1995.04.14 / 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, 14 Apr 1995 03:14:16 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:
cuddy14 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re:  Fusion timetable
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion timetable
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 03:15:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <199504101239.WAA10213@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> Robin van
Spaandonk, rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au writes:
> How about the following suggestion:
> 
> Take only $50.- million / annum off the Tokamak program, for a period 
> of 7 years. Distribute these funds over half a dozen ACs. Those 
> people who were working on the Tokamak and being paid with these 
> funds could transfer to work on the ACs as well. Result:
> 1) Imperceptible delay in the overall timetable of the Tok.
> 2) Development work gets done on ACs.
> 3) Everyone remains employed.
> 4) Transferred people gain broader experience.
> 5) Possibly new ideas will come out of the work on the ACs, which 
> could be used in the Tok. program, shortening its ultimate 
> realization time.
> 6) People like me will shut up and stop bothering you.

All good points.  Of course, this idea has been proposed
in the past.  For instance, I proposed something like this
in May/June of 1994 in an essay for a class, which I posted
here (but few people read it since it was pretty long.)
More importantly, an idea like this (only using $30 million
instead of $50 million) was in the Fusion authorization bills
in Congress last year (the bill was submitted sometime after
I put the idea in my essay).  Bills passed both the House and 
the Senate, but they ran out of time in the congressional 
session before they could reconcile the two bills (there 
were differences on other provisions), so it didn't become law.
(An authorization bill is designed to provide a measure of
thoughtful guidance to the appropriators and agencies involved
in deciding how to allocate funding and structure programs,
but doesn't actually dole out money.)

One could easily imagine putting ITER funding in a separate
budget (it's going to be a huge program and will eat up
the rest of the fusion budget if it stays where it is), which
would free up enough funding in the rest of the fusion budget
to support this sort of alternate-concepts program in the U.S.  
(Or one could kill ITER, which would also free up funding.)

My personal fantasy fusion budget would (at the moment)
look something like this:

BASE PROGRAM (all dollar figures are approximate; I don't have
a current budget on hand to compare with):
$30 M   basic plasma research and theory work
$30 M   alternate concepts work
$40 M   divertors, incl. testing facility (heat fluxes to first wall
           will be problematic for any magnetic fusion machine)
$40 M   neutron-resistant materials testing facility
           (neutron-resistant materials will be important for
            any first-generation D-T plant, and also good for
            minimizing radwaste in D-D and D-3He as well)
$10 M   new-project design and engineering 
$10 M   program administration
* Total = $160 M

TOKAMAK PROGRAM:
$90 M  flagship project operation and/or construction (TFTR or TPX)
       (put unused operations $$ into trust fund for future construction)
$90 M  variety of smaller experimental tokamaks (DIII-D, Alcator, others)
$10 M  tokamak reactor studies (looking-ahead work)
* Total = $190 M
=================================================================
Domestic Fusion Program Total:  $350M  (FY 1995 is about $370 M)

Additional Spending:
U.S. CONTRIBUTION TO INTERNATIONAL TOKAMAK PROGRAM (ITER or successor):
$50-150 M (but IN SEPARATE BUDGET) including supporting research

I've probably missed a few things that should go in the Base
program.  The current budget doesn't have these elements, and I've
basically pulled numbers out of nowhere.  What do other people
think?


***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / 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.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 09:21:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3mac3s$ofo@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <3m9hp1$q1e@tuba.cit.cornell.edu> evg1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu
(Eugenia V Givotovsky) writes:
>>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>>>Anyone who claims this simply does not understand special relativity.
>>>Wallace has been saying this sort of nonsense for some time now.
>>>Wallace doesn't understand special relativity.
>
>>>The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
>>>consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
>>>data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.

The Ives & Stillwell experiment gives a different result for transverse 
frequency than predicted by SR.  So their experiment is wrong?


>>This includes the relationship between theory and experiment.  By 
>>definition, you can not claim that nothing better than SR can be created. 
>>You simply do not know the future.
>
>Well, I quite agree.  SR might be displaced if a better theory becomes
>available.  But Wallace is presenting gripes, rather than a better
>theory.

OK, *I* have a better theory. How are you going to handle that?
The way you will is what Wallace is talking about. He's only using SR
as an example of how physicists physic.



V.V.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds. 
                                   --- Einstein
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: was POLL: Goverment best suited for fusion development???
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was POLL: Goverment best suited for fusion development???
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:51:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95Apr5142516@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc.
ug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TOK  ) writes:
>In article <3lpc6n$9i6@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>> In article <D6EHuv.1zq@prometheus.UUCP>,
>> Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>> >In article <3lc6tj$qpd@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.e
u (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)

>> Now I've been ripping on Paul's plasmak idea, but not really to
>> demean it.
>OK, but you woke him up, you deal with him.

>> I will likely not be around in any of the cases. In terms of financial
>> analysis, the difference between repaying a loan on a 100 year term and
>> servicing the debt on a perpetual mortgage are very, very small. What is the
>> value of the development of fusion in the year 2062? Let's guess it is
>> worth 10 Billion dollars. What is the present value of that future innovation?

>> well, using a 5% discount rate for 67 years in the future, that comes out to
>> around 350 million dollars, or about 1 years funding at the current levels.

