1995.03.31 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
     
Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ahem. Aren't we a little crazy? was Re: Griggs Report & responses
Date: 31 Mar 1995 00:49:25 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand


In article <3lcope$bil@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|> 
|> Let's see, 
|> 93+3+3 is 99.  Just what did you have in mind for the other case

It reached ignition and the neutron burst killed
the experimenter, thus preventing the results from
being reported.

|> Tom Droege

Greg
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Ed Matthews /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
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: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 18:13:10 -0800
Organization: University of Oregon


On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Vertner Vergon wrote:

> >Intuition - Your mind's way of letting you know that it doesn't always 
> >have to explain itself. 
> >
> 
> IMHO intuition is the subconscious mind doing a fantastic job of compiling
> data we are not even aware of and then processing it with its own logic.
> 
> I have consciously used it to great advantage.

Does this mean that somebody with great "intuition" knows far more than 
they know?   :-)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Ed Matthews                   | Modern art is what happens when 
   ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu            | painters stop looking at girls and 
   U of Oregon  Physics major           | persuade themselves that they have
 Philosophy and Mathematics minor       | a better idea. - John Ciardi

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenewm cudfnEd cudlnMatthews cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.28 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: 28 Mar 1995 16:59:40 GMT
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <3l8asp$aa1@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) wrote:

> 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.
> 

I agree, John.  We knew before Tom left that Griggs was not making a public
claim of over-unity; but when Tom came back all he could say was that since
Griggs isn't claiming over-unity there is nothing to study.

His report was interesting, but I was disappointed in this respect.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 03:19:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <IjSgRF_00iV_M2UKJV@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

= Two papers were dangled and then 14 were submitted.  
   Dangled?   You said they were accepted:
         "The article in C&EN noted that after there was an
          AGREEMENT on accepting the two "cnf" papers, 
          something on the order of ..."
       [Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
  [ID: <kjSOYe200iV1E593sy@andrew.cmu.edu>]
   So were they dangled, accepted, or under agreement?


 = The suggestion was made that rather than restricting the number of
 =papers accepted, something we DID NOT think was in the interest of
 =disemination of information, that the poster session, with its large
 =capacity and much bigger audience draw, be used.  

   Really?  As reported:
    > ="According to ACS officials, three papers have been
    > =officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
  Clearly not in the best interest of disemination of information, was it?
  And given how ACS reportedly treated Dr. Bockris last year,
by purportedly preventing his coordinating participation there,
much might be gained by courtesy, right? 
 {Could you please comment on those alleged reports re Dr. Bockris?}

  This is all that was said, because the public, actually misses out any
attempt to filter out papers in this field.
  How would 3 papers effect 5600?    even 14?
  Richard Schultz began the estimate:
 = A cursory check of the final program shows that the division is about
 = 65% oral, 35% poster.  I counted 5582 papers.  I tried not to include papers
 = that were listed in the final program as withdrawn, but I might have
 = missed some.  I also didn't include the plenary session or the mock trial
 = with DNA evidence.
   [Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)]

   5582 papers.   35% posters implies the following.
  For 14 submissions, let's consider the expected number of 
oral presentations [ignoring for the moment your arguments of time,
               and  this and that, and ...  ] 
   the Expectation value is 65%      number   9
       Observed             0%                0

   Alternatively, with a 35% probability of poster session assignation, 
the probability of all 14 in the poster sessions would be only
    .35 * 0.35 * ....... =~   0.000 000 4   
   That is less than  "one in a million", isn't it?

So, given the history in this matter and the microscopic probability
 for this outcome  (albeit with other things equal),  
it will certainly be interesting to 
finally learn how many papers will actually be read in cf.
 Please do let us know the number read at your earliest convenience.
 We will stay tuned.  Thank you.

   Best wishes.    Mitchell Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
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: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 06:38:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <dramage-2903950840540001@slip144x.slip.colostate.edu>,
David Ramage <dramage@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>In article <3l9v0e$di8@acasun.eckerd.edu>, wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
>(Bryan Wallace) wrote:
>
>> References: <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu>
><1995Mar27.163818.24479@leeds.ac.uk>
>> Distribution: 
>> 
>> S Rees (men5sr@sun.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
>> : In article <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
>(Bryan Wallace) writes:
>> : >
>> : [lots of interesting stuff deleted]
>> : >   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]
>> : >
>> : >
>> : Americans are known throught the world for their curious lack of a sense
>> : of irony.  It is strange that a rare attempt by one of their number to use
>> : it should be so completely misunderstood by another.  The above quote is
>> : clearly an ironical commentary about how discovering the holy grail of
>> : physics will destroy the discipline itself; it is a humoruos aside,
>> : A JOKE.
>> 
>
>> 
>> If it was a joke, it was in poor taste because that sort of thing has
>> actually happened to me many times over the years.
>> 
>> Bryan
>
>I don't know if I would call Wilson's address a joke. It seems to me he is
>seriously addressing the issue and is using humor to make his point.  BTW,
>I recently skimmed an interesting study (book) of the peer review process
>at the chemical journal "Angewandte Chemie".  It addressed this issue
>along with related ones.  I don't have the title (it was a colleague's
>personal copy), but it was reviewed in a very recent (last 2 or 3 I think)
>"Angewandte Chemie, International Edition in English"
>
>David Ramage
>Chemistry Department
>Colorado State University

The sad part is many of us have had this bad experience with the peer 
review process.

I thought one way around it was to take your papers directly to the 
physics community via the net.

HAH!  What you run accross is a vast wall of silence punctuated by insults
and back biting from the miniscule mentalities. It seems that all the 
participants are interested in is small talk (a great deal so confused 
it is unbelievable).


For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 /  KUNNE@frcpn11. /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr
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: Fri, 31 Mar 95 09:33:57 SET
Organization: In2p3

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950330181049.27032E-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>
Ed Matthews <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
 
>> >Intuition - Your mind's way of letting you know that it doesn't always
>> >have to explain itself.
 
>> IMHO intuition is the subconscious mind doing a fantastic job of compiling
>> data we are not even aware of and then processing it with its own logic.
 
>Does this mean that somebody with great "intuition" knows far more than
>they know?   :-)
 
The more I know, the more I know that I know nothing.
 
Greetings,
Ronald
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenKUNNE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:23:42 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 28 Mar 1995, John N. White wrote:

[...]
> 520 eV/atom is nothing. Deuterium peroxide can produce 4MJ/liter.
> That corresponds to millions of eV per atom of Pd, for a small
> electrode.
> 
> > 2. It produces no detectable smoke, ash, color change or other evidence of
> > gross chemical change.
> 
> The "ash" from decomposing peroxide is water.
> 
> > 2. It works with only Pd, water, and tiny trace of lithium in a closed cell.
> 
> Peroxide is made from water.
> -- 
> jnw@vnet.net
> 

Once again, I find myself in the position of skeptic basher. We discussed
peroxide years ago, and back then, I wrote "forget peroxide". I repeat that
now. If you want to postulate something, you have to provide good reason to
believe in it. Where, i.e., is the peroxide to come from? Here you have a
cell with 0.1M LiOD in D2O, and you electrolyse it with rather high
overpotential. There is no way you'll get (after Pd loading is complete)
anything other than oxygen and deuterium evolution. We have already disposed
of heat from stored O2 and D2 recombining, and deuterium coming out of the
tiny Pd wire burning with O2 (not enough heat by far). Now let us also dispose
of the peroxide scenario.
FORGET PEROXIDE

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

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Mike Loughlin /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
     
Originally-From: Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk (Mike Loughlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 10:52:19 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
..<snip>
>    As reported:
>    > ="According to ACS officials, three papers have been
>    > =officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
>  Clearly not in the best interest of disemination of information, was it?

Who withdrew the papers ?
(Provide evidence to support your answer)

Mike L

====================================================================
For direct E-Mail please respond to Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk

===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenLoughlin cudfnMike cudlnLoughlin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEREABOUTS OF ROBERT GOLKA?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 05:43:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <hqwb3Ks.moore121@delphi.com> PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com> writes:
>I have an address for Robert K. Golka as 400 Warren Avenue
>Brockton, MA 02402.  This is taken from the Proceedings
>of the 1986 International Tesla Symposium.  That was a long time
>ago, so he may no longer be at this address.  Hope this gives some
>help.  Have a good day!  R. Moore

Dr. Robert Golka
Apartment 1
17 Mooreland Street
Brockton
MA 02421-3730

Hope the street name is spelled correctly. 
Bob was just on a Learning Channel in DC a couple of nights back, and
probababy past or on on his way to your cable box, with his adventures
with smaller ball lightnings.  Claims to be, (along with Dijhuis of the
Netherlands) the ONLY two that can produce the stuff.    

Since "Only" Paul M. Koloc is usually mentioned as holding a controversial
position, this could be a might risky claim.      :-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.29 / M Gadsdon /  Griggs Gadget
     
Originally-From: M. R. Gadsdon <MGADSDON@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Gadget
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:44:39 EST
Organization: ESOC European Space Operations Centre

I have only been tracking this newsgroup for a month or so, so I appologise
in advance if this ground has already been covered.

It seems to me that Griggs may have an over unity device, which may operate
on similar principles to the other reported cold fusion devices based on
electrolysis & ultrasound cavitation techniques.  Where the GG differs
significantly from the other techniques is that it uses both plain (or even
dirty) water and a steel housing plus aluminium (?) instead of Palladium or
Nickel electrodes / targets in the other techniques.

Has Griggs tried, or has anyone suggested he try Nickel or Palladium plated
rotors or rotor housing ?  If the Griggs effect is real & the other CF
reports are also real, this would seem an effective method of (possibly)
boosting the output.

Any comments ?


Mike Gadsdon.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenMGADSDON cudfnM cudlnGadsdon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
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: 31 Mar 1995 16:26:23 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

References: <3l4elq$lvt@acasun.eckerd.edu> <1995Mar28.150056.11307@blaze
trentu.ca> <3l9bfq$b05@dawn.mmm.com>
Distribution: 

KD_Pauly (kdpauly@mmm.com) wrote:
: 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

You can get the book free by email from me or ftp from EU Net, and in the
reference section it lists just about every paper I've ever published.  I
still have a fair collection of paper reprints if you can't find a paper
in your Library.  I also have most of the papers in MSDOS PC WordPerfect
5.1 files that include graphics that can fit on a 3.5" HD disk.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  timhulse@ibl.b /  Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
     
Originally-From: timhulse@ibl.bm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Visit (the mysterious computing loop)
Date: 1 Apr 1995 05:01:04 GMT
Organization: Galactic Patrol

>   frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) writes:
>  In article <950319170638_54345688@aol.com> Jpmjpmjpm@aol.com writes:
>  
>  PS. Loose the capitals, makes you sound like a poor advert.
>  
That would be "lose" Frankie. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
|Tim Hulse                                                 |
|timhulse@ibl.bm                                           |
|http://www.well.com/www/timh/                             |
|"How we have progressed, thanks to the machine..." -E.M.F.|
 -----------------------------------------------------------
















cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentimhulse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
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: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 06:53:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950330181049.27032E-100000@gladstone.uoregon.edu>,
Ed Matthews  <ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Vertner Vergon wrote:
>
>> >Intuition - Your mind's way of letting you know that it doesn't always 
>> >have to explain itself. 
>> >
>> 
>> IMHO intuition is the subconscious mind doing a fantastic job of compiling
>> data we are not even aware of and then processing it with its own logic.
>> 
>> I have consciously used it to great advantage.
>
>Does this mean that somebody with great "intuition" knows far more than 
>they know?   :-)

Yes, you could say that because, as I said above "... compiling data
we are not even aware of ..."

Also, we are not aware of the thought processes of the subconscious mind 
because they are different than those of our conscious mind.

I find it works best when I sleep. I deliberately feed it data (work on a
problem) in the evening when I really am too fuzzy to do a damn bit of good.

In the morning I often sit down and write the answer out as though I had 
it all the time.

I thought I had discovered something until I began discussing it. Then I
found out many other people do the same thing.


There's an old saying ---"Let me sleep on it."   

No accident.


