture over short periods are, however, only equivalent to about 10% of the total visible radiation. Over the growing season, efficiencies may fall to 0.9 - 1.6% for temperate crops and up to 5% for tropical crops." David Boyles, "Bio-Energy: Technology, Thermodynamics and Costs." 1984 "A key issue is the efficiency of converting incident solar energy to the chemical energy stored in carbohydrates in plants. [snip details -- it is 6:25 pm on Friday afterall.] This sequence determines a maximum photosynthetic efficiency of 100 X .5 X .8 X .28 X .6 = 6.7%. The maximum applies primarily to C4 plants...such as maize (corn), sorghum, and sugar cane.... The maximum efficiency of energy conversion for C3 plants is about .7X 0.7 X 6.7 = 3.3%." ... "The practical maximum yields for C3 plants in temperate regions, for example, correspond to efficiencies of converting only about 1% of total sunlight received on an annual basis at the ground level into recoverable chemical energy. Even in warm climates, [practical] efficiencies for recoverable plant matter will be no more than about 2 to 3% of incident sunlight." David Hall et al., "Biomass for energy: Supply prospects," in _Renewable Energy_, T. Johansson et al. eds. 1993. These numbers, of a few %, agree with Aubrecht, of course, rather than with Rothwell's 0.005%. It is Rothwell who is "wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude" on this value. Yes, harvesting efficiencies need to be included, and chemical to electrical energy, and so on. But the fact remains that Jed's premise is wrong, Tom. Biomass to energy looks difficult, but not nearly so bleak as Jed's erroneous 0.005% solar-to-biomass conversion efficiency makes it appear. Further references are available if anyone needs these. --Steve Jones cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA? Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA? Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 12:46 -0500 (EST) pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: -> >Robert Golka conducted many experiments with huge tesla coils at Windover, -> >Utah/Nevada in the early and mid-seventies. He was trying to reproduce -> >ball lightning for use in fusion experiments. -> > -> >If anyone knows where he is: Please send phone, address, fax, email address -> -> This is from the official International BL listing (few years old). -> -> R. K. Golka** -> 400 Warren Avenue -> Brockton, MA 022401 -> -> Probably wrong but my last (615)-586-7320 Hmmm, 615 is East Tennessee, not Mass. As I am in East Tennessee, I called it anyway, and that is not his phone number. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Disappearing articles Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Disappearing articles Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 12:50 -0500 (EST) little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes: -> Marshall Dudley has complained about his articles not making it into the -> newsgroup.... is his problem related to mine? Maybe, but it seems that most of my problems had to do with my Internet supplier, Goldsword, and their link, SuraNet. Since then I have been posting all news times twice, through different Internet suppliers, and the problem seems to have gone away. (The duplicate gets tossed as a duplicate down the line so it will only show up once). Marshall cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / Bruce Dunn / Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 10:57:35 -0800 Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada In article <1995Mar10.141316.2109@physc2.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes: > > After filling with water purged of air but containing dissolved D2, the > cell > was sealed off. I do not have any working theories as to why SBSL > increases > in stability with continued running. Colleagues call this "conditioning" > the > cell, but did not indicate why this might occur -- it's an empirical > observation which our experiments bear out. The "purging of air" part may be harder than you think, in terms of getting rid of the last of the oxygen and nitrogen. Possibly, some residual oxygen remains, and reacts chemically with D2 during bubble collapse (reducing the D2 available to give the desired reaction, or otherwise interfering with the light producing reaction). With time, the residual oxygen would be scavenged by this process (converted to D2O) giving bubbles with nearly pure D2. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.11 / Howard Olson / Synthetic Metal fusion surfaces Originally-From: howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Synthetic Metal fusion surfaces Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:32:19 GMT Organization: Awaiter BBS 510-939-9992 One use for all the synmetal research I am doing could be to provide for more efficient catalysts than Palladium and Nickel for cold fusion. Perhaps molecules with labile deuterium or tritium nuclei could allow tunnelling of the latter in a catalytically efficient way. I need to know more about the putative mechanism of cold fusion in noble metals and nickel. Have you seen much here? Howard cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenolson cudfnHoward cudlnOlson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.11 / Howard Olson / D versus T Originally-From: howard.olson@awaiter.com (Howard Olson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: D versus T Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:37:19 