5%??  Silly,  this wasteful program and others like it are taking the
value of the currency down by 20% a year.  5%  That was before the Japanese
slowed their rate of financial bailing. 5% and this guy thinks that money 
isn't subsidized.    Wow!.      5 % money and he thinks I'm in fairy tale
land.  

No, the present value is 1 billion.  And that isn't a projection for a
tokamak fusion COMPLEX, which has very little utility because of its obvious 
physical restrictions, ever increasing capital costs and maintenence 
outlay.  Rather it assumes a much cleaner, compact energy source with a
much wider and more vigorous applicability.  You guessed it .. 
Plasmak(tm) aneutronic energy generators.   

>> Now consider, is 10 G$ a proper value for a complete technology for how to
>> build a fusion power plant with a cost of electricity comparable to current
>> rates? 

This is a bit optimistic.  okay a hugely optimistic statement.  First one
has to make saleable electrical power, and then pay back the investment!
How much have you spent to date world wide ???   How much profit in electric
power produced and delivered have you collected??  Gee you haven't even
beat Griggs on that note??   And now you are telling us you will meet 
today's energy numbers??  when???  right 2062??   and how old will you 
be??   (ONE Can't collect a bet from a stiff).  

>> it is worth more, try to think of an example of an invention whose PATENT
>> RIGHTS, BY THEMSELVES, were worth over 10G$.  

Yep!  I do have an example: The aerosol can nozzle-lid.  

The present value of tokamak patents are nearly worthless IF they still 
existed, because the projected costs savings over other forms of energy 
are lacking.  That would be a basis for calculating royalties.  Would 
you choose a multi 10's of billions of dollar facility over a small 
fraction of that cost for a competing aneutronic power generator that 
has far more efficiency and compactness, and less cost, faster turn 
around, run time, higher total power when needed, etc. etc.  

>The present value of the research costs depend little on when or
>whether the technology matures, but the present value of the benefits
>depends rather sensitively on it. Considering that energy is a
>trillion dollar industry, I think your estimate of the value of a
>successful fusion program is woefully low. 

You are counting your chickens prematurely my friend.  Competition?? 

>As to the role of government, the scale of the benefits justifies the
>scale of the effort, but the scale of the effort is simply too large
>for industry to deal with (money, time, and risk). 

Nonsense, it has been proven too large and beyond the resources of
Governments.   Are there alternative Concepts?? Are there monster Mirrors?
Huhn't uh!.   And what is the next White Elephant that you think will 
be following the same path to extinction?.  I can hear the foot steps 
now..  pitty pat  ..  . pitty pat   .. .  oh  such a pity.  Hey pretty 
quiet for such a beast!   

>                                               If the effort is
>successful, it would be practically impossible and morally wrong to
>let a hypothetical industry reap the full benefits of the technology. 

Right, especially if they solve the fusion problem, build it and provide 
cheaper power than governement owned operated and invented technologies.  
so .. Give me a break.  The goverment is here to promote the economic 
well being, not impede it with monopolistic laws on research.  Or
in your world maybe the Government is to own all the money and give
back what it capriciously feels like.  Ah! better for the goverment
workers' security that way huh?  Maybe things are right for the
RiGHT LEADER ..   ??

>Many problems/policies/technologies, have characteristics that let
>them function best with free enterprise. Fusion research does not have
>these characteristics and is best handled by governments. (This
>analysis depends, of course, on my technical judgement that fusion is
>possible but difficult. In a fairy tale land where commercial fusion
>could be achieved in the 90's, the conclusion would be different.)

As you say ... your technical judgement.  
Hope you like my tutu.  

So what are you??  .. . the chief grench?

Actually, not to back down, I meant that the commercial breakeven
burn will be done in the 90's.  Commercial application will follow much
quicker than with tokamak because of engineering simplicity and much
higher above breakeven level operation.  It's in the papers .. some
place.     

Hope that change isn't too dissappointing to your understanding.  
Just not enough room in those sig areas.  

>-- 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

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:40:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview_797299556@rtfm.mit.
du> rfheeter@pppl.gov writes:
>Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
>Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
>Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
>Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
>     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
>     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
># Written/Edited by:
>
>     Robert F. Heeter
>     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
>     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>
># Last Revised February 26, 1995
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
>-----------------------------------------------------------------

>* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
>
>  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
>  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
>  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
>  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
>  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
>  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
>  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
>  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
>  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
>  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
>  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
>  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
>  brief explanations of the language of the field.


>* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
>
>  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
>  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
>  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
>  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
>  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
>  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
>  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.

(snipping for space.) 

You have a problem here.  Your use of the word conventional seems to
be capricious, since muon-catalyzed fusion is obviously not a 
straight form of fusion, although it has been looked into at PPPL
(Kulsrud) and suggested by our own S. Jones.  Further, by naming
the "unconventional" forms of fusion without including several 
references as to where one might seek more information, seems to be 
rather judgemental.  This reference section should also include the 
other sectional locations in the FAQ where these named things are 
discussed.  Or in the instance of cold fusion that it will probably 
have its own FAQ and that several books have been published (cite 
them) about the topic. 