For a better world                V.V.  Model Maker









>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          Ed Matthews                   | Modern art is what happens when 
>   ewm@gladstone.uoregon.edu            | painters stop looking at girls and 
>   U of Oregon  Physics major           | persuade themselves that they have
> Philosophy and Mathematics minor       | a better idea. - John Ciardi
>


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 /  Labrys /  Re: A simple question
     
Originally-From: tuttt@jec330.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: 31 Mar 1995 22:10:31 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

>Protons only? I read time ago about catalyzed 
>reactions, the cicle CNO. 
>When you say 24 orders of magnitude, refers 
>to a nude H-H reaction? Or to a
>catalyzed one? 

while I am not sure of the actual values,
I believe that The CNO (carbon cycle) 
has a much smaller reaction cross-section
(sigma) than does the H-H (proton-proton)
reaction. It therefore occurs at a much 
higher temperature than the H-H does.
The carbon cycle dominates in more massive 
stars while the proton-proton chain occurs 
in smaller stars like our sun.

An excellent reference to stellar fusion
reactions can be found in the following:

BY:         Kippenhahn, Rudolf, 1926
TITLE:      100 billion suns : the birth, 
            life, and death of the stars
PUBLISHED:  New York : Basic Books, c1983.

___________________________________________________________

Teresa E Tutt               |
tuttt@rpi.edu            /\ | /\
EPHY '96                (  >X<  ) "Life need not be easy
                         \/ | \/  provided it is not empty"
                            |	  	 -Lise Meitner
                            |
http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt   |
___________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this question forbidden?
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 10:00:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> writes:
 
>This is why I have always stressed replication.  Griggs tells us how 
>to do it.  Someone else follows the instructions and does it.  Then 
>we have real science. 
 
Right. Have you ever heard of a thing called a "patent?" It tells you how to
"do it." If it doesn't tell you how to do it, the patent is thrown out.
 
>So the three most improtant rulse of science - replication, replication,
>replication.
 
The Griggs device has been replicated, replicated, replicated. So I suppose
that mean Tom Droege is completely satisfied and he has no further imaginary
technical "problems" with it. Right?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: I will not use funds for Griggs Connection.
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not use funds for Griggs Connection.
Date: 1 Apr 1995 15:12:18 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Tom Droege:] The vote is about 10 to 2 so far in favor of
    > paying to get Griggs on line.  The "no" voters seemed to have
    > strong feelings.  Please contact me as to whether you are
    > willing to go along with the majority, or whether you do still
    > not want to have part of your money go to putting Griggs on
    > line.  In that case, I will pick up your share of the costs.

I do not want to dictate what should be done with other people's
money.  If they want to give a present to Mr. Griggs, fine, it is
their business; but please keep my remaining $7 or whatever out of
that pool.  (I hope that won't complicate the accounting too much.)

    > I intend to call Griggs today and tell him we will pick up his
    > first three months bill, not to exceed $300.  If anyone objects
    > violently, I will just pay the cost myself.

I understand that there is enough money in the pool to do that,
even discouting the "no"s.

--stolfi
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  MalfaX /  God doesn't dice
     
Originally-From: qua1390@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it (MalfaX)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: God doesn't dice
Date: 1 Apr 1995 16:30:19 GMT
Organization: Centro di Calcolo del Politecnico di Milano


                February  7-1995        Milan (Italy)

For the first time in Internet, a new unitary physical theory called: 
The Waving Theory of the Field. 
 
In this new unitary theory, changing the actual starting hipothesis on 
the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous 
space-time, that may becomes, the agent and, at same time, the 
background of physical phenomena. 
In this modular space-time, organized like a discrete lattice, can 
occour states of geometric perturbations of this discrete lattice that 
move along the relativistic geodetics, identified by integral Lorentz 
transformations.
These perturbations are spherical waves' surfaces that move its own 
discrete spherical surface's parts, in the discrete lattice, like 
bidimensional planes. 
We make the hipothesis that the subatomic particles are the elementary 
sources of these spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all fields 
ascribing to the particles. 
On this basis, we make a new physics that, starting from existence of a 
discrete space-time, obeys to laws of a discrete space-time geometry, 
that connect the microphysics to macrophysics. 
Through it we comprehend and connect Quantum Mechanics at General 
Relativity, and Mechanics at Cosmology in one global design. 
On the same basis, we can understand: gravitational interactions,  
electromagnetic interactions and a new model for nuclear interactions.  
We discover a waving model of elementary particles, adapts to describe 
all microphysics' phenomena, that, obeing one's simmetry' principle, 
leave out the nigthmare of the singularity, allowing an understanding, 
mere causal, able to justify all the passages, apparently indeterministic, 
inherited from Quantum Mechanics.
This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the 
space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes a new 
coherent theoretical justification for experimental phenomena of the 
Cold Fusion, describing at the same time the composition of a waving 
structurate model of the particles' family and all its decays.  

The new waving model of interactions produces a waving explication for the 
bodies' inertia, conducing the Clein-Gordon formula to a complete physical 
comprehension, and freeing Relativity from the assumption of identity 
between inertial forces and gravitational forces, deriving a causal 
explication of a new Waving Quantum Gravity.
It follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity 
and an antigravitational Fifth Waving Interaction, derived from the 
relativistic limitation of the ligth velocity, that regulates the 
composition and behaviour of macrobodies in the Universe. 
We can draw a new way for the rationalization of the controversal 
astronomical observations that interest the actions of the cosmological 
masses.
 
The Compton effect carries a waving explication, derived from an extending 
of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and 
permits, to come to a description of all interactions of micromechanics. 
A natural extension of the same Compton effect drives to a waving 
electron's model, and to all subatomic particles, placing a valid causal 
basis for the waving explications of the Lorentz force, and producing a 
model of electromagnetic interactions, that brings to a consequent 
perception of meaning of the electric charge's nature.  
We rediscover a coherent atom's model in which a causality chain, 
purely waving, permits to follow the development, step by step, of the 
waving actions on the photoelectric fenomena, revealing the really waving 
nature of the fine structure constant, connected to a light emission's 
mechanism, merely causal.

The Waving Theory of the Field has been already published in Italy, 
from the author  Walter  E. R.  Cassani, in october 1984 on a book 
entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), distributed from 
author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and 
Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). 
No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists.

A next evolution was published in the same way in 1989 with title:
La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo (The Waving Teory of the Field).
(This is actually translated in english, and showed in Internet) 
No reaction from the official universitary circuit.

A third book entitled: Albert Aveva Ragione - Dio non gioca a dadi,
( Albert Was Rigth - God doesn't play dice ) is published in Milan
in january 1994, and personally distributed from the author in
300 book-shops.
The first edition (5000 copies) selled.

Many hentusiastic letters from students, chemists, engineers, ecc.
A first conference in the Aula Magna of  the Physical Dep. of
Bologna University. 
250 students, 1 Relativity Prof, 1 Dep. Cheef.
3 hours of conference, full hentusiasm from the rest 200 students.

No reactions from the physicists.
No reaction from the scientific journalists, in many ways requested. 
  
Is here and now possible to begin in Internet a new international
scientific revolution, that involves physics foundations and assists 
the appearing of a new paradigma ?

Perhaps Internet is born for this.  
 
>From you, it must come the stimulation to falsify it in the Popper's
spirit or, eventually, promove it.

* To whom it may concern, a brief exposition (     bytes) is located in:  
  linux.infosquare.it :pub\theory
* Please mail your question to:
  cassani@linux.infosquare.it

Or come in Aula Magna dip.of ficica of university of Bologna
via Irmerio #46
The 16th March 1995,17.00 pm.
Organized by Purquois pas (students group)
For any other information just send a e-mail.



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenqua1390 cudlnMalfaX cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / John White /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 1 Apr 1995 11:42:03 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
> I missed the original post, but it has been my experience that most noble
> metals _will_ decompose hydrogen peroxide. In fact I have used Pt as an
> anode in the presence of peroxide (using Pd as a cathode) and there was
> violent bubbling at both electrodes upon the addition of peroxide.

How long was the current on before the peroxide was added?

> John, how did you test your anode?

One experiment used a Pt wire anode (36 gauge) and a graphite cathode
(extracted from a #2 pencil with the help of a propane torch). The
electrolyte was H2O with some NaHCO3. A fairly high current density was
used for a couple of days. After that the Pt anode was visibly discolored,
with a brownish coating. When the anode was placed in a solution of
3% hydrogen peroxide no bubbling was seen. In its original state the anode
would produce a steady plume of small bubbles. Heating the anode to red
heat in a propane flame removed the coating and completely restored its
ability to decompose peroxide.

Another experiment used a Pt wire anode (36 gauge), a piece of silver
plated wire-wrap-wire (30 gauge) as a cathode, and an electrolyte
containing about .1M of NaOH of dubious purity. A moderately high
current density was used for a week or so. When later placed in the
peroxide, the anode behaved as in the first experiment, except some
decomposition seemed to be occurring at a very low level. The cathode,
which had a black coating, bubbled vigorously. This bubbling was much
more than the original wire did. But then the bubbling stopped.
Placing the cathode in some fresh peroxide did not cause any more
bubbling. The original wire would bubble steadily for as long as I
tested it.

These were just Q&D experiments in my basement with materials on hand.
They were done over a year ago and I can't find my notes, so this is
from memory. They do show, however, that coatings can form on the
electrodes which dramatically affect the chemistry of peroxide.
The definitive test would be for Pons to test for peroxide just
before one of his boil-off events. This would only require dipping
a clean piece of Pt wire into the electrolyte and seeing if bubbles
formed. Alternatively, Pons could release his recipe, complete with
his secret ingredients, so someone else could reproduce the bursts and
do the test.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / John White /  Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless
Date: 1 Apr 1995 11:44:41 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> jnw@vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
>    "520 eV/atom is nothing. Deuterium peroxide can produce 4MJ/liter.
>    That corresponds to millions of eV per atom of Pd, for a small
>    electrode."
 
> You thesis would only work if a cells producing 4 MJ had, say, a liter of
> water.

The thesis of my post to which you are replying was that *far* more chemical
energy can be stored in the electrolyte than in the cathode. Thus, when
talking about chemical storage, the volume of the electrolyte should be
mentioned, not the number of atoms in the cathode.

I have also suggested elsewhere that Pons' bursts are due to peroxide.

> Cells undergoing heat after death have only a tiny bit of water vapor.

If you are referring to Pons' cells, I think you are wrong. Pons never
defined "dry, but in heat-after-death mode his temperature sensor stayed
at exactly 100C for an extended period of time. This is quite impossible
in a truly dry cell, with the temperature sensor and whatever was producing
the heat insulated from each other by the surrounding gas. It is possible
with a percolator, but that requires that the cell have some liquid left
in it. So Pons must have meant that the cathode was dry and the current
had stopped, but that there was still liquid in the cell. Note that the
percolator also requires that the heat source be in the liquid. It couldn't
be the cathode, which is high and dry. Note also that Pons lets his cells
boil down during the burst, which would maintain the concentration of
peroxide even as it decomposes.

But Pons' biggest problem is that he can't maintain a burst for more than
the 4MJ/liter peroxide limit. Note that his low-level continuous excess heat
is a different phenomenon. It is his burst mode that he needs in order to
power the devices that he keeps announcing. But first he must find a way
to keep the burst going. After years of effort he has not succeeded in doing
this, and if the peroxide explanation is correct he never will.

> Oriani's 520 eV/atom computation applies to the cathode, as you say, but if
> you run a similar computation for water molecules in other cells,

"other cells"? Let's see, it cannot be calorimetry error because the cells
over here have bursts that are many times I*V input, and it cannot be
chemical storage because the cells over there start up immediately and
produce arbitrarily large amounts of low level excess heat if they are run
long enough.

Sorry, but this logic does not persuade me. I don't want a thousand 
experiments each of which avoids all but one error. I want a single
experiment that avoids all errors at once.

> I do not know how much water there was in Oriani's cell,

CNF papers often don't include this important piece of information. They
state the meaningless energy per unit of Pd, but don't give the volume
of the electrolyte.

> but I do know of some other cells with only milligrams of water (or gas)
> in them which produced many megajoules of energy. These examples disprove
> your thesis.
 
The peroxide thesis was never intended to explain the phenomena in those
examples (which are different from Pons' burst phenomena), and thus it
cannot be disproved by them.
 
> Elsewhere, White writes:
>    "There are a number of experiments that produce bursts that are many times
>    the I*V input power. These are interesting because they are unlikely to
>    be due to calorimetry errors. Unfortunately, they always seem to require
>    a long startup (during which energy could be stored) and they never seem
>    to produce more than 4MJ/liter."
 