GMT Organization: Awaiter BBS 510-939-9992 Other than fusion temperatures are there any differences between Deuterium and Tritium besides the latter's radioactivity? Does Beta decay have any effect on cold fusion? cudkeys: cuddy11 cudenolson cudfnHoward cudlnOlson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / Harry Conover / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: 12 Mar 1995 19:30:39 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : mitchell swartz writes: : : >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons underemphasized : >that the reactions and materials are quite complex. : : I think it would be fairer to say that they underestimated the difficulties. : They themselves did not realize just how difficult it is to reproduce the : effect. It was difficult then, and it still is difficult. People have become : skilled in the art, but the art has not become any easier. : : - Jed Lets footnote that with: If, in fact, there is any meaninful 'art' to be reproduced. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / Harry Conover / Re: The Expense Report Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Expense Report Date: 12 Mar 1995 19:40:48 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Were the 'grits' really justified? (Remembering how the issue on 'potted plants' helped kill Supercollider.) Harry C. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: : First things first, here is my expense report: : Air Fare (Chicago - Atlanta) $126.00 : Limousine (inc. tips) $80.00 : Car Rental $124.26 : Room (2 nights, Motel 8) $83.79 : Meals (Huddle House, inc. grits) $46.26 : Fee for my services $1.00 : Total $461.31 : My contribution (20%) $92.26 : Net Cost $369.05 : Looks like I am a cheap date. Man them Huddle House grits are great! : Meals include lunch with Jim Griggs, Scott Smith, and Dan Parker where : I picked up the tab ($24.28). I intend to report the whole thing on : my income tax next year and to pay tax on my fee. Otherwise my : accountant thinks this is a non-taxable event. : Note that I have received $1058.95 from Scott's collection and $30.00 : from a separate contribution. This leaves $719.90 in the kitty. Some : will be needed by Scott to prepare and mail out the commemorative : certificate. Y'all (I was born south of the Mason Dixon line - : memories return) will have to figure out what to do with the rest. : My plan is to write a report that is so long and so tedious that the : press will find nothing in it to make sensational. I have so far : written 300 lines and have not yet started to look at my notes. It : will not be hard to figure out what I am saying as I have already : written the conclusion. : Those that have made bets on my report should consider the problem of : settlement based on a message from the Oracle at Delphi. : Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / fernanda@cadvi / New Theory of the Universe Originally-From: fernanda@cadvision.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: New Theory of the Universe Date: 12 Mar 1995 07:54:33 GMT Organization: CADVision The A-Theory and its New Model of the Physical Universe. New testable theory shaking Physics' bases with unsuspected solutions to the nature of Gravity , superluminal communications, nature of reality, matter, time, etc. As an Advanced Summary of the work of his life CREDO: A quest for knowledge in the 20th Century, the author gives us in the book: Credo II: The Physical Universe. 1-Advanced Summary, a clear overview of an extensive search that breaks the mould of almost everything he touches. In this introductory self-contained volume, preceded by a general background of the search of Humankind for REALITY, Fernandez-Iglesias reveals in a fast pace how Space, Time, Energy and Matter appears to him as integrated in a new theory that clarifies mysteries that are actually keeping Modern Science in check. Guided by a sense of revelation, he gives new interpretations to the bases of the Physical Universe, reinterpreting, modifying or eliminating basic concepts of Zeno, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Mach, Bohr, Einstein,....to mention but a few of the giants that the author has patiently studied, finding in them concepts generally considered to be wrong which he thinks are right, and some correct ones that, although clearly appearing to be incorrect under the new light of the A-Theory, are still being sustained as solid bases of the actual Physics. The result is a surprisingly coherent, understandable and mostly testable New Absolute Model of the Universe, with no apparent contradict ons, that, although heretical if viewed from preconceived or selectively accepted ideas, brings forth a fresh and powerful wind to the field of modern thinking. A must for the interested reader, layman or specialist alike!!! Among the contents of the A-Theory and its New Model of the Universe. According to this Theory... -Not only Energy is discrete, but Space and Time, or space-time, are discrete as well. -Matter is a flickering discontinuous formation in the Physical Space due to individual strands of a powerful Ultraforce, diving at the speed of light from the 4th dimension to intersect the three-dimensional and extremely tense invisible lattice that forms the Physical Space and contains our Universe. -During this process Time is permanently generated in each material particle. -Such time is not the universal time of Newton nor Einstein's relative time, but an absolute time particular to each material particle, which follows the Lorentz transformations and is subject to slow down by speed, location in a gravitational field and temperature. -The Ultraforce generates gravity as well as the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, in a general Unified Field existing today as existed since the creation of matter. -Newton was wrong in saying that inertia does not require an acting force, and Aristotle was right when he said: All that moves is moved.