Now for counter example, I find the tokamak very controversial 
because I think there was a "rush  to judgment" in closing out open
minded research on alternatives.  As a result we are stuck with a 
plasma experiment that does demostrate a plasma can generate self 
confining components of field and little else beyond.  Although it 
has been masquerading as "THE" developable commercial fusion power 
generator for a few decades now.  As such it doesn't look good
in an engineering sense. IT'S: Complicated, dirty, poorly designed 
pressure system, inefficient conversion efficiency, etc.  

So Bob, You make the decision here, but let's keep things even as 
you can.   You have to Force yourself to counter that tendency of 
yours to buck for the ole' Alma Mater and it's sinking Millstone 
and anything that might help it over all else under God's Cosmos.  

On ball lightning: Try Singer and Barry and for its fusion connect 
try Roth.  I sent you a paper with some of the refs.  Also Ilana has 
a few in the Meteorology FAQ.  

                         Well, otherwise, it's perfect.    
                                      so 
                             smile you deserve it.  

                             Hip Hip Hoorah!!!!!

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: 14 Apr 1995 12:56:46 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <USE2PCB356846592@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>If it is held at atmosphere pressure, than there should be no variation from
>normal atmospheric concentrations, and if it is at an elevated pressure, and
>there is anything that the helium can diffuse through, it should be less than
>atmospheric concentration.  Let's not ignore the laws of physics to try and
>make a point.

Aren't you ignoring Graham's Law of Diffusion in order to try and make a 
point, or is there something more subtle that I am missing?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 /  prasad /  Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications
Date: 14 Apr 1995 13:07:57 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3mgk0n$oom@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|> ...
|> but why, an many of us here are now curious re 'what makes Jed 
|> run?'

excess energy, maybe?

:)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Richard Blue /  Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-Quest?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:14:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think the replies by Marshall Dudley and by Martin Sevior illustrate
the need for some further clarification concerning the presentation
of the helium data in terms of an enhancement relative to the normal
relative concentration in the atmosphere.

I agree that IF the contaminating helium passes by diffusion through
a membrane from the atmosphere into a closed volume containing only
gas that the equilibrium condition would match the partial pressure
of helium inside and out.  Thus the relative concentration of
helium in argon at one atmosphere (if that is what is inside) should
not exceed the relative concentration of helium in the atmosphere
outside.  However, I don't see that condition as being an adequate
description of the E-Quest experiment on several counts.

Firstly, in the E-Quest case, the diffusion is not into a volume
filled with gas.  Secondly, as Marshall points out, there are
ways in which the helium can be stored in solids (and liquids)
for later release into the sampled gas under the stimulation of
the ultrasound power.

More important, perhaps, is the question of what happens to the
sampled argon gas from the time it is removed from the experimental
chamber until it is injected into the port of a mass spectrometer.
I would assume, given the experimental conditions, that the argon
is saturated with D2O vapor.  Is the analyzed sample in that same
condition or has it been "processed" to reduce the relative
D2O concentration?  If you don't know the answer to that question,
one way or the other, you can reach no conclusion about the
E-Quest results.  If the sample is saturated with D2O the analysis
for 4He (and 3He) can be difficult or even impossible.  That
would lead me to speculate that, following Miles and Bush, E-Quest
filters the sample gas to remove D2O.  Shall we speculate as to
whether such filtering leaves the helium-to-argon ratio unaltered?

Martin's estimate of 3He enhancement due to decay from tritium
stores does not address my concern.  I was not thinking of such
accidental increases in 3He concentrations.  My thoughts relate
more to the fact that significant quantities of 3He are introduced
into laboratories as a generally available chemical substance
that is used in a variety of experiments.  I don't think a
world-wide average atmospheric concentration means anything for
standardizing the E-Quest data.

As for the estimates for changes in ultrasound power levels resulting
from a substitution of H2O for D2O, if don't believe it is as simple
as Martin's estimate would indicate.  There is more involved than
just a single impedence mismatch.  As I understand it, this is a tuned
resonating system, or actually several coupled resonant systems.
If the Q-value is high a very slight shift in the tuning can have
a very dramatic effect on what power goes where.

Do we need more reasons to question these results?  How about some
old fashioned nuclear physics?  As Martin points out, making 3He
from D leaves some neutrons unaccounted for.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Jeff Suzuki /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 15:06:29 GMT
Organization: Boston University

C Dhanwada (dhanwada@iastate.edu) wrote:

: In article <3mc012$2tnu@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, deveyn@holly.ACNS.Co
oState.EDU (Daniel Norton) writes:
: : On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Wendy Wolk wrote:
: : > I am currently writing a screenplay and need the following info:
: : > 1. What are the effects of the ingestion of deuterium (i.e. in heavy
: : > water) on the human body. In what doses
: : > 2. the possibility of Heavy Water existing on mars.

: As I recall the Mars' polar cap ice is condensed carbon-di-oxide,
: not water. Anyone know more about this?

The polar cap is believed to be a mixture of water and carbon dioxide,
which surprised a lot of folks back when it was first discovered (they
thought it was all CO2).  

