1995.03.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 28 Mar 1995 06:38:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
:  Cameron Randale Bass wrote:
: > Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
: > >Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
: > >does not claim over unity operation.
: > 
: >      I agree.  If he is not even willing to make such a claim,
: >      why should we infer any such claim?
:
: I don't care about a good water heater, at least here.
: Case closed, please?

There seems to be a group form of amnesia going on here 'bouts.

There are, in fact, published claims of over-unity for the Griggs
device.  These claims are based upon measurements made by independent
investigators (Rothwell and Mallove.)

Now Griggs knows of nothing wrong with his own over-unity measurements,
but he claims caution on claiming over-unity on the basis that something
might appear in the future to explain it all away.  Yet there is nothing
offered to suggest that Griggs does not support his own measurements,
and nothing Griggs can currently say to reflect on the independent
measurements of others who had test access to his machine.

Not even Griggs can wave away independent observations without offering
some reason to doubt them.

So in summary, there is a public claim for over-unity in a device
designed by Griggs, but tested by others -- a test which Griggs himself
verifies daily.

I don't like things waved away on the basis of wordplay alone, so I
am completely unsatisfied that any final conclusions can be drawn from
the Droege visit in which no useful measurements were made.

Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
poetry newsgroups.

--
 - 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:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 27 Mar 95 13:49:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3l2r3a$2lr@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) writes:
> In article <1995Mar25.132319.2150@plasma.byu.edu>, 
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
> 
>>However, why limit the reward to a demonstration of 'excess heat'?  
>>That is, why not include demonstration of charged particle production, or
>>neutrons, or gammas or some other indication of *nuclear reactions*?
>>I think this is what you were talking about just a few days ago-- can't see
>>any good reason to keep the would-be nuclear-products people out of the
>>running.
>>
>>In this way, the prize is opened to essentially all classes of what has been
>>termed (rightly or wrongly) 'cold fusion', without prejudice.  The first
>>to demonstrate *something* anomalous would then go through steps as you
-->that is, Tom Droege-->

>>outlined to claim the prize.
>>
>>--Steve Jones
> 
> Granted that reproducible nuclear products would be just (if not more)
> impressive than reproducible excess heat. I see no reason to limit the
> prize to just excess heat. One or the other would be acceptible to me.
> 
> I think it would be good to finalize this before the ICCF5 meeting.
> Someone here suggested advertising the prize at ICCF5 - I think thats
> a good idea. Since I'm going to be at ICCF5, if no one else steps
> forward to do the advertising, I would be willing to do it. But if
> some else wants to, that would be fine with me too.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill Page.

We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
those who contributed to the contribution pot?
Suggest we let Bill go ahead and advertise this prize at ICCF5.  (Note, I
will not be going, and I don't think Tom Droege will either.)

I also like Dean Edmonds recent suggestion #2, that is, that we "limit the
vote [following Tom Droege's posted suggestion] to those who contributed to the
prize. ...it might encourage others (such as myself) to contribute thereby
making the prize even more attractive.  (Some minimum contribution level should
be established.)"

Suggest we follow this idea, too -- with a minimum of $15, to be sent to
Tom Droege to add to the collection pot.  (This is close to the minimum for
the original collection, as I recall.)

How 'bout it?
--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bottom line?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bottom line?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 10:22:53 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 25 Mar 1995, Tom Droege wrote:

> 
> I think the big mistake made with P&F was in not giving them access to 
> the accepted scientific literature.  We should have let them publish 
> there and accept the consequences (whatever they are) to their reputation.
>
As Dagwood used to say, "Where do you get this 'we' stuff from?". You are
now making the same mistake as the TB's, Tom, who keep on about how CNF is
not allowed into journals. P&F published their first and second papers in
J. Electroanal. Chem., and the first one (a Preliminary Note) got accelerated
treatment. In electrochemistry, JEC is THE journal, you can't get better
access than that. Then there was a paper in Physis Letters A, again pretty
good access.
The propagandists will now start their ritual howl about nature and Science
not taking CNF papers. Well, nature did take Jones et al, and probably would
have taken F&P (&H)'s, if the authors had been prepared to do yet another
revision. After that (and a couple of counter-papers), agreed, they closed
their doors to CNF. But as I have written here many times, Nature and Science
are not the only respectable journals, so why beat your head against their
door, as it were?

As to the reputations of P & F - and Bockris - electrochemists get a bit of a
personality split. We grin sheepishly when hearing the names in connection with
CNF, and then remind each other that all their other work is tops, and stands.
It is interesting to me that during the last 6 years, there have appeared
mainstream electrochemical papers by all these workers; normal life goes on.
Nor are we so surprised at these people; Bockris is known as a maverick with
occasional outbreaks into irrationality and pet theories that he defends
vigorously, while being the father of much of today's knowledge base in the
field. Much the same can be said about Fleischmann, although he doesn't break
out quite so strongly; he too looms large in the field. One of the areas of
growth in electrochemistry is ultramicroelectrodes, and both F & P's names
are attached to that.
So no problem with their reputations. Having said that, though, I do wonder
at Bockris playing alchemist on TV, or F&P talking of turning off a current
in a cell that has gone dry some time before that.