-When a body moves, the movement generates a levitation effect that cancels gravity in a degree which grows as the body's speed increases. -Such levitation effect proves Galileo wrong when he said without discrimination that all bodies fall at the same speed in vacuum, because such speed is affected by the temperature of the falling bodies . All this and more, much more concerning new DIFFERENT insights on absolute space-time, matter, mass, nature of the photon as wave-particle, light speed, the lens effect, the dusk-dawn effect and the diffraction spectrum, instant connection in the Universe via negative time, The EPR experiment and the alternative to Bell's inequality, Cosmic Creation and the recurrent toric Universe, etc, etc... All this can be found in a self-contained 110 drawings, 350 page book, published under the title: CREDO II: The Physical Universe. 1-Advanced Summary. E. Fernandez-Iglesias.1993. Luce Press. 51 Rowanwood Ave. Toronto. Ontario. Canada. M4W 1Y8. Fax (416) 962 2041. Price US $27.- or CAN $35.- Shipping, handling and taxes are included. If interested you can obtain more information by: a) Retrieving a document (self extracting ZIP) with excerpts of the book by sending email to fernanda@cadvision.com in the subject line include CREDO-HLP - for HyperText document in Windows Help Format (198k) CREDO-DOC - for document in MS Word format (154k) CREDO-WP - for document in WordPerfect format (179k) b) Requesting information about the book by fax to Luce Press. Fax # (416) 962 2041. c) Buying the book directly by sending fax to the same Fax # (416) 962 2041 or email to fernanda@cadvision.com with the following coupon: Please send me ____copies of the book Credo II: The physical Universe. 1-Advanced Summary. at a price per copy of CAN $35.- or US $27.- Shipping, handling and taxes included. Orders of five to ten books will receive a 10% discount; more than ten books 20 %. Name__________________ Address_______________________________ City____________________ Country________________________________ Postal/ Zip. Code_________ Fax___________ Charge to my VISA___ Master Card___ Card #_______________ Expiry date_______ CAN $______ US $______ Signature_____________________________ Order date__________ cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenfernanda cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / jedrothwell@de / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 10:23:51 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) mitchell swartz writes: >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons underemphasized >that the reactions and materials are quite complex. I think it would be fairer to say that they underestimated the difficulties. They themselves did not realize just how difficult it is to reproduce the effect. It was difficult then, and it still is difficult. People have become skilled in the art, but the art has not become any easier. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / mitchell swartz / COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 15:52:52 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Jed Rothwell (jedrothwell@delphi.com) writes: >Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons underemphasized >that the reactions and materials are quite complex. ="I think it would be fairer to say that they underestimated the difficulties. =They themselves did not realize just how difficult it is to reproduce the =effect. It was difficult then, and it still is difficult. People have become =skilled in the art, but the art has not become any easier. =- Jed Thanks. I stand corrected. It would have been better to say that we have all underemphasized that the reactions and materials are quite complex. Such an error nearly always leads to an underestimation of the difficulty in achieving the phenomena. As people become skilled in an art, the tasks may not become any easier, but achieving them may. Best wishes. Mitchell cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.10 / jonesse@physc2 / Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Date: 10 Mar 95 14:03:42 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University In article <3jkn88$t3n@wu.labs.tek.com>, arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes: > In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu> jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes: > ....... > ..... > .... > ... > .. >>It has been *very* difficult to get SBSL using D2, compared to air. >>We pulled a vacuum on the clean D2O, while stirring to drive out dissolved >>air, then backfilled with D2 gas, still stirring. We repeated the process >>ten times in order to replace air with D2. >> >>Getting SBSL was then attempted, but very difficult at first. When we >>cooled the entire flask to about 10 C, then we started getting SBSL for >>a few seconds at a time. (We used a photomultiplier tube to view the SBSL >>at first; later, we looked in and could see the glowing