> That is incorrect. Most cells do *not* require long start up periods, and
> many have produced thousands of times more than 4MJ/liter of electrolyte.

I was referring to experiments that produce many times I*V input power.

> Arata's cells produced massive, easily detected, continuous heat for
> 3,000 hours, adding up to more than 200 MJ. That is *much* more than 4MJ per
> liter of electrolyte, and the cell started up after a loading period of 10.4
> days. ... Since it was only charged at 100 watts, ...

You didn't give the I*V energy input for those 3,000 hours, but assuming
the 100 watts applies there as well gives an input energy of 1,080 MJ.
This gives an excess heat of less than 20 percent. The phenomena for which
I am suggesting peroxide are the bursts in electrochemical cells that produce
excess heat *many times* the I*V power.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / Alan M /  Re: Is this question forbidden?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this question forbidden?
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 17:31:47 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <pq6YfHv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> The Griggs device has been replicated, replicated, replicated. So I suppose
> that mean Tom Droege is completely satisfied and he has no further imaginary
> technical "problems" with it. Right?
> 
So where are you claiming that we can find it, independently replicated
and displaying authenticatable over-unity performance?

Jed - Why don't you just face it. The Griggs device is dead in
the water, as far as this NewsGroup is concerned. You are the only
person trying to continue interest in it, and nobody is listening
to you.

Why don't you come back when his pump has got official certification
as an 'over-unity' device?
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Arthur TOK /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 31 Mar 1995 11:25:05 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Thanks to John Cobb for a level headed and well explained discussion
of the path to commercial fusion. I basically agree with his time
scale and his concepts, but I might make a few comments.

In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
> In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
> 
> Year: 2062 *(see note below)
> 
> >    What type will it be?
> 
> An advanced magnetic confinement device. Features:
> 	basically toroidal confinement field
> 	smallish size (~400 MW, L~5 meters)
> 	steady-state
Maybe, but I don't find the need for steady state to be compelling. An
ignited reactor will have a pulse length of many hours, and the hour
or less to recharge the current drive flux can be bridged over with
thermal storage. The cycle fatigue of the structure will be determined
by the rare occasions that the reactor has to be brought down to room
temperature rather than the few degrees swing during recharging.

> 	simple coil geometry, not linked with plasma
> 	superconducting coils
> 	high beta, 40-80%
Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).

> 	diverted
> 	reduced transport
> 	active control of plasma position, mhd stability, and
> 	  even turbulent fluctuations
Control of density, temperature, and current profiles, as well.

> 	external heating via neutral beams and RF antennas, but
> 	  a high level of internal heating (ignition) and 
>           self-sustained current (mostly from diamagnetic current,
>           but also including bootstrap current)
Do we really need two heating systems? Good, neutral beams and rf can
both drive current, which is a good thing whether or not you have
steady state. And their different characteristics can be used to
achieve the profile control mentioned above.

> 	main burn phase using advanced D-3He fuel. Path to high
>           operating temps giving by a startup D-T burning phase.
I can't see the first generation of power plants running on D-He3.

> 	3He breeder by using a neutron multiplication blanket to
> 	  breed tritium and then waiting for it to decay into 3He
This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
securely stored off-site.  It also gives you a depressing doubling
time: You need to wait 10 or 20 years before a reactor can feed
itself, much less provide a surplus to start up the next one.

> 	Advanced materials utilization including materials able to
> 	  withstand high thermal and mechanical stresses as well as
> 	  low neutron activiation. Ideally the materials will also
> 	  have high thermal conductivity. First wall components will
> 	  be low Z and low sputtering.
I'd put my money on plasma facing components (or at least divertor
plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).
 
> >    Where will it be?
> 
> Japan(?)
> 
> >    What is the basis for your prediction(s)? (required)
> 
> ... personal opinion ... professional work ... quirks.
That about covers it.
 
> 1) 2062. By "power plant" I mean the first plant built to produce
> commercial power on a for profit basis ...
"When will we have fusion?" can mean anything from scientific breakeven
to enough plants to make a significant contribution to our supply of
energy. It's important to state the question clearly.

[cut a good discussion of the key experiments on the path to fusion]

I would favor building a separate facility for materials testing,
although there is no alternative which is either cheap or quick. I
also fear that another step may be needed, call it a prototype, built
after DEMO demonstrates tritium breeding and electricity production,
but still covering so much new ground that it will not in itself be
economical. It could still fit into John Cobb's timetable if you eat
up some of his 15 years contingency and start the DEMO design before
materials testing and concept improvement experiments are completed.

> THAT IS, THE FIRST PRODUCTION OF COMMERIIAL
> FUSION POWER IS QUESTION NOT OF TIME, BUT OF MONEY.
Given unlimited money, it would still be hard to compress the time
scale by much. Doubling the money would certainly not halve the time.

> In terms of the type question: Most reflect required concept improvements
> that must be made in order to achieve (IMO) economic feasibility. Currently,
> people are looking for these as incremental improvement to the Tokamak.
> IMO that won't happen (although I may be wrong). These improvements are
> possible with alternate concepts, but they have questions of their own to
> address (especially confinement).
Fortunately, even if an alternate concept manages an end run around
the tokamak/stellarator, much of what we are learning--from the
physics of turbulence and of alpha heating to feedback control and
remote maintenance--will be applicable to any concept.

> In terms of Japan. I think the answer to this question is very unknown. I
> said Japan, because they are the only country at this time that seems willing
> to make a long-term funding commitment that goes significantly beyond 
> maintenance of a base program. If funding trends in the U.S., Europe, and
> Russia continue as is, they will NEVER meet the goal.
In broad terms, I would agree, although Europe is able to maintain
long term research programs and build big projects, and America could
decide to sprint on the home stretch.

And that's the way I see it.

--Art Carlson--
-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 /  ranji@mercury. /  Survey regarding effects of proposed budget cuts
     
Originally-From: ranji@mercury.ncat.edu
Newsgroups: sci.engr,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.chem,sci.engr.civil,sci.en
r.manufacturing,sci.engr.mech,sci.engr.metallurgy,sci.engr.semiconductor
,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.computational,sci.physics.computationa
,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Survey regarding effects of proposed budget cuts
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:39:35 GMT
Organization: North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University

Dear friends:

I am researcher at the Center for Ceramics 
at Rutgers University.
I am also a student in the part-time MBA program here at Rutgers 
University in New Brunswick, NJ. As part of a semester project 
of a course (R&D management), I have chosen to address the issue 
of the effects of the budget cuts currently being debated in the 
Congress on the Science and Technology programs. I would very 
much appreciate your response and comments in this matter. 

As a follow on article to this Post, I have enclosed a survey 
for this purpose. Please complete the survey and email it back 
to me at ranji@alumina.rutgers.edu. The success of my survey 
depends entirely on the quantity and quality of the responses 
and I would be very thankful if as many of you who subscribe 
to this news group would care to fill out this survey, 
and circulate among your friends to fill it out and email 
it back to me. 

I assure all of you that the individual responses 
will not be identified under any circumstances 
and your responses will be used only to present 
the overall trend. If any of you have any concerns 
in this regard, please email to me or send me 
your telephone number so that I can call 
you and clarify your concerns. 

Thank you very much.


Sincerely,


Dr. Ranji Vaidyanathan
Research Associate
Center for Ceramics
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855
ranji@alumina.rutgers.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenranji cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  Rain /  RAIN membership drive
     
Originally-From: rain@rain.org (Rain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RAIN membership drive
Date: 1 Apr 1995 18:26:10 GMT
Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN




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

RAIN is trying to work through a critical period right now. We are
faced with a heavy outlay of money - and for now we realy need go
ahead with a sustained membership drive. If we can push through and
get 1000 new members this month, it will create a real dynamic in
the area and show a strong economic revitalization throughout the
community.

I'm very happy to announce our new online signup form. Simply telnet
to "coyote.rain.org" and login as "guest". We've put a lot of effort
into making it easier to become part of our virtual community.

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

RAIN Membership Application

1. INDIVIDUAL $20/month with $35 start-up -SHELL 
              $30/month with $35 start-up -SLIP/PPP+SHELL

2 megs disk space and one hour per day time limit

Select one of the following:

Shell/Menus access              SLIP/PPP/Shell/Menus access   
[] 3 mo. (enclose $95)          [] 3 mo. (enclose $125)
[] 6 mo. (enclose $155)         [] 6 mo. (enclose $215)
[] 12 mo. (enclose $275)        [] 12 mo. (enclose $395)


Name:_____________________________________

Address:__________________________________

__________________________________________

Phone:____________________________________

Occupation:_______________________________

Include name/occupation in online members directory?   [] Y   [] N

User ID (3-8 characters) __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ @rain.org

Password (8 characters)  __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


Second family member (if applicable)

Name:_____________________________________

User ID (3-8 characters) __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ @rain.org

Password (8 characters)  __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


Signature___________________________  Date_____________

Total enclosed $_______________


Send with start-up payment to:

Rain Network
1129 State Street Suite A6
Santa Barbara, CA  93120

----

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

Welcome to:
 
              _/_/_/      _/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/    _/ 
             _/    _/   _/    _/    _/     _/_/  _/ 
            _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/    _/     _/ _/ _/ 
           _/   _/    _/    _/    _/     _/  _/_/ 
          _/    _/   _/    _/  _/_/_/   _/    _/  


       The Regional Alliance for Information Networking


                       RAIN MISSION

                   REGIONAL ACTIVITIES

     The RAIN Network operates a regional information system from
a central T1 Internet hub in Santa Barbara, California.  Founded in
1991, and tested under special arrangements with the University of
California, RAIN is an independent non-profit agency that has
steadily expanded across its regional host area.  RAIN works with
an affiliate, Pacific RAIN, to provide services to commercial
organizations.  Pacific RAIN was established to ensure a stable
economic base for the non-profit Community services RAIN provides
and to help subsidize the cost of individual and non-profit accounts.

     RAIN is a leader in the development of self-sustaining
Regional Networks and operates primarily on membership income from
agencies, families and individuals.  RAIN seeks to pioneer the
role of Regional Networks on the electronic frontier - developing
sources of local information that establish each host community as a
recognized destination on the National Information Highway, while 
providing low cost access out to national and global resources in
a manner sensitive to the needs of its regional users.

=================================================================

Rain provides 14.4k V.32bis dial-up and slip/ppp access
for Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. We are a full service
Internet provider. We provide access to Usenet News, Electronic
Mail, Unix shells, IRC, Gopher, FTP, Telnet and WWW.

Data lines are:
    ------------------------------------------------------
          Santa Barbara County       (805) 899-8600
          Ventura County             (805) 650-5354
          Santa Paula, Somis         (805) 659-1209
          Simi/TO/Moorpark           (805) 579-6900
    ------------------------------------------------------
(8 data bits, No parity, 1 stop bit -- VT-100 terminal emulation)

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

We have a critical situation going on with SCTA and their efforts
to become what we are.  Their continued work to become the Community
Network and in the process they are also working to take away
accounts from Rain that belong on our network.
SCTA is now trying to rather rudly move in on without any 
willingness to work with us or actually demonstrate any networking
capability except what they do through the commercial network
Silicon.

Keeping in mind that RAIN already is the Internet source for
Ventura County government and is involved in building a
Ventura County and City Public Information system we need to
express the importance of having our County Supervisors work with
RAIN.
Step in and help support RAIN in the face of some really
underhanded activity.

****************************************************************

R.A.I.N. means Business, the Network is dedicated to working with
economic revitalization, government services, library and school
services as well as Individual users.

With a frame relay clound covering the entire tri-county area
RAIN is the Network that can provide reliable, inter-agency
Network possible within our Community.

****************************************************************

Send your tax deductable donation today!

****************************************************************

Timothy

--

Timothy Tyndall
Director
Regional Alliance for Information Networking
voice: 805-967-8200
fax  : 805-967-5153
Internet: rain@rain.org
{if you do not receive a reply in 2 days please resend}

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrain cudlnRain cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / News news /  Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
     
Originally-From: news@inter.NL.net (News at news)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION - what happened (if anything?)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 18:35:01 GMT
Organization: NLnet

\


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennews cudfnNews cudlnnews cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: 1 Apr 1995 20:04:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Henry LaMuth (hlamuth@infinet.com) wrote:

: Geez, guys, my pentium pulls in some graphics from the net pretty
: fast. It displays it as fast as my modem pulls the data in. 