I am against further discussion of Griggs' machine here; it is not fusion
and a water heater bores me.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Thomas Selby /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 28 Mar 1995 13:52:57 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

As an original contributor I support this idea, and am willing to sweeten 
the pot.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happend (if anything?)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 13:32:32 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <lundgrca-270395143237@lundgrca.es.dupont.com>,
lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren) wrote:


> 
> 	Before the beta phase Pd hydride can be formed, hydrogen must first be
> adsorbed onto the surface, by the following 1 electron reduction:
> 				H+ + 1e- ---> Pd-H(ad)
> The hydrogen then diffuses into the bulk where supposedly cf occurs.
> Diffusion is much faster than the adsorption step. The hydrogen adsorption
> reaction is very easily poisoned, and sometimes by 10 **-10 mol/dm3 levels.
> It is not unreasonable to think that other materials may preferentially
> adsorb to the surface, blocking sites. A good reference is M. Enyo,
> Hydrogen Electrode Reaction on Electrocataltically Active Metals in
> "Comprehensive Treatise of Electrochemistry", Vol. VII, Conway, Bockris,
> Yeager, Khan, White, eds., Plenum Press, 1983.
> 
> Cindy Lundgren

	Of course it should go without saying (although I'm not so sure about some
of the members of this forum, it can get kindof nit picky around here,
which is why I'm responding to my own post ;-) ), that what is true for the
hydride applies also to the deuteride, albeit with different kinetics.

Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  dsykes@ivory.t /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dsykes@ivory.trentu.ca
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 15:00:56 GMT
Organization: Trent University, Peterborough

I would like to see more! 
	You must have some good stuff to have J. A. Wheeler to comment so 
kindly. Please send to DSYKES@TRENTU.CA



In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>, wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
>   In Chapter 5 of my book "The Farce of Physics" I wrote of my visit with
>Lowell M. Hollingsworth, Technical Advisor for Electronics, Department of the
>Air Force, who came to my hotel room to discuss the Venus radar evidence
>against Einstein's relativity theories.  My principle reason for going to
>Boston was to attend the December 26-31 1969 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE
>ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE Meeting that included a symposium on "Unidentified
>Flying Objects."  Thornton Page, who had been a major help in my relative
>velocity of light research, was Chairman of the symposium, and the program
>included just about all the major scientists that had been involved in UFO
>research.  Page introduced me to Carl Sagan, and we had several interesting
>conversations of the subject.  Sagan and Page edited a 1974 Norton book titled
>"UFO's--A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE" that included most of the papers that were
>presented at the symposium.  In Sagan's paper titled "UFO's: The
>Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses" starting on page 267 he wrote:
>
>  ... If we put in a number like 10^7 years for the average lifetime of
>  advanced technical civilizations, we come out with a number for such
>  technical civilizations in the galaxy of about a million: ... There are
>  serious problems in interstellar flight, principally because the space
>  between the stars is enormous. ... To travel very close to the speed of
>  light is difficult.  There is a literature on the subject of relativistic
>  interstellar flight, maybe thirty of forty papers in various scientific
>  journals.^3 ... What I've learned from the Bussard idea is that is possible
>  even at the present time to think of methods of running between the stars.
>  ... What is critical is that there are conceivable ways of doing it without
>  bumping into fundamental physical constraints. ...
>
>On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the Sunday Newspaper PARADE
>MAGAZINE in an article titled "The Search For Signals From Space" Sagan wrote:
>
>     "It would be demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval."  But by
>the standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present science
>will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no extraterrestrials. ...
>"All through history, advanced civilizations ruin slightly more backward
>civilizations."  Certainly.  But malevolent aliens, should they exist, will
>not discover our existence from the fact that we listen.  The search programs
>only receive; they do not send. ...
>
>It is very possible that the survival of the human race will ultimately depend
>on the level of our science and technology.  If we run into a malevolent
>advanced alien civilization it could be the end of us!  We now have
>observational evidence from 1982 to 1993 of gas clouds in a jet squirting from
>the giant elliptical galaxy M87 at 2.5 times the standard speed of light, and
>conventional relativity theory can not explain it.(Sky and Telescope Jan.
>1995, page 15)  As I've shown in my book, the solar system radio and radar
>data show that light in space can move faster than the standard earth lab
>speed, now it appears that matter in space can also move faster than the
>standard earth lab light speed limit!  One must realize that in 1905 when
>Einstein wrote his first published paper on relativity, it was long before we
>knew the true nature of galaxies or had any evidence of the background
>radiation.  It was before the age of modern electronic technology and space
>flight, and our ability to send light signals through empty space over large
>distances from fast moving spacecraft.  In Chapter 3 of my book we find that
>near the end of his life in 1954, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso:
>
>  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
>  concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
>  my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest
>  of modern physics.
>
>   Modern physics is largely a farce due to the fact that for pathological or
>political reasons most modern physicists refuse to objectively evaluate the
>modern observational evidence.  Richard Feynman was one of a small number of
>physicists that have had the intelligence and courage to behave like
>legitimate scientists on this matter.(James Gleick, GENIUS, THE LIFE AND
>SCIENCE OF RICHARD FEYNMAN, Vintage Books, NY 1992)  As I've shown in Chapter
>7 of my book, my research has only scratched the surface of the full potential
>of the logical advance from the stationary ether/vacuum/space of Einstein with
>its mystic infinite mass and energy properties, to the dynamic ether of
>Feynman with its complete conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.(R. P.
>Feynman, QED, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1985)  The computer
>simulation of the mass dynamics showed the proper magnitudes for the
>gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable
>algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from
>positive and negative electrons, just as John A. Wheeler suspected.  I expect
>that some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological trick
>that will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass
>annihilation will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to
>very powerful weapons and space travel at light speeds.  We have already sent
>4 spacecraft out of the Solar System using chemical energy, but it will take
>around 40,000 years for them to reach the nearest star systems.  Mass
>annihilation will produce about 2 billion times more energy then chemical
>reactions, giving us a more realistic source of power for space travel.  It
>may be that Cold Fusion energy comes from annihilation and not fusion.  The
>particle physicists should concentrate on creating energy from protons, and
>not making useless unstable particles.  Of the many interesting comments on
>the book that I've received to date, the most important one was by Wheeler who
>wrote:
>
>    "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the speed of
>  light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in a subject so
>  important.
>
>   In Chapter 4 of my book I give an example of the open arrogance and lack of
>objectivity and integrity of the modern physics politicians that tend to
>resist change to more realistic theories, I quote from the published
>retirement address of the particle physicist Robert R. Wilson, the 1985
>president of the American Physical Society:
>
>    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some
>  smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of
>  everything.  I--and so many others--have had a perfectly wonderful life
>  pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
>  children, their children and their children's children all having this
>  same beautiful experience.
>    All that would end.
>    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members, could we
>  afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-management plan for
>  this eventuality, however remote.  First we must voice a hearty denial. 
>  Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any
>  publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]
>
>   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
>using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
>archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
>obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
>/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
>a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
>system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix computer systems have a
>command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format.  The
>HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via
>
>URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
>
>If one prefers to obtain a copy of the ASCII version by email they can send
>the request to my wallace@eckerd.edu address, and if their system has a size
>limit for email I can send the book in segments, with the largest being 55KB
>for Chapter 3.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendsykes cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / John Cobb /  Fusioneers, exit right  was Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusioneers, exit right  was Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: 28 Mar 1995 09:34:40 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3l7bf0$p7r@deadmin.ucsd.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>In article <3l71lc$mp4@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W.  
>Cobb) writes:
>
>> 
>> But not me, I already jumped ship a few years ago.
>> 
>> -john .w cobb
>> 
>
>To what?