The indications are that 1) Mars had to have had water at some point
--- you cannot get the erosion patterns you see without it.  (Water is
the #1 erosion agent on this planet, and presumably so on other
planets --- the reason having more to do with the fact that, a) it's
liquid, and b) it dissolves just about everything)  

As for ingesting heavy water...there's nothing special about heavy
water.  It's water where one (or both) of the hydrogens in H2O are
replaced by deuterium.  Deuterium is a STABLE isotope of hydrogen, and
as far as chemistry is concerned, deuterium and Hydrogen-1 (sometimes
referred to as protium) are virtually identical.  (There are minor
differences:  H2 has a lower boiling point than D2 --- which is how it
was first isolated by Urey, back in the 40s)

Anywhere you have hydrogen, you have deuterium --- this is also from
the similarity of their chemical properties.  Approximately 1 in
10,000 atoms of (chemical) hydrogen are deuterium.  This means in the
human body --- 50,000 grams of water --- you have about 5 grams of
heavy water (DOH); almost all the rest are HOH.  (1 in 10,000 x 10,000
are double heavy water --- D2O --- which works out to about .5
milligrams)  

Deuterium is used in nuclear reactors, but it is no more radioactive
than oxygen.  Heavy water is used as a moderator, telling neutrons to
slow down --- it's more effective than regular water, since it's a bit
more massive (molecular weight of 19 vs. 18).  Occasionally a neutron
slams into heavy water, turning it into tritium (Hydrogen-3), which
_is_ radioactive (12 year half-life), and would cause the normal
problems of radioactive substances were you to ingest it.

Jeffs
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjeffs cudfnJeff cudlnSuzuki cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:00 -0500 (EST)

Martin Sevior <msevior> writes:
 
-> I can't believe the 3He production claim either. 3He is the only stable
-> nucleus with more protons than neutrons. To make it you've got to put the
-> neutrons somewhere. Since it's made in macroscopically large quantities
-> that's a lot of neutrons and a HUGE amount of radiation.
 
What about hydrogen?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:08 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
 
-> >If it is held at atmosphere pressure, than there should be no variation fro
-> >normal atmospheric concentrations, and if it is at an elevated pressure, an
-> >there is anything that the helium can diffuse through, it should be less th
-> >atmospheric concentration.
->
-> Aren't you ignoring Graham's Law of Diffusion in order to try and make a
-> point, or is there something more subtle that I am missing?
 
Graham's Law of Diffusion:  "The relative rates of diffusion of gases under the
same conditions are inversely proportional to the square roots of the densities
of those gases."
 
I don't see why you think that I am ignoring that law.  That is the basis for
the buildup of Helium in a glass envelope until it is equal to the partial
pressure of Helium in air, without a significant buildup of the other denser
gases.
 
What happens is that once the partial pressure is equal on both sides of the
barrier than the rate of diffusion into and out of the bubble is equal.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 15:45:45 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3mm31l$gt5@news.bu.edu>, jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) wrote:

[Mars description deleted]
> 
> As for ingesting heavy water...there's nothing special about heavy
> water.  It's water where one (or both) of the hydrogens in H2O are
> replaced by deuterium.  Deuterium is a STABLE isotope of hydrogen, and
> as far as chemistry is concerned, deuterium and Hydrogen-1 (sometimes
> referred to as protium) are virtually identical.  (There are minor
> differences:  H2 has a lower boiling point than D2 --- which is how it
> was first isolated by Urey, back in the 40s)
> 

[more accurate info on deuterium deleted]

All that you write is correct, but it is my understanding that deuterating
some of the more complex species involved in respiration and regulation
can interfere with essential biochemical processes, and may result in
death.  Drinking D2O is a _bad_ idea.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Pt anode doesn't decompose Peroxide
Date: 14 Apr 95 15:43:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950411135524.5088B-100000@kemi.aau.dk>
britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Cindy Lundgren wrote:
>
>> In article <3lcd4c$5qf@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
>> Logajan) wrote:
>> > 
>> > John N. White (jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net) wrote:
>> > : I have tested Pt which has been used as an anode and found that it
>> > : does not cause H2O2 to decompose. Presumably this is due to a

The easiest way to build a rocket engine is to spray hydrogen peroxide on
a nickel mesh spread across the opening of an exhaust nozzle.

The heat of decomposition boils the water and it exits the nozzle
as superheated steam.  Try it - you'll like it.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories

PS:  Platinum works too, but it's not required.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 /  ehill@fnalv.fn /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: ehill@fnalv.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 95 12:18:52 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <ts_zemanian-1404950836060001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
> In article <3mm31l$gt5@news.bu.edu>, jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) wrote:
> 
> [Mars description deleted]
>> 
>> As for ingesting heavy water...there's nothing special about heavy
>> water.  It's water where one (or both) of the hydrogens in H2O are
>> replaced by deuterium.  Deuterium is a STABLE isotope of hydrogen, and
>> as far as chemistry is concerned, deuterium and Hydrogen-1 (sometimes
>> referred to as protium) are virtually identical.  (There are minor
>> differences:  H2 has a lower boiling point than D2 --- which is how it
>> was first isolated by Urey, back in the 40s)
>> 
> 
> [more accurate info on deuterium deleted]
> 
> All that you write is correct, but it is my understanding that deuterating
> some of the more complex species involved in respiration and regulation
> can interfere with essential biochemical processes, and may result in
> death.  Drinking D2O is a _bad_ idea.
> 
> --Tom
> 
> --
> The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep
your filthy hands off 'em! 