Should I be impressed?

: Data
: acquisition is not the same as data crunching and processing. Who
: cares if the processing is in real time as long as the data is
: collected. 

Righto.

: The inherent data streaming capability of most pcs is about
: 115Kb/sec. 

Wonderful.  On a workstation, it can get up to 50-Mb/sec or so.  
So what?

: I think you need to go back to go and take a look at what
: is being collected, sampled, acquired, processed, and displayed...and
: how. Don't just complain that windows is slow...it isn't slow. 

Surely, you joke!  Hell, windows is so slow that even game designers 
avoid it like the plague. It's a layered software implementation that is 
so inefficient that you require a relatively fast PC processor (486 
or Pentium) to provide even minimally acceptable levels of performance.  
Sure, you can use Windows for real-time, that is if your application can 
live with only about 10% of CPU processing potential.  However, the fact is 
simply: for the satisfaction of serious (performance oriented) real-time 
requirements, few do.    

: The: sampling software may be slow, but windows is as fast as it needs to
: be. The fact that you guys are arguing over these types of issues
: indicates you are a bunch of amateurs.

Thank you for that sage advice, even if it has little to to with the 
Keithley application software being discussed.  However, it does say 
something about the class of applications you work with.   

Now, go back to 
your homework.   :-)

                                              Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  White's peroxide thesis
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: White's peroxide thesis
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 15:38:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This is in response to a message in another thread that has not shown up
here.
 
jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
>> I do not know how much water there was in Oriani's cell,
>
>CNF papers often don't include this important piece of information. They
>state the meaningless energy per unit of Pd, but don't give the volume
>of the electrolyte.
 
Some CF papers do include this information, and all CF papers include the
mailing address of the authors. So if you want to find out, you write and ask.
 
 
 
>> but I do know of some other cells with only milligrams of water (or gas)
>> in them which produced many megajoules of energy. These examples disprove
>> your thesis.
>
>The peroxide thesis was never intended to explain the phenomena in those
>examples (which are different from Pons' burst phenomena), and thus it
>cannot be disproved by them.
 
Of course it is disproved by them! It is the same phonomenon. You cannot
arbitrarily throw away data just because it disproves your pet theory. You
pick and choose experiments and say that you will only explain the easy ones.
 
 
Regarding Arata, White writes:
 
>You didn't give the I*V energy input for those 3,000 hours, but assuming
>the 100 watts applies there as well gives an input energy of 1,080 MJ.
>This gives an excess heat of less than 20 percent. The phenomena for which
>I am suggesting peroxide are the bursts in electrochemical cells that produce
>excess heat *many times* the I*V power.
 
It is a closed cell with a highly precise flow calorimeter. So I*V is 100
watts, and recombination is not an issue. You cannot arbitrarily set a demand
for excess power "many times" I*V (Arata peaked at 2 times, I believe.) This
is a meaningless restriction. The only thing that matters is the sigma S/N
ratio. Arata's is very high, so there is no question that his excess is real.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 /  Rain /  cancel: RAIN membership drive
     
Originally-From: rain@rain.org (Rain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel: RAIN membership drive
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 21:43:56 GMT
Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN

Mopping up spam from rain@rain.org.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrain cudlnRain cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.02 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: CO2 contamination in Pd D2O experiments
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CO2 contamination in Pd D2O experiments
Date: 2 Apr 1995 01:36:24 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Jed Rothwell:] I believe, though, that if electrolysis power is
    > relatively high and a lot of gas comes out of the cell,
    > contaminants and CO2 can be kept down to acceptable levels.
    > ... Fortunately, after a few hours of electrolysis [the CO2] would
    > likely be purged to a large extent, which would explain why the
    > reaction would start up again.

I think I hear the sound of a million chemists groaning...

    > ... are a couple orders of magnitude more careful than the slop
    > artists of 1989 who unsuccessfully tried to replicate the
    > experiment.
    
Watch your words.  Pons and Fleischmann may have been rather careless 
with their open cells in 1989, and may have had some trouble
replicating their own experiment --- but they seem to have some pretty
sharp lawyers.
    
--stolfi

      
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 /  ranji@mercury. /  Survey regarding the effects of the proposed budget cuts
     
Originally-From: ranji@mercury.ncat.edu
Newsgroups: sci.engr,sci.engr.biomed,sci.engr.chem,sci.engr.civil,sci.en
r.manufacturing,sci.engr.mech,sci.engr.metallurgy,sci.engr.semiconductor
,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.computational,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Survey regarding the effects of the proposed budget cuts
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:43:01 GMT
Organization: North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University

Note: This survey is being circulated for the 
purpose of obtaining your opinions about 
the proposed budget cuts currently debated 
in the Congress and their effects on the 
various science and technology programs 
including the Advanced Technology 
Projects (ATP), and the Technology 
Reinvestment Projects (TRP). This 
survey is part of 
a group semester project for a 
course titled "Strategic Management of 
Science and 
Technology" in the part-time MBA program 
at the Graduate School of Management at 
Rutgers University, NJ, New Brunswick campus. 

All the comments obtained will be combined 
and no single respondent will be 
identified separately. In case you do not 
feel comfortable in answering some of the 
questions, you may leave them out in your 
responses. If you have any questions or 
comments, please direct them to Dr. Ranji 
Vaidyanathan, Center for Ceramic 
Research, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, 
Piscataway, NJ 08855; Tel: (908)-445-
5618; FAX: (908)-445-3258; 
email: ranji@alumina.rutgers.edu. 

Please respond by April 10, 1995. Your 
help and cooperation in this matter is very 
much appreciated. For those of you mailing 
this survey, I have enclosed a self-
addressed, stamped envelope for this purpose. 

Thank you once again.

Sincerely,


Dr. K. Ranji Vaidyanathan
Research Associate
Center for Ceramic Research
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855
Tel: (908) 445 5618
FAX: (908) 445 3258
email: ranji@alumina.rutgers.edu



Survey for a semester project on "Strategic 
Management of Science and Technology"
Part-time MBA program, Graduate School 
of Management, Rutgers University, New 
Brunswick Campus.


Please list your title and work activity among 
the following:

__Corporate Management: Chairperson, President, 
General Manager, Vice president, 
Director, Owner, Controller, or other 
Corporate Executives.

__Education: Professor, Assistant Professor, 
Associate Professor, Administrator, 
Department Chair, Graduate Student.

__Engineers: Engineering Manager, Engineer, 
Chief Engineer, Manufacturing 
Engineer, Research Engineer, Process Engineer, 
Product Development, or other 
Engineering positions.

__Research & Development: Director, Manager, 
Associate, Scientist, or other 
Research & Development managers.

__Other__________________________________________

Please answer only those questions that you 
believe are relevant to your 
position/organization. For most questions, 
you could answer them on a scale of 1 to 10 
or by a simple yes or no. However, if you want to a
nswer in detail for any questions, 
please feel free to do so. 

1. Do you believe that the government has a role 
in supporting critical R&D for 
important technologies? Circle a number between 
1 and 10.  

Strongly disagree   Neutral   Strongly Agree

1   2   3    4    5   6   7   8   9   10                             

2. Do you believe that the government has a role 
in supporting R&D in private 
companies? 

Strongly disagree   Neutral   Strongly Agree

1   2  3    4     5    6   7   8   9   10                             

3. Do you believe that the government has a role 
in supporting R&D in Universities? 

Strongly disagree  Neutral     Strongly agree

1  2  3   4  5   6   7   8   9   10


4. Do you believe that the government has a 
role in supporting R&D in National labs?

Strongly disagree  Neutral     Strongly agree

1  2  3  4  5  6   7   8   9   10

5. Are you currently involved in R&D
supported by the government?

Yes                  No

6. Do you believe that there is wastage in
the R&D projects that you are involved in?

Strongly disagree   Neutral  Strongly agree

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

7. If you answered yes to the previous question,
and if you had the power to do something about
it, how could you reduce the wastage? You need
not answer it if you do not want to.









8. In your opinion, what areas of R&D do
you think could be eliminated or reduced?






9. What do you think, would be a good way
to reduce bureaucracy and wastage?









10. Do government regulations hinder 
your research activities?

Strongly disagree   Neutral  Strongly agree

1   2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   10

11. Is your company (if you are part of one)
involved in implementing quality standards
such as the ISO 9000?

Yes                                      No

12. Do you personally agree with a balanced 
budget amendment?

Strongly diagree   Neutral  Strongly agree

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

13. If this amendment would result in drastic
reductions/cutbacks in the projects that
you are working on, would you still support it?

Will not support  Neutral   Strongly support

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

14. Do you support the budget reductions 
for Science and Technology Programs 
currently being debated in the Congress?

Yes                                   No

15. Are you involved in Advanced Technology 
Programs or Technology Reinvestment 
Programs? (The Advanced Technology Program, 
administered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, 
provides cost-sharing grants for the 
development of promising but high-risk 
commercial technologies that may help 
expand United States industry. If you are 
not involved in one of these programs, 
please ignore this question and the next one)

Yes                          No

16. If you are involved in one, what has been 
the level of achievement on this project, 
vis-a-vis the expectations at the beginning 
of the project? 









17. Do you support the basic aims of these programs?

Will not support     Neutral     Strongly support

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

18. If you support both the balanced budget 
amendment and government supported 
R&D, how would you fund the R&D programs?








19. Would you support any tax increases if you 
support both of the above?

Yes                              No

20. Are you involved in CRADA's ?(Cooperative 
Research Agreements between 
industry and national labs)

Yes                                    No

21. Do you approve of congressional earmarking 
for funding technology projects in 
your congressional districts?

Yes                                   No

22. Have you supported congressional earmarking 
for funding technology projects in 
your congressional districts in the past?

Yes                                    No

23. What, in your opinion, should be the 
criteria for justifying or approving a new 
project?












24. What, in your opinion, should be the 
criteria for justifying or approving an 
extension 
for an existing project?








Thank you for your cooperation.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenranji cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Bologna
Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:08:11 -0500
Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc.

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>Or is it Baloney?  It isn't April 1st yet.  I just read in
>clari.tw.science, article <Ritaly-fusionUR45e_5MT@clarinet.com>, that
>scientists at the University of Bologna claim to have produced 100 kW
>hours of energy from 1 gram of hydrogen.  They also claim to have
>detected neutrons and gamma radiation emmited by their
>system.

I expected some sort of earth-shattering announcement to stir up press
interest just before the ICCF5 meeting.

I wonder if some of the hot fusion guys have also scheduled an announcement to
occur during ICCF5 as some did during the Maui meeting. :-)

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net
-- 
"This is going to cause more confusion than a mouse in a burlesque show." -
							Foghorn Leghorn.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: I give up
     
Originally-From: bugs@news.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I give up
Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:11:10 -0500
Organization: Win.Net Communications, Inc.

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>I see no hope of getting a agreement on what to do with the 
>$700 before Bill Page goes to France.  So I will quit trying
>to make a proposal that most can agree to.  I propose that 
>we revert to Roberts Rules of Order and throw the meeting 
>open to motions as to what to do with the $700.  

There were a couple of students at ICCF4 that were building an
archive of information relating to CF and the study of science
from a social perspective.  I wonder if their archival work might
need some small funding.

Perhaps some of these new video's might be purchased for said
archives.

Regards,

Mark Hittinger
bugs@win.net
-- 
"This is going to cause more confusion than a mouse in a burlesque show." -
							Foghorn Leghorn.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Richard Schultz /  Stupid Calculator Tricks
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Stupid Calculator Tricks
Date: 31 Mar 1995 14:16:11 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D6ABw7.GGJ@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN
>Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>= Two papers were dangled and then 14 were submitted.  
>   Dangled?   You said they were accepted:
>         "The article in C&EN noted that after there was an
>          AGREEMENT on accepting the two "cnf" papers, 
>          something on the order of ..."
>   So were they dangled, accepted, or under agreement?

What a maroon.  Kohn "dangled" two papers in front of Baisden (as
in he proposed that two cf papers be presented) in September and
she agreed, and then in November he came back with fourteen.  
What part of this do you not understand?

>    > ="According to ACS officials, three papers have been
>    > =officially withdrawn, including one from Pons and Fleischmann"
>  Clearly not in the best interest of disemination of information, was it?

Except that the papers were *withdrawn* as in by the authors, and furthermore
(as I said in an earlier post) all of the papers are listed in the final
program.  All of them.  Every one.  Including Pons & Fleischmann's.
Am I getting through to you yet?