I'm now doing computational modelling of plasma-processing methods
for semiconductor manufacturing, specifically Radio-Frequency Inductive
devices. I personally find it very interesting and stimulating, but it
is very different than fusion. The focus is much more short-term and the
goals of each project are less ambitious. Chew off more small bites faster
than a single huge bit all at once. It is also a little bit scary because
we are never more than a few months from the end of all of our contract
support. This is really different than an expectation of long-term
stable funding levels (+/- 10%) that fusion has enjoyed. Of course
from the looks of things fusion is not too stable these days either.

In terms of the science, it seems that everything leads back to Langmuir and 
Tonks. This is what the divertor people seem to be finding these days. I would 
be curious to see a number of citations versus year for some of those early 
sheath papers. I bet they have been spiking for the last 2-3 years. 

However, I am amazed by how much plasma physics knowledge and intuition is
useful in this area and how a large majority of the practitioners do not
seem to understand the basics of plasmas and how they are fundamentally
different from neutral fluids. I think a lot of the researchers in the
field come from CVD backgrounds so they know about Navier-Stokes and 
other fluid approaches and maybe even some mroe sophisticated kinetic
approaches for low pressure, rarefied flow. But when the governing equations
have resonances and Landau damping, it seems a lot of people haven't
internalized what this means physically. So that's where I see an opportunity
for plasma physicists to make a contribution. Of course I'm not the first.
These gems are being mined as we speak.

>
>(Personally, if I exit fusion research, I'll go into biology)
>

There seems to be a lot of opportnity there also. Of course, plasma has
a very different meaning there. Seriuosly, though, I talked with a friend
who went to Supercomputing '94 last year and his remark was that the vast
majority of the new and neat applications were biological/medical. Things
like CFD for the heart. So for a hard-core fluid computational jock like
Barry, there might be opportunity.

-john .w cobb


-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 10:50:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Uh, Jed---what was your opinion of Lewis's work for the three years in which
>it was considered a negative reult?
 
My opinion was the same as it is today. Three years ago, when I first began
studying CF in earnest, I got papers from Mel Miles and Vesco Noninski
describing the error Lewis made. Therefore, I have always been aware that
his experiment gave a positive result.
 
>It seems to me that automatically classify all negative results 
>on CF as being erroneous---am I mistaken?
 
Yes, you are mistaken. Negative results come in three categories:
 
Erronious false negatives like Cal Tech (Lewis) and Harwell. There are only
a few of these.
 
Negative results due to factors which later became clear to the author, or to
me, anyway. For example, Tom Droege reported that his cathodes bent and
twisted. This happens with uneven loading and poor quality Pd samples.
Samples which are macroscopically distorted will never, ever work.
 
Negative results due to factors still unknown. There are still plenty of these!
For that matter, lots of silicon chips still fail inexplicably, even though
they have been manufactured for decades. Nothing works perfectly.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg visit: Droege found no error
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 10:52:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>Isn't the cat out of the bag on the identity of this replication of Griggs?
 
Yes, it is! I just could not remember the name MADI when I was writing that
message, and I was too lazy to look it up. I am hoping they will be at
ICCF5.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flip flops on Lewis?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 11:05:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>My point was that when Lewis -- who you have just agreed is an expert --
>claimed he got a negative result, you had a ready-made answer:  he
>doesn't know what he's talking about, you can't just set up the 
>experiment and expect it to run, successful experiments depend on a
>lot of subtle factors, etc.  
>
>Now you claim that his data actually reveal that he got a positive result -- 
 
This is nonsense. I have *always* claimed that Lewis got a positive result.
Everyone who is the least bit famiiar with the CF literature knows perfectly
well that he got a postitive result. It is common knowledge; the letters
and papers from Miles, Noninski and other have been circulating for years.
I am sure that neither you nor Lewis has anything to say that can disprove
these letters. I saw his early objections to the first Miles letter, and I
do not see any scientific merit in it.
 