	Even drinking H20 in excess can cause death.  Although I've only 
	heard of it happening once, about 30 years ago.  When we talk excess
	hear, we're talking 3,4, or 5 gallons a day.  The one I heard about
	was, I believe, 5 gallons.  Even then, the cause of death of some
	vital organ failure, which the large consumption of water made 
	possible.

	ed.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenehill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
Date: 14 Apr 1995 17:17:23 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3mk8ag$7i7@oznet03.ozemail.com.au> joi@ozemail.com.au (Jonathon  
Alexander) writes:
> Let's design a better Griggs generator:
> 
> 
> (1) Add Heavy water (D2O) to water used in Griggs generator and see if
> it has any measurable effect on temperatures generated. I have a little
> I could donate for the experiment.

Been done, no effect.

> 
> (2) Design a new Griggs-type generator based on SL and Ceramic sound
> transducers 

The observed effect, which is a large drop in torque on the driving
motor, has no obvious connection to SL.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Ron Hill /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ron@canuck.com (Ron Hill)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Apr 1995 06:40:50 GMT
Organization: Canada Connect Corporation

Alejandro Rivero (rivero@sol.unizar.es) has asked me to post this message
on his behalf, as he does not have access to all the newsgroups. 
(Personally, I think the scope of the cross-posting is a little extreme,
but at least I'm not asking you to send me money!) Please redirect your
e-mail replies to him, and change the attribution line manually if you're
posting a follow-up.  I apologize for the inconvenience. 

I take no responsiblity for the content of the message (coward that I am). 

Ron Hill (ron@canuck.com)

--- Begin forwarded message ---
ron@canuck.com (Ron Hill) wrote:
> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote:
> > In <3m913u$k8u@acasun.eckerd.edu> wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace) writes:
> > 
> > 
> > The plain *fact* of the matter is that special relativity is a self
> > consistent, and therefore irrefutable piece of mathematics.  If the
> > data does not agree with special relativity, then the data is wrong.
> > It is as simple as that.  Wallace won't admit that, and his failure
> > to admit it reveals that he does not know what he is talking about.
> 
> No.  SR is not mathematics.  SR is physics.  Self-consistency is a
> necessary condition for a valid physical theory, but not a sufficient one. 
> Valid hypotheses are also necessary.

Hmm, self consistency implies existence... it is a result of v Neumann,
but it is restricted by very strong conditions, so lets forget this point...

anyway, if you require self-consistence, then you must remember that
Electromagnetism equations (Maxwell eq) and additive velocities
(Galilean transforms) are inconsistent. 
> 
> > Many physicists are quite aware of the irrefutability of special
> > relativity.  They are well aware that if the data disagrees, then
> > it is the data that is wrong.  That is why, when Wallace points to
> > data which he claims is contrary to SR, these physicists ignore
> > Wallace.  They know that the data must be wrong.  Wallace incorrectly
> > interprets this as evidence of a conspiracy theory.
> 
...
> ...  It may be presumptuous of me, but I'll try to shed a little
> light on the matter. 
> 
> Wallace contends that one of Einstein's postulates is wrong;  viz. he
> contends that the speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  In this, he's
> attacking SR in the only way it can be attacked;  he's going after the
> validity of the postulates.  If you assume that Einstein's postulates are
> correct, SR falls out cleanly;  it's absurdly simple math. 
>
Point is, there are not reference to speed of light in the
SR theory postulates. That is only motivation for SR, but it is not in SR. 

SR theory postulate could be formulated, if needed, as telling
that "There are a maximum velocity en every inertial frame"

I think to remember (but im not sure) that from this and
causality you get that there are a maximum speed, which is notated "c"
On more than two dimensions, there were aditional results needing
only causality, but I have not checked them.  

The "experimental" fact is not that lightspeed is equal c. The experimental
data is that mass of photon is zero, so it must be assigned a Poincare
irrep which gives it velocity equal to the maximum. Note that photon
mass is relevant in a lot of experiences, by example sincrotron
radiation, X ray production, photoelectric cells, etc...

> >From my reading, it appears that Wallace has two experimental results to
> back up his position.  First, there's the analysis of the radar returns

Radar? That is E.M. wave, is it? :-) Well, I stop here... 

Even if such data and its conclusions were OK, this
 would make only some "small" change:
-all the electroweak bosons would be given mass.
-frames would be assumed non inertial
-EM would be given as a short range force
or other alternatives.  

Hmm does Wallace cite Cherenkov radiation? This is, the tipical
flash a particle does when it breaks the lightspeed barrier... :-)


Yours,

				Alejandro Rivero 
--- End forwarded message ---
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenron cudfnRon cudlnHill cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator
Date: 14 Apr 1995 18:00:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3mman3$48i@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
(Snip)

>The observed effect, which is a large drop in torque on the driving
>motor, has no obvious connection to SL.
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
>

Barry, when I visited Griggs, the demo did not include a drop in 
torque.  Griggs says a drop in torque is not necessary for the 
effect.  The drop only occurrs in the steam mode, not the hot water 
mode. 