>  This is all that was said, because the public, actually misses out any
>attempt to filter out papers in this field.

For the seventeen gazillionth time there WAS NO ATTEMPT TO FILTER OUT 
PAPERS IN THE FIELD.  For crying out loud, what does it take to get
through to you?  The only way that there could have been any oral
papers would have been precisely that -- filtering out a few from 
the fourteen submissions.  By allowing all fourteen to be given as
posters, Baisden in fact did the exact opposite.  And if you consult
the final program, you will discover that all of the cf papers submitted
are listed there.  If Pons and Fleischmann decide not to show, who is
responsible for their not disseminating their information?  Since you
don't trust anybody's reports of this issue, why don't you call P&F
and ask them if they withdrew their paper when they found out it was
"only" a poster, or if they were forced to withdraw by the Evil Anti-CF
Conspiracy?  I would be interested to know what their response to that
question is.

>   5582 papers.   35% posters implies the following.
>  For 14 submissions, let's consider the expected number of 
>oral presentations [ignoring for the moment your arguments of time,
>               and  this and that, and ...  ] 
>   the Expectation value is 65%      number   9
>       Observed             0%                0
>
>   Alternatively, with a 35% probability of poster session assignation [sic], 
>the probability of all 14 in the poster sessions would be only
>    .35 * 0.35 * ....... =~   0.000 000 4   
>   That is less than  "one in a million", isn't it?
>
>So, given the history in this matter and the microscopic probability
> for this outcome  (albeit with other things equal),  it will certainly 
>be interesting to finally learn how many papers will actually be read in cf.

You know, of all of the hilariously idiotic things you have posted here,
the above is in contention for the most hilarious *and* most idiotic.
A likely Citation Classic (tm) would be my guess.

I stated that the default is if there's no room for one's paper as an
oral presentation, then one will generally give it as a poster.  You
agreed with that statment.  I explained in detail, in the same post
with the statistics on poster vs. oral, that the ratio of the two cannot
be used to predict the probability of any given paper's being a poster
or an oral paper.  Thus, in some divisions such as Physical or Organic
(where there are many more submissions than slots for oral papers), there
tend to be more posters than in for example the Agricultural Chemistry
division.  Furthermore, I explained how the program is assembled and that
(barring, I suppose, any last-minute withdrawals) all of the slots for
oral papers are assigned a year or more in advance.  Thus, if you submit 
your paper only four months in advance, the probability of its being a
poster is not 0.35 (even assuming that posters were randomly assigned
among the papers, which they are not).  The probability of a late
paper being a poster is much closer to 1, for reasons that I have explained
in detail, and that you have never disputed.  Even so, had there only 
been two or three cf submissions, Baisden may very well have squeezed
them in as oral presentations in the general topics symposium.

The relevant calculation is one that I have already done for you, and
that, again, you have not disputed (or even acknowledged):  there
was one half-day session in which Baisden had to put any papers that
came her way that weren't already assigned to specific symposia.  
Note that half-day sessions are four hours long.

(4 hours) * (2 papers/hour) = 8 papers maximum

Thus, even if she had devoted that entire session to cf, she would have
had to have rejected six of the papers submitted by Kohn et al. along
with any other papers on other topics.  And Swartz & Friends would still
have been able to complain that six of the cf people were being censored.

Even the most hilarious court jester gets tiresome after a while, and
so it is my intention not to discuss this matter any further until
Swartz answers at least of the few specific questions that I have asked
him.  Sample questions include:  

Have you ever been involved with the programming of a large science
conference?

Do you dispute any of my description of how such programming is done,
and if so, on what basis?

What specifically are the "other sides" to this issue?

Do you honestly expect me to believe that if Baisden had selected only
three CF papers to be delivered at the ACS meeting, you would not
have claimed she was censoring CF?

Do you dispute that Kohn did not approach Baisden until September?  

Do you dispute that at that time he suggested a small number of CF papers?  

Do you dispute that in November he turned up with a dozen?  

Do you claim that Baisden treated the CF papers any differently than the 
non-CF papers submitted late?

You claimed that I am "failing to address the issue":  what issue am I 
failing to address?  

Given that there wasn't enough room in the program for their work to be 
presented orally, and that you agree that in such cases it is usual for 
assignment to a poster session, do you agree that P&F really have no cause 
for complaint in having received such an assignment?

I look forward to your replies to these questions.  Not that I'm holding
my breath.
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fly, sir, may sting a stately horse, and make him wince; but one is but an
insect, and the other is a horse still." -- Samuel Johnson
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update 31-Mar-95
     
Originally-From: britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update 31-Mar-95
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 14:54:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Starry droogs,
before I go off for the weekend, here the latest crop. I am nearing the
bottom of the FTT stack, I am glad to say. We have two attempts at carbon
arc transmutation, both optimistic in their conclusions, without good reason
as I see it. They do not seem to understand that the driving force for the
extremely unlikely fusion reaction proposed, 2*(12C + 18O) --> 56Fe + 4He, is
only the applied voltage, i.e. about 10-20 V... And the fact that the Fe found
has the natural isotope distribution would seem to have clinched the matter.
And on top of all this, it's a four-body fusion reaction. Audacious, you might
say. Takahashi also proposes multibody fusion. And Taniguchi looked for cp's;
I wasn't all that compelled that he found any beyond noise, but he seemed to
be. Hm. Then we have our very own Mitch Swartz, being a little inscrutable. Now
he'll have to write another paper telling us where this all leads. Reminded me
of those equations the SETI people come up with, expressing the number of
advanced civilisations in the universe; all very well, but what values do you
give all those parameters?
And there are three more patents. Have a nice one, droogs.

Journal Papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Singh M, Saksena MD, Dixit VS, Kartha VB;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 266.
"Verification of the George Oshawa [sic] experiment for anomalous production
of iron from carbon arc in water".
** Experimental, transmutation, res0, no FPH/Jones refs
This is an attempt to verify the strange claim by GO (et al) of having
produced Fe by arcing between pur carbon rods in pure water containing oxygen.
The present team analysed both the initial water and the carbon and found only
<5, and <2 ppm, resp. In the first run, an arc was kept up intermittently for
about 1 hour at <35 V, 15-18 A, and in the 5 mg of residue collected from the
bottom, 2000 ppm Fe was found. This procedure was repeated, at different
currents and lengths of time of arcing, and every time, less and less Fe was
found in the residue, being respectively for the runs, 2000, 1000, 2000, 450,
100, 50, 50, 20, 20, 100 ppm. Mass spec was used to determine the isotopic
distribution, and this was found to be the same as natural Fe in every case.
The authors however conclude that these numbers even at their lowest values,
lie far above the initial values, and thus this is a verification of Ohsawa et
al's results, i.e. that transmutation to Fe has occurred here.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Sundaresan R; Bockris JO'M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 261.
"Anomalous reactions during arcing between carbon rods in water".
** Experimental, transmutation, res+
The authors attempt to verify the strange claim of Ohsawa to have caused
transmutation of C with oxygen-18 by arcing between carbon rods in pure water.
Arcing currents up to 25 A were applied, with voltages around 10 V, for up to
3 hours. Initial Fe content in the rods was, as stated by the makers, 2 ppm
and the water contained next to none (< 20 ppb ions total, by the measured
conductivity). In 14 separate experiments, the carbon residue found at the
cell bottom after arcing contained an average of around 100 ppm Fe. Since
oxygen-18 is thought to be a requirement for this transmutation, some trials
were run with nitrogen to flush oxygen out of the water. In three such runs,
the carbon residue contained even less than the original (max 18 ppm). Fe
production (with oxygen) correlates roughly with length of time of arcing. No
isotope distribution was measured but will be in future. There is even a rough
indication of excess heat from the transmutation (fusion) reaction.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Swartz M;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 74.
"Isotopic fuel loading coupled to reactions at an electrode".
** Theory, fusion rate as a transport problem; res0
Mitch Swartz further develops his "quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) model" of what
happens in a cold fusion electrolysis cell. Many equations are presented, to
do with deuteron flux in the various parts of the cell. The partition between
deuterium evolution and its ingress into the Pd is invoked, and finally an
equation for the rate of fusion given, including such parameters as
diffusivity of deuterons, electric field strength and the fraction of
deuterons in the Pd that will fuse (an unknown parameter).
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Takahashi A;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 451.
"Some considerations of multibody fusion in metal-deuterides".
** Theory/speculation, multibody fusion, res+
T has a theory of multibody fusion, involving among some possible scenarios
the fusion of 3 or 4 deuterons, yielding 6Li or 8Be. He has described this
previously; here he speculates on how the excited product might decay to the
ground state without emitting high energy gamma- and x-rays. He believes this
to be possible with the Schwinger or Preparata theories, in which the energy
is absorbed by the metal lattice. For the excited 8Be species this seems to be
fairly firm, while it is less firm for excited 6Li.
#...................................................................... Mar-95
Taniguchi R;  Fusion Technol. 26T (1994) 186.
"Characteristic peak structures on charged particle spectra during
electrolysis experiment".
** Experimental, cp's, electrolysis, res+, no FPH/Jones refs
In previous work by others, using deuteron beams, charged particles (cp's)
were detected. T here tries it with an electrolysis cell with a Pd foil
cathode and a SSB cp detector on the back side of the foil (one Fig. shows two
detectors, the others do not and there is no mention of coincidence
electronics). Many different runs were made, some with 30 mA applied, some
without, some with the detectors shielded by Ni plates, background with no
cell. To the untrained eye all the measured spectra look much the same, but
the author notes some differences, notably some peaks in the Pd/D2O
electrolysis run, not seen (by the untrained eye) in the others. This cannot
be background, concludes Taniguchi, neither can it be dd fusion; it must be an
unknown nuclear reaction.
#...................................................................... Mar-95

Patents: 
^^^^^^^
#
Ishii, R (Ishii Sangyo Kk);  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,337,294, 27-May-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:117207 (1995).
"Low-temperature nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "The app. uses a microwave irradn. of a vessel contg. H-absorbing
substance of powd. Pd, etc and D2O" (direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Mar-95
Notoya R; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,317,686, 13-Oct-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:117483 (1995).
"Cold fusion from light water by electrolysis".
** "The method involves electrolyzing an aq. electrolyte soln. (H2O) with a
porous anode (porosity 0.3-35 vol%) of a transition metal, Al, Sn, or a
stainless steel". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Mar-95
Furuya C (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind.);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,171,905, 11-Dec-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:145163 (1995).
"Method for generating deuterium for cold nuclear fusion and for obtaining
electric power".
** "A cell is formed by using a D2O soln. contg. D2SO4 as the electrolyte, a
metal with a potential less noble than H as the cathode, and a gas-diffusion
anode comprising (1) a gas diffusion layer with only hydrophobic pores and
(2) a catalyst-deposited reactive layer with hydrophilic and hydrophobic
pores. For the cathodic reaction, the metal is dissolved and for the anodic
reaction D is generated from the diffusion layer side of the gas-diffusion
electrode. A high-purity D2 can be manufd. efficiently and elec. power can be
generated also". (Direct quote from CA).
# .................................................................... Mar-95


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Ronald B /  RFP: Barriers, Isolators, Mini-environments, Gloveboxes
     
Originally-From: ronald.smith@srs.gov ("Ronald B. Smith")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RFP: Barriers, Isolators, Mini-environments, Gloveboxes
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 05:52:00 +0000

RFP:  Isolators, Barriers, Mini-Environments, & Gloveboxes

Call For Papers
And
Invitation to Participate

This call for papers includes the following list of suggested topics:

Pharmaceutical Applications	Bio Containment
Medical Applications		Environmental Enclosures
Potent Compounds		Sterile Application
Industrial Hygiene		Technology Transfer
Disposable Gloveboxes		Space Application
Waste Characterization		Linings/Coatings & Materials
Robotics and Automation		Decontamination & Decommissioning
Filtration & Purification	Facility Design/Containment Integration
Testing and Validation		Procurement, Manufacturing & Installation
Ventilation Systems		Nuclear Applications
Micro Electronic Applications	Flexible Enclosures
Special Applications		Quality Assurance and ISO 9000
EPA, FDA, & OSHA Regulations	Monitoring & Atmosphere Detection

9th Annual Conference and Equipment Exhibit
of the American Glovebox Society

July 20-22, 1995
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Radisson South Hotel

Papers are welcome in all areas of Isolator, Barrier, Mini-Environment, & 
Glovebox Technology

Abstracts of 300 words or less must be submitted to AGS office by April 21, 
1995 to ensure consideration of the paper.