My opinion of the Lewis work is the same as it always has been, because I
have actually read his paper and the critiques of it. You, on the other hand,
do not have the foggiest idea what he did, what he wrote, or what Miles
wrote, so you have no basis to form any opinion at all. All you can do is
squawk and parrot back nonsense in opposition to anything I say. This adds
nothing to the discussion, but it does -- at least -- demonstrate to readers
how ignorant you are, and how lazy.
 
Lewis got a positive result from a pretty good experiment (by 1989 standards).
He made some mistakes though. His method of calibration was poor and his
analysis lacked rigor. So what? He is a human being. Everyone makes mistakes.
It does not matter very much, except for one reason: people think he got a
negative result and they often point to his work as authoritative proof that
CF does not exist. A careful examination of the literature proves that this
is not the case. You would not know about that; it is against your religeon
to do a careful examination of scientific literature. You form your opinions
unsullied by any worldly knowledge or mucking about in the library, actually
reading scientific papers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flip flops on Lewis?
Date: 28 Mar 1995 16:44:41 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <5a+Zfu2.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You, on the other hand,
>do not have the foggiest idea what he did, what he wrote, or what Miles
>wrote, so you have no basis to form any opinion at all. 

I was thinking of the paper that he wrote in _Science_ vol. 246, p. 793
(1989), which I have read.  I looked through the following 6 months or
so of the journal to see if there were any rebuttals; I couldn't find any.
If one was published later, I would be most interested in seeing it.

>All you can do is
>squawk and parrot back nonsense in opposition to anything I say. This adds
>nothing to the discussion, but it does -- at least -- demonstrate to readers
>how ignorant you are, and how lazy.
 
Just out of curiosity -- are you even capable of a polite discussion?  Not
that I care one way or the other, but I'd be interested to know.

>He made some mistakes though. His method of calibration was poor and his
>analysis lacked rigor. So what? He is a human being. Everyone makes mistakes.

And you continue to avoid answering the one question that I have asked
twice already:  how did his group manage to make mistakes in the 
claibration and analysis, at which you agree he is an expert, while 
managing to get a positive result, considering that they could not possibly
have known about all of the subtleties that you claim will lead to a
negative result?

>You would not know about that; it is against your religeon [sic]
>to do a careful examination of scientific literature. You form your opinions
>unsullied by any worldly knowledge or mucking about in the library, actually
>reading scientific papers.

Just in case my statement above were not enough to show that the preceding
is untrue, here is a practice problem for Mr. Rothwell.  Go look up the
following article:  J. Chem. Phys. vol. 95 (1991), p. 121-129.  Look
at the references on the last page.  Guess who looked them up, including
the obscure early ones?

I do note on the other hand that you seem to have stopped claiming that
I don't know who Nathan S. Lewis is.
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 17:34:05 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
>We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters among
>those who contributed to the contribution pot?

I hardly think we have a consenus.  There were about 40 people who chipped
in to the original fund, and we've heard from perhaps 1/4 of those.

I haven't heard Dieter express an opinion on the disposition, and he was a
contributor.  Perhaps he would collect a tally?  I'd prefer to have someone
publically neutral do so even though I don't really think anyone here would
do anything underhanded.  It's just that I'd like to avoid even the possible
implication of that.

Choices expressed thus far:

  (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
      children of CNF researchers]?

  (2) Fund another trip.

  (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]

  (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.

           \scott

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 28 Mar 1995 18:17:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3l8asp$aa1@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
>:  Cameron Randale Bass wrote:
>: > Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>: > >Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
>: > >does not claim over unity operation.
>: > 
>: >      I agree.  If he is not even willing to make such a claim,
>: >      why should we infer any such claim?
>:
>: I don't care about a good water heater, at least here.
>: Case closed, please?
>
>There seems to be a group form of amnesia going on here 'bouts.
>
>There are, in fact, published claims of over-unity for the Griggs
>device.  These claims are based upon measurements made by independent
>investigators (Rothwell and Mallove.)
>
>Now Griggs knows of nothing wrong with his own over-unity measurements,
>but he claims caution on claiming over-unity on the basis that something
>might appear in the future to explain it all away.  Yet there is nothing
>offered to suggest that Griggs does not support his own measurements,
>and nothing Griggs can currently say to reflect on the independent
>measurements of others who had test access to his machine.
>
>Not even Griggs can wave away independent observations without offering
>some reason to doubt them.
>
>So in summary, there is a public claim for over-unity in a device
>designed by Griggs, but tested by others -- a test which Griggs himself
>verifies daily.
>
>I don't like things waved away on the basis of wordplay alone, so I
>am completely unsatisfied that any final conclusions can be drawn from
>the Droege visit in which no useful measurements were made.
>
>Give me numbers, data, measurements -- save the wordplay for the
>poetry newsgroups.

But that was the point of my report.  Griggs' own measurements do not
support a claim.  This is just not the kind of work that supports a 
sceintific claim.  No logbook!  No error analysis.  No science.

Tom Droege

>
>--
> - 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:
cuddy28 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz flip flops on Lewis?
Date: 28 Mar 1995 17:56:15 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <5Y1aHk0.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[deletia]
>  
> Negative results due to factors which later became clear to the author, or to
> me, anyway. For example, Tom Droege reported that his cathodes bent and
> twisted. This happens with uneven loading and poor quality Pd samples.
> Samples which are macroscopically distorted will never, ever work.

[...]

Now, this is interesting.  Why would a macroscopic distortion affect a
microscopic reaction such as the putative fusion events?  This would imply
a field of some sort, I would think.