bubble with the eye >>in the darkened lab. But even then the bubble was faint compared to the >>air-bubble SBSL, which can be seen without turning down the lights in the >>lab.) >> >>It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became >>more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated >>bubble. In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL >>before the equipment was dismounted. We looked just for light (with the PMT) >>and neutrons (with our best detector, underground). We saw the light, >>but we saw no neutrons. > > > > > In the Scientific American article on this subject, it was noted that a > stable, high light level experiment seemed to be dependent on the > presence of trace amounts of inert gas - like the argon in air. Your > methodology seems to exclude this. > > > However, there might be some adsorbed gas in your system that comes > into solution after a period of running, or there might be some > diffusing into your apparatus, and that could explain the apparent > improvement after some running time. > > > > Arnold Frisch > Tektronix Laboratories Since we are looking for neutrons as a means of probing temperatures inside the collapsing bubble, we wish to use D2 only, as much as possible. It is not "high light level" we are after so much as high temperatures during the (presumed) shock wave heating in the bubble, leading possibly to low-level fusion neutrons. The "improvement after some running time" is *not* an increase in light intensity, which stays the same (approx.), as shown by the oscilloscope trace from the PMT viewing the chamber. This indicates that air is *not* entering the cell significantly -- and indeed, the cell is sealed off from the atmosphere. Rather the improvement is in the length of time that a single bubble remains levitated and glowing in the cell. Somehow, this stability improves with continued running. --Steve Jones cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.10 / jonesse@physc2 / Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Date: 10 Mar 95 14:13:16 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University In article , js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano) writes: > In article <1995Mar7.131411.2101@physc2.byu.edu>, > jonesse@physc2.byu.edu wrote: > >> [snip] >> It is noteworthy that after a couple of hours of running, the D2 SBSL became >> more stable, lasting for periods up to about 25 minutes for a single levitated >> bubble. In all, we took data for a period of about eight hours with D2 SBSL >> before the equipment was dismounted. We looked just for light (with the PMT) >> and neutrons (with our best detector, underground). We saw the light, >> but we saw no neutrons. >> [snip again] >> >> Best Regards, >> Steven Jones > > This aspect of the experiment seems interesting. Why would the stability > change with time? One, admittedly pessimistic, thought is that after a > time your D2 becomes contaminated with air (even the best seals leak to > some extent). Did you continue to flow D2 into the chamber, or perhaps > keep the chamber at p(D2)>1atm.? (It would be nice if this newsreader had > some sort of subscript capability!) Not to try and get you to reveal > information ahead of publication, but do you have any working theories on > the increase in stability of the D2 SBSL with time? I assume that the D2 > quickly saturates in the liquid and it is not just an effect of increasing > the concentration with time and stirring. > > This is not my field at all but I think it is interesting, so I hope > you'll tolerate my questions! > > Cheers, > > John Vetrano > js_vetrano@pnl.gov > > -- > The above opinions are mine, all mine As I replied to Arnie also, the fact that the low-light intensity did not increase provides strong evidence that air was not diffusing into the cell. After filling with water purged of air but containing dissolved D2, the cell was sealed off. I do not have any working theories as to why SBSL increases in stability with continued running. Colleagues call this "conditioning" the cell, but did not indicate why this might occur -- it's an empirical observation which our experiments bear out. BTW, the water was not saturated with D2 -- we tried that, but could not get SBSL unless the D2 level was about 5-10% of saturation. This has also been found with air -- the amount of gas in the water must be well below saturation for stable, single-bubble SL to take place. --Steve Jones cudkeys: cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.12 / Harry Conover / Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness. Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness. Date: 12 Mar 1995 19:54:57 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote: : In article daryl@weaver.dungeon com (Savage Henry) writes: : >I've been told that you guys may be able to assist me. : >I'm interested in any information regarding the possible links : >between ball lightning and various anomalous phenomena. : >Reports of spontaneous human combustion often evidence : >an intense heat source with a restricted area of effect, sufficient : >to incinerate bone while leaving nearby fabrics untouched. [snip, snip] : One can look a people as bags of lightly watered oil and they can : burn for a long time like a large bloob of fat or tallow. : >I'd love to hear your opinions, although you may have to humour me : >with the local jargon. : : >your answers. Andrew Morriss. : >daryl@weaver.dungeon.com Perhaps a little caution is really justified here, and aluminum-foil hats (Reynolds Wrap works best) may be quite effective in protecting against both electromagnetic effects and intential mind control (you never know when to expect the evil alien influences to manifest themselves). Metalic armor is another reasonable precaution, however, a portable Halon system, albeit expensive, is often less restrictive. I often utilize such protective measures myself when traveling even though they preclude the possibility of travel by air. :-) Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy12 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Robert / Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military. Originally-From: link@enif.astro.indiana.edu (Robert...) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Tritium, Cold Fusion, and the Military. Date: 13 Mar 1995 00:05:23 GMT Organization: Indiana University In article <3jsf4r$qbn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >In <3jq5se$ce6@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> mbk@.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel) writes: >> >>Why do weapons need T? The fusion part I thought was Li6. >> > You got me there. I do not have the latest receipe for the fusion >bomb. Perhaps when it comes on the surplus market, it can be taken >apart. Or perhaps Mr. Close, other than the Defense Dept., has the >receipe. :-> >-AK- > Actually, Li_6 was used from the very beginning. If there is a bomb design that uses tritium, it would be a (comparatively) new development. -- -- -r The CPU of Dreams: If you code it, it will run. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenlink cudlnRobert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Cameron Bass / Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: responce to Joe Champion Enquiry Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 01:47:14 GMT Organization: University of Virginia In article , Mark Bennett - editor wrote: >therefore, has nothing to do with what Keller may have. Presently, Joe is >producing precious metals at commercial levels, and getting paid for it >from a South African firm. For instance, he's making platinum (500 grams >per day) from laboratory equipment for less than $3.00 per ounce. He's >also been paid for gold made by a different commercial process. Then Joe will soon be very very wealthy noting the current margins, especially if he graduates from 'laboratory equipment' to industrial equipment. Heck, at $3.00 an ounce, you don't even have to be very good at manufacturing to make lots and lots of money. And his success at keeping this 'information' from the world futures markets is nothing less than phenomenal. So, please call us again dear when he reaches a billion in net worth. Until then.... ... this is all horse poo poo. dale bass cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Carl Lydick / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci. nergy,sci.materials Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: 13 Mar 1995 02:35:55 GMT Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera In article , mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes: = In Message-ID: <3jsc4q$r02@canyon.sr.hp.com> =Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) =Stan Bischof (stanb@sr.hp.com) wrote: = == COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) == =="Lot's of folks trying various experiments. .... ==Anything real? Maybe, but I've never seen or heard of it." = = Read any of the recent literature yourself? =Given your extensive material and electronic background, =how about some scientific comments on some of the articles? =E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About =The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433, or =M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush =and J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and =helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium =cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99, or =The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4), =sponsored by EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems,December 1993 =for starters. Thanks in advance. Let's see now. Those folks touting cold fusion have been claiming for over two years now that they've actually got reproducible and useful results. Yet somehow, not one of them has brought anything to practice. I wonder why. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. cudkeys: cuddy13 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Akira Kawasaki / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci. nergy,sci.materials Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: 13 Mar 1995 04:43:00 GMT Organization: Netcom In <3k0b2b$ilm@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes: > >Let's see now. Those folks touting cold fusion have been claiming for over two >years now that they've actually got reproducible and useful results. Yet >somehow, not one of them has brought anything to practice. I wonder why. If you compare the ratio of results reported by cold fusion researchers to the public dollars spent and the time elapsed, they are doing very well as compared to hot fusion research's billions and billions (dollars--turning into pesos), and multiple decades. And in the area of proximity to practical harnessing of the energy, it is far more realistic than hot fusion. -AK- cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Thomas