Commitment to this schedule must be recognized when the initial submittal is 
made

1995 AGS Annual Meeting Technical Presentation Proposal

1.  Title of technical paper:____________________________________________

2.  Please give complete name and address of the presenter.  Only the 
presenter will receive correspondence from AGS headquarters concerning 
presentation.

Presenter Name:____________________________________________________

Employer:_________________________________________________________

Address:_____________________________________  City:________________

State or Provence:____________  Postal Code:_________  Country:___________

Telefacsimile Number:____________________  E-mail:____________________

3.  Names of all authors and their employers in the order that they are to 
be listed:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

4.  Has this material been presented elsewhere?__________  When/Where?______
__________________________________________________________________

Western Hemisphere 		Europe and Asia
Send abstracts to:		Send abstracts to:
American Glovebox Society	Ken Baker
P.O. Box 9099			Ken Baker & Associates
Santa Rosa, CA 95405		Hill Cottage, Macclesfield Rd., Alderly Edge
(800) 530-1022			Cheshire SK97BN, England
Fax:  (707) 578-4406		Fax: 011-44-457-878781
Internet:  ronald.smith@srs.gov



cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensmith cudfnRonald cudlnB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Edward Lewis /  I'm selling some articles
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I'm selling some articles
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 02:11:25 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Edward Lewis							March 6, 1995
P.O. Box 13060
Chicago, Illinois 6061


	
	When I first learned about the phenomena called "cold fusion"
in March or April of 1989, I was looking for evidence of the recent
production of significant anomalies of the quantum mechanics and
relativity theories, contradictions of the basic ideas of Quantum
Mechanics and Relativity theory which Einstein had formulated about
1905.  This is because I was then developing a theory about the 80
year periodicity of revolutions in the development of science which
would explain the "Kondratiev cycle," an approximately 40 to 60 year
periodicity of economic depressionary periods in the economies of the
capitalist countries that Kondratiev, a Russian economist who lived
decades ago, thought had occurred.  I suspected that changes of
science theory happened at 80 year intervals, 1905 Einstein, 1820
Faraday; and I was looking for the recent production of anomalies that
occurs before such changes of theory during the times that Kuhn called
"crisis periods." At that time, I figured that superconductivity which
was discovered 3 years earlier was such an anomaly, but I was looking
for others, and I thought that cold fusion was also such an anomaly.

	Most of you who have been producing anomalous phenomena were
born about 1935 or 1945, give or take some years, and learned and
apprehended quantum mechanics and relativity theories as you were
growing up.  You were born about the time that those in your parentsU
generation, such as Schwinger, Tomonaga, and de Broglie, were
substantially developing quantum mechanics theory.  Your parents'
generation was in turn born about 1905, give or take some years, which
was when Einstein was formulating the fundamental ideas of quantum
mechanics and relativity theories.  There were three generations
involved in the development and contradiction of the quantum mechanics
and relativity theories.  This 3 stage, generational development --
formulation of fundamental ideas of a new physics theory, development
of theory, and experiencing of fundamental anomalies has recurred 6
times since 1506, when Copernicus formulated a fundamental physics
theory.  The three stages have taken about 80 years on average,
between about 72 to 90 years in each case.  The approximate timing of
the pattern of the initial formulation of theory was, in my opinion,
1506 - Copernicus, 1582 - Gilbert, 1593 - Galileo, and 1595 - Kepler,
1664 - Newton, sometime about the years 1740 or 1747 - Franklin, 1820
- Faraday, and 1905 - Einstein.  Gilbert, Galileo, and Kepler more or
less independently formulated similar theories because they resolved
the same set of phenomena, the phenomena that contradicted or accorded
with Copernican theory.

	I have copies of an approximately 35 page, single space, paper(1)
in which I describe the patterns of the 80 year periodicity of the
development of physics somewhat detailedly, the 80 year periodicity of
technological change since 1790, and the approximately 40 year
periodicity of economic depressionary periods in the lead
technological economies since 1790 that is an economic effect of the
scientific and technological development periodicity.  There are two
different kinds of depressionary periods that alternate -- during each
change of technology and during the middle of each technological
phase.  I describe a theory to resolve these patterns, and include a
graph and a plot.  I would like to make this available for 20 dollars,
please also include postage, though I might consider less money for
some people.  And I will include a version of a 10 page, single space,
paper(2) which I have submitted to several periodicals in which I
describe some of the ideas of my theory of the new set of phenomena --
plasmoids, cold fusion, superconductivity, etc.  Versions of parts(3) of
this latter paper have been published in two newsletters.

	I've also written a 23 page list(4) of all the cold fusion and
cold fusion related documents in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, starting from 1989
and concluding in September of 1994.  I may extend this.  I thoroughly
searched and tried to find every article, letter to the Editor,
editorial note, book review, and meeting report, anything that
mentioned "cold fusion" or "muon-catalyzed fusion;" and I listed the
names, affiliation, and general location or address of the authors,
and the titles of the documents chronologically by month, volume
number, and issue number.  This is available for 10 dollars.  I'll try
to condense this by printing the list in columns.  People may find
that this is helpful for learning about the development of the
science, and finding people.  For these articles, please send a check
or money order to me at the address that follows.  Self-addressed and
stamped envelopes would be welcome.  If I donUt want to send someone
anything, I'll send back to that person the money and any postage and
envelopes.

		Edward Lewis, P.O. Box 13060, Chicago, Illinois  60613

	In a letter to the Editor(5) of FUSION FACTS which is a
newsletter about cold fusion phenomena that I wrote a few months ago,
I suggested that people arrange for democratic organization for
international cold fusion meetings.  I think that if people could vote
about the agenda of these meetings, the things that happen and what is
said and done may be more in accord with their interests and research
interests, in my opinion.  I'd like to encourage people to report
about the anomalies that they are finding that they can't explain.



1)E. Lewis, THE PERIODIC PRODUCTION OF RATIONALIZED PHENOMENA AND THE
PAST PERIODIC DEPRESSIONS, manuscript, copyright 1992, 1994, and 1995.

2)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," manuscript article, submitted
to "CF" MAGAZINE, June 13, 1994, FUSION FACTS, August 29, 1994, and
"CF" NEWSLETTER, September 1994 and February 1994.

3)E. Lewis, "Plasmoids and Cold Fusion," COLD FUSION TIMES, 2 (no.1), 4
(Summer, 1994) (this was a continuation of E. Lewis, "Luminous
Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids," COLD FUSION TIMES, 1 (no. 4), 4
(Winter, 1994)).
and "Some Important Kinds of Plasmoid Traces Produced
By Cold Fusion Apparatus," FUSION FACTS, 6 (no. 8), 16 (February,
1995).

4)E. Lewis, "List of 'Cold Fusion' Documents and 'Cold Fusion' Related
Documents in FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a Journal of the American Nuclear
Society, 1989 - September, 1994," submitted to "COLD FUSION" MAGAZINE,
June 14, 1994, and "COLD FUSION" NEWSLETTER, September 1994.  Info.
about the December 1989 issue is incomplete.

5)E. Lewis, Letter to the Editor, FUSION FACTS, 6 (no. 3), 22
(September, 1994); part of "Suggested Priorities for an Agenda for CF
Researchers" was also published or paraphrased with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Edward Lewis /  ***PLASMOID PHENOMENA
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ***PLASMOID PHENOMENA
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 04:10:18 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago



			Copyright 1995 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

Here is a copy of an article that I wrote.  I haven't edited it for the
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.  Posted March 30, 1995.

Edward Lewis							March 8, 1995
P. O. Box 13060
Chicago, Illinois  60613

PLASMOID PHENOMENA
	
	Fundamental anomalous phenomena are the contradictions of the
postulates of the premises of peopleUs theories, and the environment.
Those who apprehend a theory and experience according to the theory
may experience the contradictions.  It seems that since the
fundamental postulates of peopleUs premises are few, the kinds of
fundamental anomalies are few.  During the last 20 years, the number
of people who have been experiencing and reporting about the anomalies
of the Q.M. and Relativity theories has been rapidly increasing.  The
last 20 years is that which Thomas Kuhn called a Rcrisis period,S and
there have been crisis periods at about every 80 year interval since
1500 .  It seems to me that a group of fundamental phenomena of the
current set of phenomena is that of RplasmoidS phenomena.

	In earlier articles, IUve written that atoms are plasmoid
phenomena.  Plasmoids seem to be basically an electrical-magnetic
phenomena -- plasmoids have converted to electricity.  The magnetism
is an aspect of the electricity.  I suspect that atoms are like ball
lightning -- if this is so then atoms may often be toroidally shaped,
and may usually not contain inner clumps in the middle.  The magnetism
of atoms is an electrical phenomena similar to the magnetism of the
earth.  People have experienced that the magnetism (people have used
the term Rmagnetic lines of forceS) of the earth is electrical
currents.  Light is the same as electricity since it interconverts .
Inertia, accretion, and separation of plasmoids is also an
electrical-magnetic phenomena -- as relative motion of plasmoids also
seems to be.

	Almost all or all the phenomena that I know about seem to be
plasmoid phenomena.  Substance seems to be a plasmoid phenomena
because galaxies are plasmoids and substance converts to other kinds
of plasmoid phenomena, light, and electricity .  Micrometer-sized
plasmoid phenomena has been reported to be the locus of neutron
emission , and ball lightning-like phenomena has been associated with
neutron production also.  Like other plasmoids, atoms may clump and
divide and dissipate so that new substances, elements and isotopes are
produced.  It seems that plasmoid phenomena are the same though the
size varies.  For example, galaxies seem to convert to jets, beams,
and electrical currents in the middle, and this seems to be similar to
the jets, beams, and electrical discharges from ball lightning, the
beams and electrical discharges from micrometer-sized plasmoids, the
beams from discharge devices reported by Savvatimova and Karabut et
al., and the beam or jet that a plasmoid emitted on nuclear emulsion
that Matsumoto showed .  I think that EVs(5), ball lightning,
plasmoids, tornadoes and galaxies are similar phenomena since they
behave similarly .

	People have produced plasmoid and BL-like phenomena for a long
time.  W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes , and according to A. Peratt , he
coined the term.  In this paper, Bostick had already begun to tell
others about his speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he
produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and the travel of these
things.  He also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  According to experimental results, many people including
Bostick, Alfven (Nobel Prize, Magneto-hydrodynamics), Peratt and
Lerner have developed similar extensive astrophysical theories that
model the universe as plasmoids; while others, such as Bostick
developed models of particles as plasmoids.  For decades, many people
have tried to use plasmoids for weapons and for fusion, and it is well
known that plasmoids are associated with element, isotope, and neutron
production.

	In the latter part of the 1700s, people were producing ball
lighting-like phenomena by using Leyden jars, a kind of condensor, and
in the late 1800s, Plante and others studied BL-like phenomena
produced by discharge through wires and in plate condensors.  Tesla
also produced such phenomena.  There have been about 8 international
conferences about ball lightning and luminous atmospheric phenomena
during the last 8 years.  In 1992, I began to tell people about my
idea that tiny ball-lightning phenomena were produced in CF apparatus.
Matsumoto has reported about the observation of tiny ball
lightning-like phenomena in some cold fusion apparatus .
	
	Most if not all other anomalous phenomena that I know about
can be described as plasmoid phenomena.  For example,
superconductivity seems to be similar to the phenomena of ball
lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence and RcavitationS seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity, and to other atoms and bigger micrometer-sized plasmoids.
The pits and the localized melting seem to be plasmoid and discharge
effects.  The vortex phenomena photographed by Stringham and George
are plasmoid phenomena.