Or perhaps Jed meant that Pd samples which distort microscopically are
clearly of inferior quality (presumably they are chemically tainted).  I'm
not sure what the uneven loading might do.  Certainly that's correctable.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Bill Page /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 28 Mar 1995 19:01:31 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <1995Mar27.134914.2152@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
>
>In article <3l2r3a$2lr@netfs.dnd.ca>, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) writes:

>> I think it would be good to finalize this before the ICCF5 meeting.
>> Someone here suggested advertising the prize at ICCF5 - I think thats
>> a good idea. Since I'm going to be at ICCF5, if no one else steps
>> forward to do the advertising, I would be willing to do it. But if
>> some else wants to, that would be fine with me too.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Bill Page.
>
>We seem to be approaching a consensus here -- any strong dissenters
>among those who contributed to the contribution pot?
>Suggest we let Bill go ahead and advertise this prize at ICCF5.  (Note,
>I will not be going, and I don't think Tom Droege will either.)
>
>I also like Dean Edmonds recent suggestion #2, that is, that we "limit
>the vote [following Tom Droege's posted suggestion] to those who
>contributed to the prize. ...it might encourage others (such as myself)
>to contribute thereby making the prize even more attractive.  (Some
>minimum contribution level should be established.)"
>
>Suggest we follow this idea, too -- with a minimum of $15, to be sent
>to Tom Droege to add to the collection pot.  (This is close to the
>minimum for the original collection, as I recall.)
>
>How 'bout it?
>--Steve Jones

Sounds good to me. I hope a few more contributors will speak up. How
many positive - negative votes should we wait for before finalizing it?
Also, would Scott Mueller? be willing to continue to act as treasurer
for contributions to the

       "SCI.PHYSICS.FUSION REPRODUCIBLE CF ACHIEVEMENT AWARD"?

              (Alternate name suggestions welcomed!)

Steve, are you including the reward money that you offerred earlier only
in connection with the detection of neutrons and/or xrays in your
detectors - or are you willing to include reproducible excess heat
observations as well?

---------------

Anyway, here's a repeat of the rules that Tom wrote a few days ago,
plus my additions in [...].

---------------

Lets then try to formulate rules for an excess heat [and/or anomalous
neutron or x-ray] experiment:

0)  Prize limited to excess heat beyond normal chemistry [and/or
    observation of anomalous neutron or x-ray radiation from a "CF"
    cell].  Something like 10ev per atom?  The exact number can be
    worked out.  [Or 70 neutrons/day, or 70 characteristic x-ray
    events as measured by the BYU detectors.] [Steve, please add
    suitably specific text here ...]

1) Territory should be staked out by a post to s.p.f.  Post an
   experimental proposal. [Including details of the measuring equipment,
   calorimeter techniques and calibration checks. The intent is to be
   complete but not overly restrictive in format. There is no need to
   obtain approval to continue with the experiment by anyone one s.p.f.
   at this stage. But an early post does establish some priority to
   the claim.]

[1b) The originator of a proposal must carry-out the experiment (or
     specifically arrange for someone else to carry-out the experiment
     on their behalf.]

2)  Results should be reported on line to s.p.f.  Not necessarily 
    in real time, but progress reports.  Everyone gets to critique the
    experiment as it is ongoing.  

3)  A paper should be posted on sci.physics.fusion.  The paper should
    tell everyone exactly how to do it.  

4)  Replications should be posted as in 1), 2), 3) above to support
    the original claim. Part of the goal of 3) is to persuade people to 
    attempt replication.  No replication, no prize.  But one replication 
    will be accepted from the refereed literature.  [See prize for
    replicators, below.]

5)  When there have been at least three replications, two posted, a vote 
    will be taken on s.p.f. Voting will be limited to those who have 
    actually made a [contribution to the original Griggs trip, and/or
    an additional contribution of $15 or more to the award fund].  Sorry
    lurkers. Let's require an 80% yes vote [of the total votes cast
    over a period of one month]. [In the case of multiple
    concurrent different experiments, the prize will be awarded on the
    priority of the date of the first *replication*.]

6)  Prize to be awarded on the vote alone.  It doesn't actually have to
    be correct.  No other way to determine "correct".

[7) To further encourage replication of the results, the original poster
    of the experiment will be awarded only 50% of the total award.
    The 1'st replication will be awarded 50% of 50%. The n'th
    replication will be awarded (50%)^n of 50%, etc, until the offer
    of a trivial award is declined.]

[8) The total amount of the award will be the amount accumulated by
    contributions (and bank interest <grin>) at the time of the passing
    vote. The treasure of the fund will make a monthly report on the
    amount of the award. The amount of the fund currently stands at:
    $1,400 (U.S. dollars).]

-------------

I'd especially like comments on item 7)... just an idea, maybe not
a good one? $1,400 is just a guess (= $700 from Tom's trip + $700
from Steve Jones).

I don't see much point in getting overly legalistic in this statement
of conditions of the prize, but I think everyone who cares should get
a chance to make their amendments. If I am going to announce this
aware at the ICCF-5 conference (starts April 9) we should set a
deadline for amendments at something like April 2 or so.

Cheers,

Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Don Ingenito /  Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin - article
     
Originally-From: RASOR2@ix.netcom.com (Don Ingenito)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin - article
Date: 28 Mar 1995 19:30:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom

THE STARTUP OF "HYPERBOLOID OF ENGINEER GARIN" * IN OBNINSK112
1 Feb. 1995 Izvestia (19)

   A very powerful laser, that uses nuclear pumping, is in a startup
mode in Obninsk.  This is the greatest achievement of Russian science
in the past few years.  The device, created by the Tolstoy's fantasy,
which is capable to product a powerful beam of light, has become a
reality on the lab-scale.  A pulse of this device, with a duration of
40-100 microseconds, is capable to produce as much energy as can be
produced by all nuclear power plants of the world in this short time.