Think about what this means. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 18:32:39 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3mkgjg$pq8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, phoenix@pride.ugcs.caltech.
du (Oolong) says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>/In article <keeshu-1304951515370001@maccasey.nikhefk.nikhef.nl>,
keeshu@nikhef.nl (Kees Huyser) says:
>
>/>Here is the Material Data Sheet for Deuterium:
>/Ahhh!  The good old MSDS that makes everything look so dangerous
>/that you miss the real hazards.  But it does say 30%  is lethal.  
>
>Yep.  It would also be nice if it had a couple of explanatory paragraphs
>along the way.  "In case of ingestion, give victim lots of water."  Nice
>if you said _why_... or compared it to other hazards.
>
>/Those that enjoyed the MSDS for Deuterium will love the one for
>/sand.  But I suppose because of it children are not allowed to
>
>Post?
>

Sorry, I don't actually have it.  But just take the one for D2O
and you can reconstruct it in a few minutes.  Just remember to 
sprinkle "silicosis" wherever it seems appropriate.  Be sure to
specify masks and gloves and other protective clothing.  Of course
wash thoroughly with (non Duterated) water after exposure.

Armed with this MSDS I could sue God for putting sand on the beach.

Then there is the MSDS for lead.  It leaves out the most obvious 
hazard.  Don't drop a lead brick on your toe.  

Tom Droege

>Slainte,
>-xx- Damien Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
>
>They made his home a living grave
>Until the bravest of the brave
>Was forced to leave the poorest of the poor.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Joseph Wood /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu (Joseph Bret Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 12:36:22 -0700
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <ts_zemanian-1404950836060001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:
>In article <3mm31l$gt5@news.bu.edu>, jeffs@math.bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> replaced by deuterium.  Deuterium is a STABLE isotope of hydrogen, and
>> as far as chemistry is concerned, deuterium and Hydrogen-1 (sometimes
>> referred to as protium) are virtually identical.  (There are minor
>> differences:  H2 has a lower boiling point than D2 --- which is how it
>> was first isolated by Urey, back in the 40s)
>
>[more accurate info on deuterium deleted]
>
>All that you write is correct, but it is my understanding that deuterating
>some of the more complex species involved in respiration and regulation
>can interfere with essential biochemical processes, and may result in
>death.  Drinking D2O is a _bad_ idea.

Actually, for the most part, different isotopes show virtually identical 
chemical behavior, but H/D is one case where there is a noticable difference.
It's called the kinetic isotope effect.  Because of the fact that deuterium
is TWICE as heavy as hydrogen, the vibrational frequencies of a X-H bond are
significantly different from the frequencies for a X-D bond.  This change in
frequency slightly affects the activation energy for reactions involving
breaking that specific bond.  And, changes in activation energy directly
correlate into changes in rate of reaction.

For most chemical reactions, the minor change in rate is unnoticable, but two
of the situations where it is VERY important are:

1) Specially designed experiments, where this effect is exploited to determine
	if a specific X-H bond is broken during the course of a reaction.

2) Biological systems, where the complex chemical processes are extremely
	sensitive to the relative rates of reaction.

So, to sum up a rather verbose post, Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a
chemically distinct manner in certain rate-sensitive systems.

-Bret Wood
-bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbretwood cudfnJoseph cudlnWood cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / B Britton /  pluto north pole
     
Originally-From: brittobj@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Benjamin Jay Britton)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: pluto north pole
Date: 14 Apr 1995 15:02:48 -0400
Organization: University of Cincinnati


>I'm a computer science honours student. I am doing a project that will allow
>one to interactively visualise galaxies. I have one major problem though.

maybe someone like you could help me.
i am looking for info about the recent discovery at the north pole of pluto.
any info?  thanks!

-benb

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbrittobj cudfnBenjamin cudlnBritton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Pete Thurmes /  Re: The Farce of Physics Lives On!
     
Originally-From: pete@isis.spa.umn.edu (Pete Thurmes)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Lives On!
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:09:19 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota Astronomy - APS Lab


In article <3mjsb4$5t8@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

> 
> When Einstein proposed SR, the standard for the measurement of time
> was based on the mean solar day, and the standard for length was
> based on a platinum rod in Paris.  The question of the constancy of
> the speed of light was a genuine empirical question.  However, since
> then both standards have been redefined to be more consistent with
> SR, and the result is that the constancy of the speed of light is now
> guaranteed by the measuring standards.  It is no longer an empirical
> question.
> 
> >                             If you assume that Einstein's postulates are
> >correct, SR falls out cleanly;  it's absurdly simple math. 
> 
> Thank you.  You are agreeing with my point.  The current
> international standards guarantee that the postulates are correct.
> Therefore SR falls out cleanly and is irrefutable.  If SR was badly
> chosen there might still be data to suggest that it does not conform
> well to reality, but that data could not actually refute SR.

Aha! Now we all realize that a foolproof way to "prove" a scientific theory is
convince the powers that be to base their standards in such a way that
our postulates are *by definition (standard)* correct. One can always
"postulate" enough details that the problem reduces to the simple equation
"1+1=2" as the proof - and NO ONE can refute 1+1=2, so therefore
ANY theory can be proven irrefutably.

My, what a nifty new tool for theorists! Maybe they could take over NIS
and just redefine standards at will to prove any physical theory at all.

Of course, this method depends rather strongly on whether the standards
would make any sense if the theory were wrong. It just so happens that
most scientists have enough faith in SR that making the length standard
depend on the speed of light poses no problem for them. But it MAY pose 
problems for Mr Wallace!

I propose an even simpler way to accomplish these "proofs". Let's just
change our language definitions (black = white, true = false etc) so
that our theories automagically become irrefutably true!