	I suggest that people use nuclear emulsions and check their
apparatus microscopically to find plasmoids or their effects. Also,
check the electrical grounding of the apparatus and see whether there
are electrical surges.  I suspect that in many apparatus much
substance may convert and leave as plasmoids and/or electricity.
Also, I suggest that people try to check whether things like time
(maybe use atomic clocks ), accretion (the clumping of plasmoids), and
magnetism change around their cold fusion and plasmoid apparatus.
There is much evidence of anomalous changes of these things around and
in plasmoid phenomena such as discharge phenomena, ball lightning,
solar flares, volcanoes and earthquakes.  The changes of the accretion
of plasmoid phenomena associated with plasmoid phenomena is the
production of new elements and substances.  Check for
superconductivity, since this is a plasmoid phenomena.  Also, I
suspect that storms on earth greatly affect at least some CF
apparatus.  Hawkins and others reported that a electrolysis apparatus
exhibited heat and gamma-ray excursions at the times of electrical
storms, but not otherwise.  In this vein, it is interesting that V. A.
Filimonov reports that a neutron source greatly stimulates CF
phenomena .  Lightning is associated with neutron production .  IUm
speculating that neutrons are a plasmoid environment, like larger
plasmoids.
	
	On one weekly T.V. show about unusual phenomena that is shown
in Chicago, there was a report about people who were in Gulf Breeze,
Florida in the U.S.A. who reported seeing a small light orbiting a
larger luminous orb.  I have read the reports of people who have seen
two BL revolve about a common center and of people who have seen
several BL revolving together.  I suspect that according to the new
set of phenomena, the reason the small BL-like phenomena was orbiting
the bigger orb is the same reason that the planets orbit the Sun.
	
	If I could suggest some experiments, as I suggested in 1992 ,
look for the emission of neutrons and other kinds of plasmoids during
stress of substances other than hydrogen and during stresses other
than electrical discharge, such as by thermal cycling or fracture.
When I was 5 or 6, I produced tiny, unusual BL-like phenomena (sparks)
by fracturing a certain kind of rock.  Composites or combinations of
elements with big differences of Roxidation stateS or
electronegativity may prove useful; this seems superficially similar
to Hora, Miley et al.Us idea of using differences in Fermi level.
-------Footnotes

 E. Lewis, RThe Periodic Production of Rationalized Phenomena and
the Past Periodic Depressions,S manuscript article, 1992, 1994, 1995.
 A. Tonomura (Imperial Award and Japan Academy Award) experienced
the conversion of electrons to light.
 E. Lewis, RPlasmoids and Cold Fusion,S Cold Fusion Times, 2 (no. 1), 4 (Summer, 1994).
 W. H. Bostick, W. Prior, L. Grunberger, and G. Emmert, RPair Production
of Plasma Vortices,S Physics of Fluids, 9, 2078 (1966).
 K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent Number 5,123,039.
 G. Dijkhuis and J. Pijpelink,  "Performance of a High-Voltage
Test Facility Designed for Investigation of Ball Lightning," Proc.
First International Symposium on Ball Lightning (Fire Ball) --
The Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball)  Tokyo, Japan, July 4-6,
1988, World Scientific Company, Singapore, p. 336.
 T. Matsumoto, "Searching for Tiny Black Holes During Cold Fusion,"
Fusion Technology, 22, 281 (Sept. 1992);  Fig. 2b.
 E. Lewis,  RLuminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids, Cold Fusion
Times, 1 (no. 4), 4 (Winter, 1994).
 V. Nardi, W. Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure
of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).
 A. Peratt, email note, January 27,  1995.
 A. Peratt, REvolution of the Plasma Universe:  I.  Double Radio
Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets,S  IEEE Trans. Plasma
Science., vol. PS-14, 385 (1986).  Many other articles as well.
 Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1991.
 W. Bostick, RThe Plasmoid Construction of the Superstring,S 21st
Century Science & Technology, p. 58, Winter 1990.
 W. Bostick, RHow Superstrings Form the Basis of Nuclear Matter,S
21st Century Science & Technology, p. 66, Winter 1990.
 W. Bostick, RMass, Charge, and Current:  The Essence and Morphology,S
 Physics Essays, 4 (no.5), 45 (1991).  Millenium Twain sent me
this reference in January or Feb. of 1994.
 J. Tennenbaum, RBehind the Russian SDI Offer:  A Scientific, Technologi
al, and Strategic Revolution,S 21st Century Science & Technology,
p. 36, Summer 1993.
 RUSAF Conducts Experiments with Compact Toroids for Future Space
Weapons,S Aviation Week & Space Technology, 130, 60 (May 15, 1989).
 E. Lewis, RA Proposal for the Performance of Four Kinds of Experiments
to Test My Own Hypotheses and a Statement of a Deduction about
Phenomena,S manuscript article, October 19, 1992.
 T. Matsumoto, RCold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical Discharge
in Water,S  distributed at the ICCF4.
 T. Matsumoto, RObservation of Tiny Ball Lightning During Electrical
Discharge in Water,S sub. to FT, Jan. 23, 1994.
 T. Matsumoto, RTwo Proposals Concerning Cold Fusion,S Fusion Technology
 26, 1337 (December 1994).
 E. Lewis.  There is an abstract in the back of the ICCF3 about two experiments.
 N. Hawkins, RPossible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,S
Fusion Technology, 19, 2212 (July, 1991).
 N. Hawkins, S.-Sh. Yi, X.-Zh. Qi, S. Li, L. Wang, and Q. X. Zu,
RInvestigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of Meteorologically
Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences,S  Proc.
Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo,
Utah, October 22-24, 1990.
 V. A. Filimonov, RA New Cold Fusion Phenomenon,S sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup (article #16526, from profusion@aol.com), January 21, 1995.
 S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, RNeutron Generation in
Lightning Bolts,S Nature, 313, 773 (1985).
 SIGHTINGS, Saturday, December 3, 1994, 6:00 P.M.
 E. Lewis, RA Description of Phenomena According to My Theory and
Experiments to Test My Theory, manuscript article, submitted to
Fusion Technology, December 1992.
 G. Miley, H. Hora, E. G. Batyrbekov, R. Zich, RElectrolytic Cell
With Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes,S  Transactions of Fusion
Technology, 26, 313 (December 1994).







cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / John Cobb /  Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants?
Date: 31 Mar 1995 12:35:23 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <AWC.95Mar31132505@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TOK   <awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
>(John W. Cobb) writes:
>> In article <3l9ucc$iu@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>> Michael Brumm <brumm@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> >    When will the first hot fusion power plant come on-line?
>> 
>> Year: 2062 *(see note below)
>> 
[many deletions of Art Carlson's excellent points]
>> >    What type will it be?
>> 
>> 	steady-state
>Maybe, but I don't find the need for steady state to be compelling. An
>ignited reactor will have a pulse length of many hours, and the hour
>or less to recharge the current drive flux can be bridged over with
>thermal storage. The cycle fatigue of the structure will be determined
>by the rare occasions that the reactor has to be brought down to room
>temperature rather than the few degrees swing during recharging.

Right, duty cycle of 85% is almost as good at 100%, but duty cycle
of only 50% means the cost of Electricity (COE) will be doubled, just
to pay interest on the plant while it is off cycle.

Also, the thermal cycling is very important. The thermal stresses could 
lead to short component lifetimes if not carefully managed. One idea I
have heard some people talk about is an "AC" cycle where the device
is run in pulsed mode, but the direction of the current through a central
transformer changes direction every 1/2 period (on the order of minutes.
The idea here is that you are still fighting a volt-seconds game, but you get
to start from less than zero (and therefore have a higher dynamic range
and you don't have to wait for the cap. banks to recharge completely. 
Certainly it seems there are ways to skin this cat without being absolutely
steady-state, but you need a high duty cycle. However, steady-state operation
may be the easiest way to get high duty cycle. One reason to maintain a
strong base program with modest sized experiments is to answer questions
like this.
>
>> 	high beta, 40-80%
>Wow. I'd be impressed if 20% becomes practical. Such betas would help
>the economics a lot at first blush, but I'd like to know the price (in
>terms of complexity and reduction of achievable field strengths).

I think beta=40-80% is very tough, but it is needed to use an advanced
fuel. The reason is that advanced fuels burn hotter, and if beta is
is low (<10%) then heat loss from Synchrotron radiation will cool the
power plant too much. Since I think advanced fuels will be required to
solve the neutron damage problem, then very high beta is required.

Now the question is whether 40-80% is practical. I think it is. FRC's
routinely operate in the high end of this range naturally. People are
doing (th) studies on very low aspect ratio tokamaks that get beta-toroidal
several hundred percent and still maintain stability to large classes
of mhd modes. The trick is to use shaping to the max to improve stability,
to the point that the toroidal field is less and less important for
stability (toroidal field, we don't need no stinking toroidal field).
Now beta-poloidal is kind of naturally max'ed out at about 100%, so
beta of 40-80% seems in the realm of conceivability in terms of MHD
stability. Transport is another issue that I won't hazard a guess. My
point is that I believe we have to go this route and that I don't see a
fundamental barrier to getting there.
>
>Control of density, temperature, and current profiles, as well.

yes

>
>> 	external heating via neutral beams and RF antennas
>Do we really need two heating systems? Good, neutral beams and rf can
>both drive current, which is a good thing whether or not you have
>steady state. And their different characteristics can be used to
>achieve the profile control mentioned above.
The reason I included both was becuase they can act differently, and
both might be needed in order to have enough ability to control profiles.
If we can get enough flexibility with just one, then lets just use one.
This is particularly important because RF antennas and especially neutral
beams are very expensive add-ons. The fewer, the better. That is why I
stressed a high level of internal heating and current drive.


>> 	main burn phase using advanced D-3He fuel. Path to high
>>           operating temps giving by a startup D-T burning phase.
>I can't see the first generation of power plants running on D-He3.

I think that they have to. The 14 MeV neutron fluence in a DT machine
is just HUGE. I think it will be necessary to develop reduced neutron
fuel cycles before commercial power becomes a possibility. This is a
tough issue that we really won't have the answer to until AFTER we get 
results from the materials experiment. Thus we may develop a DT reactor
that works, but has a short lifespan because of neutron embrittlement
and might not be economical. Solving this particular problem is the biggest
reason (IMO) to consider you're conjecture of a need of something between DEMO
and the first commercial plant.

>
>> 	3He breeder by using a neutron multiplication blanket to
>> 	  breed tritium and then waiting for it to decay into 3He
>This gives you a huge tritium inventory--but at least it can be
>securely stored off-site.  It also gives you a depressing doubling
>time: You need to wait 10 or 20 years before a reactor can feed
>itself, much less provide a surplus to start up the next one.

Yes, this is a tough problem. But military programs have already
proved that we can build tritium production facilities. So it is
in principle already solved, and I would hope that if we had a
tritium program as an adjunct to a DT or D-3He fusion program that
we could avoid the (sometimes really stupid) mistakes that led to
environmental problems in the past.


>> 	Advanced materials utilization including materials able to
>> 	  withstand high thermal and mechanical stresses as well as
>> 	  low neutron activiation. Ideally the materials will also
>> 	  have high thermal conductivity. First wall components will
>> 	  be low Z and low sputtering.

>I'd put my money on plasma facing components (or at least divertor
>plates) out of tungsten to solve the erosion problem. They will also
>soak up less tritium (if you end up using it).

Both are very important. Most ideas I have seen make allowances for
plasma facing components to be replaced every 1-2 years. So we have to
get designs where the structural components and coils last 20-30 years
and the plasma facing items last 1-2 years. The structure has less heat load
and somewhat less neutron flux, but it must last 10 times longer. Both
problems are vry tough. Gee I'm glad that there are so many new and exciting
results coming in from materials science research. We are going to need
them.
>
>I would favor building a separate facility for materials testing,
>although there is no alternative which is either cheap or quick.

I agree, but I don't see any really serious effort to build funding
momentum by any of the national programs. Both the FMTF and the
divertor simulator experiments have consistently been designed and
redesigned only to be shelved. Maybe I'm wrong here. I would welcome
a correction by anyone in the nose.

> I
>also fear that another step may be needed, call it a prototype, built
>after DEMO demonstrates tritium breeding and electricity production,
>but still covering so much new ground that it will not in itself be
>economical.

Right, this could very possibly be a necessity.


>> THAT IS, THE FIRST PRODUCTION OF COMMERIIAL
>> FUSION POWER IS QUESTION NOT OF TIME, BUT OF MONEY.
>Given unlimited money, it would still be hard to compress the time
>scale by much. Doubling the money would certainly not halve the time.

I think unlimited funding could reduce things by a factor of 2 or 3.
Just look at manned moon missions. I think the presidential initiative and
the space race prestige compressed that effort by a factor of 5, but the
cost went up very dramatically.