   It is symbolic that this new dramatic advance of Russian technology
is created by the organization that created the first nuclear power
station in the world, that by the way is still functioning.  The
Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE), with the help of
Ministry of Science and Minatom, has now become a national science
center where true science continues to live.  Of course there is
shortage of funding, and for the past two months the working personnel
has not been paid.  Nevertheless, excellent work is being conducted on
the fundamental science topics and the conversion is proceeding in a
satisfactory manner.

   It is understandable that it is not prudent to discuss in great
detail the working of the laser with nuclear pumping, which has been
officially named OKUYAN (that stands for optical quantum amplifier with
nuclear pumping).  What is important is that in this device there is a
direct conversion of nuclear energy into laser radiation.  The common
lasers use the electrical energy received literally from the outlet. 
This means that the nuclear fuel converts in the reactor core into
thermal energy of steam, which then turns the turbine, and which then
turns the generator, so that the electrical energy could be supplied
via the power lines to the laser.  At every step of this chain there
are inevitable power losses.  For OKUYAN this long chain of energy
transformations is reduced to a minimum.  The fission energy is
directly transformed into light and, therefore, it is possible to
produce a powerful laser beam by a compact device.

   Today the most powerful laser exists at the Livermore lab in the
USA.  This "monster" occupies an enormous big building.  This space is
needed to focus 12 separate laser beams on one spot in order to achieve
needed power concentration.  This device "shoots" at best once a month,
which results, as Americans joke, in the dimming of light throughout of
California - so enormous is the electric power demand that it creates.

 ----------------------
1  a popular SF book, written by Alexel Tolstoy in 30's, about a "death
ray" device.

   OKUYAN is capable to produce a similar laser beam in a single pulse. 
It occupies one room in a modest and hastily constructed lab building. 
But most importantly the efficiency of this device is several factors
higher than for Livermore.  Its cost also is not 1.5 billion dollars
that has been spent on the US device, but far less.

   In order to assess the value of any scientific discovery it is
important to examine what significant application it may have.  We had
a long discussion on this topic with the authors and management of the
OKUYAN project - A. Zrodnikov, P. Dyachenko, V. Pupko, and the
scientific secretary of IPPE, V. Kupriyanov.  The most promising
application for this device may very well be in the fusion plants that
use pulsating laser.  Since the device solves the fundamental problem
for this type of plants one will expect a rapid advance for fusion.  It
is now probable that the first fusion power station on earth will use
this discovery and therefore humanity will be saved forever from the
power hunger.

   Equally important is the possibility to use this discovery for the
creation of laser weapons.  At the time when Reagan started his Star
War Program there were no assurance that effective laser weapons could
be developed.  His real intention was more straightforward - to push
USSR into a new spiral of war race and by this force it to "lose its
pants".  Upon the demise of USSR the Star War Program had been
abandoned both in Russia and America.  However, the ingenious Russian
brain now has found a way to solve the problem, which so many experts
previously thought to have no solution, i.e., they found that the laser
weapon may be created with a proper combination of optics and nuclear
technologies.

   It is fortunate that Russia has another, highly developed,
technology in space applications which provides vast opportunities for
the use of nuclear lasers.  Most of the creators of OKUYAN have also
been the designers of the first space nuclear power plant, i.e. TOPAZ,
that had so successfully performed during its orbital flight.  It is
only natural that now they want to use their previous experience for
the creation of nuclear lasers for space.  It is possible that they
will work for the UN and with a sanction of Security Council nuclear
laser guns will be used to rapidly destroy the war material of an
authoritarian regime that threatens the peace and security of its
neighbors.

   Of course the peace application of such guns is also very
interesting.  For example, they may be used to destroy tornados which
are at the stage of germination.  It also will become very easy to
destroy all that junk that is now circulating in space - the leftover
of rockets and dead satellites that crowd the near-Earth space.

   The famous Japanese company, Mitsubishi, proposes to create a
nuclear power complex on Moon.  They want to build there a large number
of nuclear power stations and then to covert the generated electric
energy into UV radiation, which first will be absorbed by satellites in
the geostationary orbits, and then will be re-emitted as IR at
frequencies that will freely penetrate the Earth atmosphere.

   The availability of nuclear laser will significantly simplify and
reduce the cost of this project.  Of course, it is not necessary to
locate it on Moon.  It is possible to create special power satellites,
that will operate at higher orbits, and will generate IR for the
transmission to Earth.  This past winter, due to an accident at the
power plant at Norilsk, a big portion of that city become frozen.  If
we had power generating stations in space and the receiver stations on
ground such catastrophes could not have happened.  Under an emergency
situation then, it will be possible to re-direct the power transmission
to any spot on the Earth surface.

   An attractive potential exist for the reverse process, i.e. to
direct powerful transmissions from Earth into space.  Such energy
transfer, for example, can be used to vaporize matter from specially
constructed platforms, which will allow spaceships to relocate
themselves from low to high orbits.  Such application will compliment
nicely the use of rockets for locomotion.

   At last, but not least, it will become possible to create real
photonic rockets that will use the momentum generated by the "recoil"
of a powerful light beam.  This will make trips to Mars and other
plants economically achievable.