[I am not advocating dumping SR. I simply wish to point out the glaring
logical flaw of Rickert's argument.]

***********************************
Pete Thurmes  pete@aps1.spa.umn.edu 
University of Minnesota Astronomy Dept.
  "Why do they call it Unix? It sounds like it might hurt." -- JFS 3/7/95
-- 
***********************************
Pete Thurmes  pete@aps1.spa.umn.edu 
University of Minnesota Astronomy Dept.
  "Why do they call it Unix? It sounds like it might hurt." -- JFS 3/7/95
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpete cudfnPete cudlnThurmes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Info on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.med,sci.physics.fusion
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Info on Heavy Water
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:46:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Message-ID: <3mmirm$5e5@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu>
Joseph Bret Wood  (bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu) writes

> Actually, for the most part, different isotopes show virtually identical 
> chemical behavior, but H/D is one case where there is a noticable difference.
> It's called the kinetic isotope effect.  Because of the fact that deuterium
> is TWICE as heavy as hydrogen, the vibrational frequencies of a X-H bond are
> significantly different from the frequencies for a X-D bond.  This change in
> frequency slightly affects the activation energy for reactions involving
> breaking that specific bond.  And, changes in activation energy directly
> correlate into changes in rate of reaction.
> For most chemical reactions, the minor change in rate is unnoticable, but two
> of the situations where it is VERY important are:
> 1) Specially designed experiments, where this effect is exploited to determine
> 	if a specific X-H bond is broken during the course of a reaction.
> 2) Biological systems, where the complex chemical processes are extremely
> 	sensitive to the relative rates of reaction.
> So, to sum up a rather verbose post, Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a
> chemically distinct manner in certain rate-sensitive systems.
> -Bret Wood
> -bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu

  IMHO this may not correct
  since the reactions are chemically similar, but have different rates
as you correctly point out due to differences in masses (and therefore
possibly both preexponential factors and activation energies),
  how about:

 Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a chemically similar manner 
but differ in reaction rates.  

     Hence the spectroscopic and
rate differences between the substances.  The toxicity might
depend upon the relative rates between different compartments in vivo
possibly explaining why low, naturally occurring but universal,
 concentrations are benign.

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




cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Jeff Olson /  Re: pluto north pole
     
Originally-From: jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov (Jeff Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: pluto north pole
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:51:21 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <3mmgso$i32@ucunix.san.uc.edu> brittobj@ucunix.san.uc.edu
(Benjamin Jay Britton) writes:

>>I'm a computer science honours student. I am doing a project that will allow
>>one to interactively visualise galaxies. I have one major problem though.

>maybe someone like you could help me.
>i am looking for info about the recent discovery at the north pole of pluto.
>any info?  thanks!

The April 1 issue of Science News has some information on the apparent ice cap 
on Pluto's north pole, imaged with Hubble's faint-object camera.  They cite no 
other published paper, so I'm guessing it hadn't been published in a 
peer-reviewed journal as of April 1.

Jeff
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjeffo cudfnJeff cudlnOlson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Tom Droege /  Thermophysical Data Base
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermophysical Data Base
Date: 14 Apr 1995 21:03:15 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Those of you doing calorimetry will be interested in 
a very nice data base.  Many pages of thermal conductivity,
specific heat, and density.  All IN THE SAME UNITS. (Sorry 
for shouting)

http://www.kkassoc.com/~takinfo

Select "Thermal Data"

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / James Stolin /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 21:04:50 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

 ehill@fnalv.fnal.gov writes:
>Even drinking H20 in excess can cause death.  Although I've only
>heard of it happening once, about 30 years ago.  When we talk excess
>hear, we're talking 3,4, or 5 gallons a day.  The one I heard about
>was, I believe, 5 gallons.  Even then, the cause of death of some
>vital organ failure, which the large consumption of water made 
>possible.

True, excessive amounts of water can have toxic effects.  The US Army 
found out the hard way.  A soldier was forced to drink large quantities 
of water when he/she was unable to provide a urine sample for a drug test.
 The memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think the soldier's kidneys shut down.  
I always remember the caution since I still serve part time in the 
military as a staff sergeant.
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but should be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / James Stolin /  Physics textbooks wanted
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physics textbooks wanted
Date: 14 Apr 1995 21:21:04 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

  I'd like to get some old (but not too old) physics textbooks.  I'd like 
to do some reading to bring me up to date on nuclear physics and 
especially fusion related topics.  The college physics memories remaining 
in my mind from over 20 years ago has too many cobwebs clinging to it. 
<G>  Please, I don't mind a little dust on the books, but no mold!  Send 
me a list of what you have along with copyright date and price you'd like.
  I'd prefer responses from only those posting in spf so I don't get 
indunated.  Thanks much.
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but should be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / Neil Rickert /  Re: The Farce of Physics Lives On!
     