My real point in putting that statement in all caps was that the current
funding path of fusion, at least in the U.S. is nowhere near the level
to sustain the progress I outlined. The 50% cut (in real dollars) in the
program in the last 15 years has taken its toll. Funding must be increased
significantly to pursue this plan. 

>Fortunately, even if an alternate concept manages an end run around
>the tokamak/stellarator, much of what we are learning--from the
>physics of turbulence and of alpha heating to feedback control and
>remote maintenance--will be applicable to any concept.

Absolutely. This is why we must pursue ITER as a tokamak in a timely
fashion. This is a tricky point to understand. It is real easy to say
that the Tokamak will never be economically feasible (a debatable 
position) and then conclude that we should not build ITER. However, it 
is clear that Tokamaks can be quickly made into ignition devices. This 
will allow exploration of plasma burning and some materials issues quickly
So even if one thinks that Tokamaks will ultimately not be commercially
viable, it does not diminish the need to build ITER in a timely fashion.

-john .w cobb

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

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Tom Droege /  The Prize
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Prize
Date: 31 Mar 1995 18:37:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

People keep sending me mail offering to put $100 into a prize.  So I
guess I will keep at it, but at a slower pace.  First I will talk to
my lawyer and see what is required to hold money at interest.  I figure
even a small amount now could grow to a worthwhile prize befoe it is 
collected.  

Meanwhile, if anyone else can put together a concensus for some other 
purpose, I will send the money.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.30 /  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: 30 Mar 1995 17:36:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am skeptical of cold fusion...
I've now read and been sent several pieces of information on this
subject--all of which point to a different process than the fusion of
atomic nuclei.
Experimental error seems to explain most of the positive results.
I am inclined to think something may be going on with the experiments that
seem to have proven reproducibility and careful attention to detail,
however, I still think the excess energy found can be explained away to
other processes besides fusion.
Cold fusion's real chance to prove itself will be next week at the
American Chemical Society's annual national meeting in Anaheim,
California, where scientists will have the first opportunity to present
this subject again at a REAL SCIENTIFIC conference that is acknowledged by
the world.  ACS is taking a chance allowing this, but if there is
something there, this will be the time and place to prove it.  Until next
week is over, my mind is open to whatever may be found.

 

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 privelege to attend.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenericpbliss cudlnEricPBliss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / mitchell swartz /  Request for clarification [prev. was "stupid calculator tricks"]
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Request for clarification [prev. was "stupid calculator tricks"]
Subject: Stupid Calculator Tricks
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 20:13:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lh2rb$all@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Stupid Calculator Tricks
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes
further spin control for the ACS after it reportedly
relegated all 14 cold fusion papers to a poster session.

  >= Two papers were dangled and then 14 were submitted.  
  >   Dangled?   You said they were accepted:
  >         "The article in C&EN noted that after there was an
  >          AGREEMENT on accepting the two "cnf" papers, 
  >          something on the order of ..."
  >   So were they dangled, accepted, or under agreement?
 =  Kohn "dangled" two papers in front of Baisden (as
 =in he proposed that two cf papers be presented) in September and
 =she agreed, and then in November he came back with fourteen.  
 =What part of this do you not understand?

 Fact-disadvantaged again?   With just cursory
examination there are some problems with your, and
the ACS, position.
If you really want answers, please begin with the following.

First, do you still claim there were only two (2) blank 
abstract forms provided in or about October?

Do you still maintain the deadline was before November?
[Or the previous novel notion that all presenters had waited two 
years preparing for this event after submitting their abstracts?

  And regarding the zeroth-order analysis:
 >   5582 papers.   35% posters implies the following.
 >  For 14 submissions, let's consider the expected number of 
 >oral presentations [ignoring for the moment your arguments of time,
 >               and  this and that, and ...  ] 
 >   the Expectation value is 65%      number   9
 >       Observed             0%                0
 >
 >   Alternatively, with a 35% probability of poster session assignation [sic], 
 >the probability of all 14 in the poster sessions would be only
 >    .35 * 0.35 * ....... =~   0.000 000 4   
 >   That is less than  "one in a million", isn't it?
 >
 >So, given the history in this matter and the microscopic probability
 > for this outcome  (albeit with other things equal),  it will certainly 
 >be interesting to finally learn how many papers will actually be read in cf.

   Exactly when did ACS decide to place all the papers into poster session,
which as was shown is a < 1 in million normal occurrence?

  Do you dispute that ACS NCDT allegedly stonewalled repeated
requests by Passell and Kohn to meet and discuss the details 
of the plans and procedures?


= "..... if you submit 
=your paper only four months in advance, the probability of its being a
=poster is not 0.35 (even assuming that posters were randomly assigned
=among the papers, which they are not).  The probability of a late
=paper being a poster is much closer to 1, for reasons that I have explained
=in detail, and that you have never disputed."  

That is correct. 
  You will therefore note that 35% may well be therefore an
upper limit.  Thus, even more papers on cf should have been
accepted then ~ > 9.    Got that? 


=The relevant calculation is [ .. flawed dimensionally incorrect ..]
=  [excuses of laziness i.e. no more than four hours per day and at
=     a sloth-like rate]
=  (4 hours) * (2 papers/hour) = 8 papers maximum
=  Thus, even if she had devoted that entire session to cf .....
=       [zip ........martinet excuses ....]
=Do you honestly expect me to believe that if Baisden had selected only
=three CF papers to be delivered at the ACS meeting, you would not
=have claimed she was censoring CF?

      Spin control again?
  Censoring is a conclusion.   Only the lack of courtesy, and the 
dual stories are observations, along with the relegation of all
14 abstracts to poster session.
  Why were ALL 14 papers assigned to posters when such
  likelihood is 1 in 4,000,000  (or thereabouts)?  or even less based
upon your good point above.   
  The expectation value, other issues ignored, would be 
  > 9   (+/- 3 or so)


  A few more questions it would astonishing for you to actually
respond to.

Do you deny that the ACS News office allegedly contacted
a selection of those who submitted cf abstracts with urgent letters 
stating it was their intent to stage 
special press arrangements?    Why would that be?

Do you deny that the Press release to C&EN  may indicate 
the opposite of such?
Could that be consistent with its origin and heralding its spin?

          Let's make it crystal clear.
The American Chemical Society was founded in 1876 and is a nonprofit
organization, with a membership of 150,000 chemists and chemical
engineers.  The Society was chartered by the American Congress
in 1937 to promote public understanding of science and to foster
scientific education and research.   Got that?
Filtering papers, excluding leaders in the field (alleged the previous
year) and trouncing all work in a field would not give the 
appearance of following the charter. 
   Does it?

  Best wishes.  Mitchell


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / John Logajan /  Re: CF in Bologna
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in Bologna
Date: 31 Mar 1995 17:39:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jurgen Botz (jbotz@mtholyoke.edu) wrote:
: scientists at the University of Bologna claim to have produced 100 kW
: hours of energy from 1 gram of hydrogen.  They also claim to have
: detected neutrons and gamma radiation emmited by their
: system.  Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna says
: that: ``We have the certainty that the system we are experimenting
: with produces energy through a process that is perfectly replicable
: and controllable.  Measures based on controlling the external
: temperature of the system prove without a shadow of doubt that energy
: is emitted from this system.''  The techwire news service got the
: information from the AGI news agency.
: Is it real, is it another P&F, or is it an early April Fools joke?


We've been hearing about Focardi et al since early last year.  This
is what Scott Little recently posted here, and I reproduce this and
some others in order to get all our eggs in one basket:


little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:
> Focardi, Habel, & Piantelli published a paper entitled
> "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-F Systems" in Jan 1994 in
> IL NUOVO CIMENTO Vol 107A N. 1
>
> It describes an excess heat experiment in which a Ni rod was simply
> heated in a H atmosphere.  They saw substantial excess heat (50w excess 
> above a 100w input).


Furthermore, in "Cold Fusion" issue #8, a letter from Forcardi reads
in its entirety:

   From Prof. Sergio Focardi
   Subj:  RE: Inquiry
   Date: Sat, Feb 25, 1995

     We are working very hard on cold fusion.  We have two chambers which
     are producing continuously about 20 watts for four months.  We will
     not present papers at ICCF-5.

   With best regards
   Sergio Focardi


And this is taken from Gene Mallove's web pages:

   News from Siena, Italy

   Sources close to physics Professor F. Piantelli at the University of
   Siena in Italy say that he continues to observe spectacular
   continuous excess power releases in nickel materials exposed to
   ordinary hydrogen gas at elevated temperatures. The exact protocols
   that provoke the excess power are still under-wraps (speculation is
   on magnetic fields and pressure cycling). Piantelli is now reportedly
   observing the emission of 50 keV gamma rays in his experiments. He is
   preparing a scientific paper on this new aspect. The original
   research paper was published last year: "Anomalous Heat Production in
   Ni-H Systems," S. Focardi, R. Habel, and F. Piantelli, Il Nuovo
   Cimento, Vol.107 A, January 1994, pp.163-167.
   
--
 - 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:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Karl Kluge /  Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in March 20 C&EN (final analysis)
Date: 31 Mar 1995 22:20:48 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <D6ABw7.GGJ@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
      5582 papers.   35% posters implies the following.
     For 14 submissions, let's consider the expected number of 
   oral presentations [ignoring for the moment your arguments of time,
		  and  this and that, and ...  ] 
      the Expectation value is 65%      number   9
	  Observed             0%                0

Bad calculation. For 14 submissions made after the submission deadline,
the expected number given oral presentations at any technical conference
will be zero.


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.31 / Henry LaMuth /  Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
     
Originally-From: hlamuth@infinet.com (Henry LaMuth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windows is as fast as common A/D hardware
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 17:26:14 -0500 (EST)
Organization: InfiNet

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:

>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>: 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."


>Jed, my copy of Keithley's 'Data Acquisition Catalog and Reference Guide' 
>(Volume 25 -- 1992) say something else -- something quite different!

>Top of page 171:  "NOTEBOOK For Windows" [snip, snip] " Since Windows is 
>not a real time system, NOTEBOOK software is limited to using the 
>operating system for services such as data acquisition.  This limits the 
>software to the non-interrupt mode, thus providing a maximum sample rate of
>2 Hz per block."

>This is precisely why Keithley's premier data acquisition software package
>(VIEWDAC) is limited to running under DOS!

>Please explain.

>Jed, I don't know about you, but I don't consider 2 Hz to be particularly 
>fast, and certainly not up to the performance of most of the data 
>acquisition boads that Keithley offers.

>: 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.

>Evidently, your experience is somewhat different from Keithley's and the 
>rest of us.

>                                      Harry C.


Geez, guys, my pentium pulls in some graphics from the net pretty
fast. It displays it as fast as my modem pulls the data in. Data
acquisition is not the same as data crunching and processing. Who
cares if the processing is in real time as long as the data is
collected. The inherent data streaming capability of most pcs is about
115Kb/sec. I think you need to go back to go and take a look at what
is being collected, sampled, acquired, processed, and displayed...and
how. Don't just complain that windows is slow...it isn't slow. The
sampling software may be slow, but windows is as fast as it needs to
be. The fact that you guys are arguing over these types of issues
indicates you are a bunch of amateurs.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhlamuth cudfnHenry cudlnLaMuth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / John Logajan /  Re: The Prize
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Prize
Date: 1 Apr 1995 02:21:44 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Meanwhile, if anyone else can put together a concensus for some other 
: purpose, I will send the money.

I can't vote because I didn't kick in any lira, but I did like the
suggestion of giving it to Scott Little to help pay for some of his
upcoming replication experiments.  He posts very nicely done analysis
to the college of s.p.f.

--
 - 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:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.01 / Richard Blue /  Re{ Prize for Miles helium result
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re{ Prize for Miles helium result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 03:51:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz suggests Mel Miles should be awarded the prize
for the definitive cold fusion experiment, should it ever be
offered.  Let me suggest a few problems with that idea.

I believe we have yet to hear of any confirmation of the Miles
result, and there have been some significant attempts at helium
detection that should have replicated the Miles result if it
were genuine.

As Lord Rutherford put it many years ago, the detection of
helium in a sample does not prove that helium was produced
in the sample.

I also doubt that Miles's experimental protocol satisfies
the conditions for sample preparation and high D to Pd
loading ratios that others say are essential for reliable
onset of cold fusion.  Not to put too fine a point on it,
I would say that Miles and McKubre have to arrive at better
agreement between data sets before either can claim that
cold fusion is confirmed in the details.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr  2 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