   Today the projects mentioned above sound somewhat fantastic, but one
only has to appreciate what a wide use lasers have now although they
appeared only at the beginning of 60's.  In Russia the development of
laser technology is carried out by more than 50 major institutes and
design organizations.  This robust technological/industrial development
was initiated by pure science.  The future of nuclear laser is expected
to have even brighter future.  It behoof the government to support this
remarkable scientific breakthrough.  Nuclear laser are being developed
in many labs, primarily in the USA, but Obninsk has become clearly a
leader, since it has far outdistanced its nearest competitors.  It is
only logical that support should be provided quickly to this
organization in order to allow them to stay in the leading position.



cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenRASOR2 cudfnDon cudlnIngenito cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /   /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kdpauly@mmm.com (KD_Pauly)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 28 Mar 1995 15:54:34 GMT
Organization: 3M - St. Paul, MN  55144-1000 US

In article <1995Mar28.150056.11307@blaze.trentu.ca>, 
dsykes@ivory.trentu.ca says...
>
>I would like to see more! 
>        You must have some good stuff to have J. A. Wheeler to comment 
so 
>kindly. Please send to DSYKES@TRENTU.CA
>
>
>
>In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>, wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu 
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
>>   In Chapter 5 of my book "The Farce of Physics" I wrote of my visit 


Maybe you could post all your original papers.

Kellan


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkdpauly cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Tom Droege /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 28 Mar 1995 21:56:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I have received a lot of private opinions that have not yet
appeared here. I think almost everyone would go for a prize.

Here is another  try for some rules:

A) Fusion or new energy of similar nature with evidence of:
   i)Heat
  ii)Neutrons
 iii)Energetic charged particles
  iv)X-rays
(did I leave someone's favorite particle out?)

B) Paper describing process with enough detail to allow replication
to be published here.  (It may be published elsewhere) 

C) At least one replication to be published here. (these also may
be published elsewhere)

D) Award to be determined by 80% majority of "active contributors".

E) Active contributors determined by posting a request for votes over
a four week period.  

F) New readers can participate by a minimum $20 contribution to the 
fund.      

I will temporarily take on the job of rule editor.  If we work out a 
set of rules that most seem to like I will take a vote.  I will be 
most happy to pass on the job of "rule editor" to anyone else that 
would like the job unles there are a lot of objections. 

Please copy me with your comments as this makes my work easier.
Droege@storm.fnal.gov

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 17:04:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

For readers who wonder how Keithly pulls it off, a paragraph on page 170
explains:
 
     "Normal and High Speed Modes. NOTEBOOK has two modes of collecting data:
     normal and high speed. At lower acquisition rates (Normal Mode), the
     computer can perform foreground tasks or display data in real time while
     acquiring data in the background. In High Speed Mode (up to the fastest
     your hardware can handle), NOTEBOOK dedicates the computer entirely to
     the collection of data. The result is support for a wide range of data
     acquisition products."
 
In my experience this trick works well. When you put the kibosh on
multitasking and grab all the resources in Windows, it gives you pretty much
the same speed as DOS alone. Norton Utilities says it works with my computer,
anyway.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Michael Brumm /  POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: brumm@cs.wisc.edu (Michael Brumm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 28 Mar 1995 21:17:00 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept

  I'm about to do something scarey in a newsgroup: take a poll.

    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
    What type will it be?
    Where will it be?
    What is the basis for your prediction(s)? (required)


Please post your answer in the newsgroup so that others can discuss,
argue, critique. 

Please no cold fusion posts... I know it is a possibility, but this
poll deals with hot fusion.

All questions need not be answered, only the last is required when
answering any of the previous ones. 

Your basis for prediction can be a reference to a source, a brief
explanation, or if you prefer, a couple pages.

If you haven't devoted a large part of your life to the study of
hot fusion, don't respond. (notice I have not posted my opinion,
because I do not qualify)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbrumm cudfnMichael cudlnBrumm cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Dick Jackson /  Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:22:36 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Take 100 calorimetry style experiments with reasonably complex internal
processes.  In 93 cases the results are going to confirm the "null
hypothesis" that the laws of thermodynamics are still operative within the
experimental errors.  In 3 cases some hard to track down systematic error
will produce an apparent loss of energy.  In these cases the experimenters
will in all likelyhood not publish these results for fear of ridicule.

However in the other 3 cases there will be an apparent gain of energy
(because of elusive systematic errors). Here there will be a temptation
to report the results as significant and indicating some "new physics".
Most of us a) try to be open minded, and b) would kind of *like* to
see something new pop up, so we tolerate such claims, and therefore
probably suspend disbelief much too readily.

I have tried to be open minded about cold fusion, but I'm about ready to
join the hard skeptics.  I *firmly* believe the Griggs effect is in the
class of the 3 false positives as described above, and would deplore
showering him with largesse. (Mind you I did not contribute to the fund so
ignore me if you like).

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Now what to do with $700
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Now what to do with $700
Date: 29 Mar 1995 00:23:22 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3l94bp$are@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas  
Selby) writes:
> As an original contributor I support this idea, and am willing to sweeten 
> the pot.

I really don't think holding the $700 dollars in escrow as a prize
is a very productive use of the money, for two reasons:

(1) a $1000 prize can easily be covered should the (unlikely) need 
    arise---no need to keep the money itself in escrow. 

    For example, I myself have several outstanding $1 bets at 100:1
    odds that P&F style CF does not exist, and I would certainaly cover
    them if I'm wrong. (In fact, I have gratiously not yet tried
    to call them in, even though it is past the original 2 year deadline
    and P & F have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific
    community that their effects are ``real''---I'll leave the jury out
    until the situation clears up, tho time is on my side).

(2) Look at how much productive use we got out of using just $300 to send
    Tom to Georgia---that is good bang for the buck. There is enough left
    for two similar sized bangs. That sounds much better than sticking
    it in a savings account. (E.g. using the dough to put Griggs on
    the internet, or assist Marshal Dudley---which are real things
    that could haoppen now and have a real impact on the discourse---seems
    so much more interesting).