Kunich / Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 06:00:43 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , C. Cagle wrote: >But beyond this, Mr. Heeter, it is likely that there is a fundamental flaw >in the current theories associated with the interaction of charged >particles. >How's this effect fusion research? Easy, your >assumptions are wrong and therefore your methods cannot lead to success. It is equally interesting that cosmologists cannot explain why the neutron output from the sun is many orders lower than predicted by theory. Surely there is enough evidence gathered now to throw serious suspicion on the theories of the interactions of particles at high energy? Twould appear to me to be the perfect opening for a new big buck research project. :-) cudkeys: cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / Thomas Kunich / Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 06:14:04 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <3jpqg1$bi8@curly.cc.utexas.edu>, John W. Cobb wrote: >In article , >There are a lot of technological problems with engineering fusion reactors, >yeah. And there are open scientific problems understanding turbulent transport >plasma stability, etc. But fusion cross-sections are pretty solid. There >are not obvious experimental anomalies that I am aware of or that any >other professional I have talked to have concern about. John, I would like to point out a rather close conmparison with the perpetual motion people on this subject: perpetual motion people, like fusion power people always insist that they are just 'this' far away from finding the answers. The absence of neutrons at theoretical quantities is more than just a simple miscalculation, it is a major hole in the theories and needs a lot more addressing than it has been receiving. Chuck is certainly correct in ascerting that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the basic approach. Whether it is purely a mechanical error or a flawed physics is an interesting question and one that is hard for physicist to pose since they are thought to be experts in the field. Since you liked Cugle's quote, "Physicist, heal thyself." :-) cudkeys: cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / John Logajan / Re: Ball lightning..maybe Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Ball lightning..maybe Date: 13 Mar 1995 07:55:40 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Henry LaMuth (hlamuth@infinet.com) wrote: : We observed, during the collapse of a pinch, some toroidal ejecta that were : vaguely remeniscent of smoke rings. : My curiosity : has been piqued as to whether or not ball lightning might be a toroidal : magneto plasma with the spherical shape a result of a symetrical ionization : that masks the underlying toroidal motion. Just like to remind everyone with www browsers that I have some of Koloc's ball-lightning/plasmak graphics and pictures plus a very preliminary unauthorized "plasmak tutorial" available at the URL below. There are many more published details to be included into the tutorial, but that will take time. I do plan on adding to it as time goes by. It's a matter of reviewing the s.p.f archives for Koloc postings. -- - 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: cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.03.13 / EricPBliss / Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Originally-From: ericpbliss@aol.com (EricPBliss) Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci. nergy,sci.materials Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?) Date: 13 Mar 1995 00:18:36 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) AK writes: "If you compare the ratio of results reported by cold fusion researchers to the public dollars spent and the time elapsed, they are doing very well as compared to hot fusion research's billions and billions (dollars--turning into pesos), and multiple decades. And in the area of proximity to practical harnessing of the energy, it is far more realistic than hot fusion." -AK- Your argument is baseless if cold fusion is not a proven means to produce energy relative to hot fusion. Although hot fusion is decades away from being a reality, commercially, at least theory tell us that if achievable it will produce the energy we seek. Cold fusion, to the best of my knowledge, still hasn't been proven to be a valid theory--the scientific community in large still rejects it, anyway. And if somehow it is doing what it's supposed to be doing, the energy associated with it is nowhere near that of hot fusion, which I believe is why it has been rejected. This is why money is being poured into hot fusion research and not cold fusion. Of course, I hope I'm wrong on this and that cold fusion turns out to be cheap, efficient, and high in energy...but until the scientific community agrees on what chemistry is actually going on in cold fusion, and what the ramifications are, I'll have to stick with the majority, no matter how closed-minded that may seem. Eric P. Bliss (PhD student, environmental chemistry) (MS student, environmental engineering) University of Tennessee, Knoxville My thoughts are not necessaryily shared by the institution which I have the privledge to attend. "Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday" cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenericpbliss cudlnEricPBliss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar 14 04:37:04 EST 1995 ------------------------------