Originally-From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Lives On!
Date: 14 Apr 1995 17:04:52 -0500
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In <D70MIq.B4C@news.cis.umn.edu> pete@isis.spa.umn.edu (Pete Thurmes) writes:
>In article <3mjsb4$5t8@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>> When Einstein proposed SR, the standard for the measurement of time
>> was based on the mean solar day, and the standard for length was
>> based on a platinum rod in Paris.  The question of the constancy of
>> the speed of light was a genuine empirical question.  However, since
>> then both standards have been redefined to be more consistent with
>> SR, and the result is that the constancy of the speed of light is now
>> guaranteed by the measuring standards.  It is no longer an empirical
>> question.
>> 
>> >                             If you assume that Einstein's postulates are
>> >correct, SR falls out cleanly;  it's absurdly simple math. 
>> 
>> Thank you.  You are agreeing with my point.  The current
>> international standards guarantee that the postulates are correct.
>> Therefore SR falls out cleanly and is irrefutable.  If SR was badly
>> chosen there might still be data to suggest that it does not conform
>> well to reality, but that data could not actually refute SR.

>Aha! Now we all realize that a foolproof way to "prove" a scientific theory is
>convince the powers that be to base their standards in such a way that
>our postulates are *by definition (standard)* correct.

I suggest that you not try it.  The method will not give good results
with arbitrary theories.  In any case, I was not proposing a scientific
method; I was reporting what has occurred in one particular case.

>                                                        But it MAY pose 
>problems for Mr Wallace!

Exactly right.  It does not by any means guarantee that SR is
unchallengable.  But it does mean that SR cannot be challenged in the
manner attemped by Wallace.

>I propose an even simpler way to accomplish these "proofs". Let's just
>change our language definitions (black = white, true = false etc) so
>that our theories automagically become irrefutably true!

If you think I was proposing that, you were not reading what I said.

>[I am not advocating dumping SR. I simply wish to point out the glaring
>logical flaw of Rickert's argument.]

Instead, you have only demonstrated that you did not understand the
argument.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrickert cudfnNeil cudlnRickert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.12 / Jim Potter /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: Jim Potter <jpawi@roadrunner.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 12 Apr 1995 17:09:21 GMT
Organization: The Santa Fe Institute

If this is true, it would be nice to see an explanation.  How do the 
chemical properties an d the ionization potential depend on anything 
desides the charge of the nucleus?  Can anyone provide a reference for 
the claims made about the toxicity of heavy water.  It doesn't make sense 
to me.  Now tritiated water T2O, I can understand, since tritium is 
radioactive.  The treatment for tritium contamination, by the way, is to 
drink lots of beer to flush the tritiated water out of the body. 
 
--  
=================================================================== 
 
James M. Potter, President      Internet: jpawi@roadrunner.com 
JP Accelerator Works, Inc.      AOL: jpawi@aol.com,jpotter@aol.com 
2245 47th Street                Voice: 505-662-5804 
Los Alamos, NM 87544-1604       FAX: 505-662-5210 


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjpawi cudfnJim cudlnPotter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / E Givotovsky /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: evg1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Eugenia V Givotovsky)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 14 Apr 1995 23:50:14 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:

>The Ives & Stillwell experiment gives a different result for transverse 
>frequency than predicted by SR.  So their experiment is wrong?

Can you give the specifics on that?

>>>This includes the relationship between theory and experiment.  By 
>>>definition, you can not claim that nothing better than SR can be created. 
>>>You simply do not know the future.
>>
>>Well, I quite agree.  SR might be displaced if a better theory becomes
>>available.  But Wallace is presenting gripes, rather than a better
>>theory.

>OK, *I* have a better theory. How are you going to handle that?
>The way you will is what Wallace is talking about. He's only using SR
>as an example of how physicists physic.

OK, "*I* have a better theory" is quite a statement. We can give you a 
fair treatment. The quality of a physical theory mostly dependent not on 
how it works inside but on what predictions it offers to the experiment. 

Well, what are the differences between your theory and SR as it comes to 
the experiment?

>V.V.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenevg1 cudfnEugenia cudlnGivotovsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.15 / David Bowman /  Searching for info. on Light Water CF
     
Originally-From: TTRX36D@prodigy.com (David Bowman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Searching for info. on Light Water CF
Date: 15 Apr 1995 00:24:31 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

     I am attempting to reproduce the light water cold fusion experiment 
conducted in Sapporo, Japan, created by the M.D. Randall Mills.  The 
experiment uses a porous nickel electrode and light water spiked with 
potassium carbonate as the electrolyte.  A 15 degree heat increase and an 
excess output of 50 watts have been reported.
     
     Does anyone have any information?  Has anyone conducted this 
experiment?

                  David Bowman:  TTRX36D@prodigy.com

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenTTRX36D cudfnDavid cudlnBowman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.14 / James Thomas /  Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
     
Originally-From: jthomas@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (James Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.med
sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water
Date: 14 Apr 1995 18:53:04 -0400
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

>	Even drinking H20 in excess can cause death.  Although I've only 
>	heard of it happening once, about 30 years ago.  When we talk excess
>	hear, we're talking 3,4, or 5 gallons a day.  The one I heard about
>	was, I believe, 5 gallons.  Even then, the cause of death of some
>	vital organ failure, which the large consumption of water made 
>	possible.


There was a case reported by some of the newsservices in the last month or so
about a young man - in U.K, I believe - who died after drinking a large amount
of water ( 30 l ?) after doing some sort of drug. 

glug glug ...
-- 
Jim Thomas				
McMaster Nuclear Reactor			phone 905-5259040 ext 23283
1280 Main St. W.				FAX 905-5284339
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada			home 905-6280126
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjthomas cudfnJames cudlnThomas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 15 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