BUT, If we really want to have a Cold Fusion Prize, the proper way to 
do it is this: 
    
    (i)  get a human proponent who's name carries some 
    media weight, and who is willing to personally associate themselves
    with the debate---Steve Jones is the ideal choice. This is needed
    to generate the initial media interest, and get folks to take note
    (Joe Schmoe's CF prize is not so interesting;  Steve Jones's is, both 
     to the Science news mags and the scientists involved).

    (ii) Take the $1000 dollars to an insurance company, and use it to 
    take out a roughly $100,000 policy, for some limited time, 
    say 5 years (if no one can claim it in 5 years, CF is dead anyway).
    There are companies that would do this sort of thing, especially 
    with an Expert like Steve Jones to tell them the odds of it really
    being true are << 100:1,  and he is mainly doing this as a stunt
    to try and goad the secretive CF researchers into opening up
    their experiments.

In general, $1000 dollars will buy a $100,000 policy for some number of
years, N. As long as N >= 1, I think this would be the best way to 
offer a prize. I like $100,000 because it gets attention, and because
if claimed, it would actually fund a large amount of someones
CF research, so there is some real financial incentive to claim it. 
The criteria of the policy need to be firm, and Jones 1000 nutrons
or 1000-rays in a day in his or other comparable, calibrated, detectors is
probably a workable basis.

In summary, $1000 is not much--no matter what, it must be leveraged.
Either levergage it by tapping into someone elses knowledge 
(as we did with TD) or by useing it as an option on a much larger
amount of money, and wielding that dough.







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


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Mark Fernee /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: fernee@physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.
nergy,sci.materials
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: 28 Mar 1995 07:41:37 GMT
Organization: University of Queensland

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:




: I can see a number of possible ways that Vacuum Fluctuations could be tapped
: as energy sources. My favourite is that the deuterium nucleus is kicked up in
: energy from the S state to the D state by VF and in the D state, because of the
: D states charge distribution, is more readily taken up into the paladium (etc)
: lattice. It then preferentially leaves the xtal matrix in the S state and so
: leaves the energy difference behind in the lattice as (eventually) phonons.

Hmmm, you must remember that vacuum fluctiation terms are not energy conserving.
For the Hamiltonian to be hermitian, they must be present in pairs such that
virtual transitions are represented by closed-loop diagrams are hence are
energy conserving. Non-energy-conserving processes will average to zero and
this is the basis of the well known rotating wave approximation. Only over
very short times or in extremely high energy systems does the RWA break down.
In these cases a unitary transformation may be employed to remove these
virtual transition terms from the Hamiltonian and dress them into the system
states. In these cases, the resultant Hamiltonian contains no non-energy-
conserving terms, but does contain some energy shifts (eg. the Bloch-Siegert
shift). However, such a transformed Hamiltonian possesses a stable ground
state, which is thus an eigenstate of the complete Hamiltonian. This theory
has been successful for dealing with non-energy-conserving terms over
short timescales in the non-relativistic quantum optical domain. It remains
to be extended to relativistic models. It does however, indicate that
the quantum mechanical state of the system needs to be carefully considered
in these problems. 

How such a theory would work for relativistic nuclear interactions; I can't
absolutely say. However, I'd first check the diffusion rate against the 
characteristic fluctuation time as a first approximation. I would
guess that the virtual fluctuation terms would simply dress the "bare" 
nuclear energy levels in much the same way as for the atomic case. As
such, the virtual transitions would be just that; virtual and not real.

Mark.



cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenfernee cudfnMark cudlnFernee cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 29 Mar 1995 01:41:11 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


In article <D5v93y.BM5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <3kfcub$leb@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
|> Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
|> >In article <3keuc9$kg3@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, schamber@egr.msu.edu (Alter ) says:
|> >
|> >Hay!  Who said their is any claim to prove?  Not Griggs.  He says he
|> >does not claim over unity operation.  See his letter.  So what are 
|> >we all debating about?

Isn't Mr. Griggs saying "I am obtaining anomalous results
from my experiment and I want to find out why"?

In that case we are debating whether his results are
indeed anomalous enough to be worth further investigation.
The gist of Tom's report seems to be that Griggs will
have to do a better job of presenting his results if
he is to convince us of that.

|>                            dale bass

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / R Stats /  If you teach statistics (P03285b)
     
Originally-From: inquire@ripco.com (Resampling Stats)
Newsgroups: sci.math.symbolic,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If you teach statistics (P03285b)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 03:52:36 GMT
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago

WITH RESAMPLING: STUDENTS LEARN MORE, ENJOY COURSE

As far back as the 1970's, controlled experiments found better 
classroom results with the "new statistics" -  the resampling 
method - than with conventional methods.  Students handle more 
problems correctly and like statistics much better with resampling 
than with conventional methods.

At sites ranging from Frederick Junior College to Stanford University 
Graduate School, recent surveys of student judgments of courses using 
the resampling method - including both introductory and graduate 
classes - show that students recommend the method.

Followup surveys of introductory students taught both resampling and 
conventional statistics show a clear advantage for resampling in 
amount learned, amount retained, and likelihood to use statistics in 
personal or work life.

For a preprint with full description and data, please reply with your 
email and full regular mail address ("snail-mail").


Peter Bruce                                Resampling Stats
phone 703-522-2713                         612 N. Jackson St.
fax   703-522-5846                         Arlington, VA  22201
inquire@ripco.com                          USA

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudeninquire cudfnResampling cudlnStats cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar 29 04:37:04 EST 1995
------------------------------
