1995.04.15 / Sunny Snaith / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: Sunny Snaith 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: 15 Apr 1995 03:04:56 GMT Organization: University System of Georgia (PeachNet) rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) wrote: > Obviously, the current standards were only adopted after there had > been substantial empirical support for SR. However, once the > standards are defined so as to make c constant, then c is constant by > definition and no experimental evidence can change that. > > Of course, if SR does not match our reality very accurately, we would > still expect to see data which persuaded us to drop SR. But that > data could not be in the form of measurements which violated the > constancy of c. > To begin with: I KNOW NOTHING. That being stated up front, my question is: Are we confusing the definition of a standard unit of measurement with the Lorentz Transformation of said unit? The difference between SR and Newtonian physics isn't the units used or how they were defined, rather the method of transforming them from one frame of reference to another. SR can be experimentally proven or disproven because it makes testable predictions: Either you get home and your twin has aged profoundly or he hasn't -- the system of measurement is irrelevant. Experiments show that the atomic clock twins aged differently, supporting SR: ANY new theory must address this result if it is to replace SR. [SIDEBAR: You said that SR cannot be disproven with current units because of their SR definition, yet you are trying to convince us that the data (measured with these units) disagrees with SR. Am I missing something here? This makes no sense to me.] Confused (as usual), Sunny Astrophysics/Math Double Major SHULTZ: 'I know nutink!' ssnaith@agnes.scottLAN.edu (Hogan's Heroes) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenssnaith cudfnSunny cudlnSnaith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / C Neufeld / Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water Originally-From: neufeld@caliban.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) 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: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:35:11 GMT Organization: University of Toronto - Dept. of Physics In article <3mkgjg$pq8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Oolong wrote: >Tom Droege wrote: > >/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? > I guess I'll post, save Tom the trouble of looking it up. I won't trim the newsgroups line this time, but followups be careful... gopher://gopher.chem.utah.edu/00/MSDS/S/SAND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MSDS for SAND Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRODUCT NAME: SAND FORMULA: SIO2 FORMULA WT: 60.00 CAS NO.: 14808-60-7 NIOSH/RTECS NO.: VV7330000 COMMON SYNONYMS: SILICON DIOXIDE PRODUCT CODES: 7023,3382 EFFECTIVE: 03/25/86 REVISION #01 PRECAUTIONARY LABELLING BAKER SAF-T-DATA(TM) SYSTEM HEALTH - 0 NONE FLAMMABILITY - 0 NONE REACTIVITY - 0 NONE CONTACT - 0 NONE HAZARD RATINGS ARE 0 TO 4 (0 = NO HAZARD; 4 = EXTREME HAZARD). LABORATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT SAFETY GLASSES; LAB COAT PRECAUTIONARY LABEL STATEMENTS DURING USE AVOID CONTACT WITH EYES, SKIN, CLOTHING. WASH THOROUGHLY AFTER HANDLING. WHEN NOT IN USE KEEP IN TIGHTLY CLOSED CONTAINER. SAF-T-DATA(TM) STORAGE COLOR CODE: ORANGE (GENERAL STORAGE) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 - HAZARDOUS COMPONENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPONENT % CAS NO. SILICON DIOXIDE 90-100 14808-60-7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 - PHYSICAL DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOILING POINT: 2230 C ( 4046 F) VAPOR PRESSURE(MM HG): N/A MELTING POINT: 1710 C ( 3110 F) VAPOR DENSITY(AIR=1): N/A SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 EVAPORATION RATE: N/A (H2O=1) (BUTYL ACETATE=1) SOLUBILITY(H2O): NEGLIGIBLE (LESS THAN 0.1 %) % VOLATILES BY VOLUME: 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MSDS for SAND Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARANCE & ODOR: ODORLESS, CRYSTALLINE POWDER. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLASH POINT (CLOSED CUP N/A FLAMMABLE LIMITS: UPPER - N/A % LOWER - N/A % FIRE EXTINGUISHING MEDIA USE EXTINGUISHING MEDIA APPROPRIATE FOR SURROUNDING FIRE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 - HEALTH HAZARD DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE (TLV/TWA): 10 MG/M3 ( PPM) CARCINOGENICITY: NTP: NO IARC: NO Z LIST: NO OSHA REG: NO EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE PROLONGED INHALATION OF DUST MAY CAUSE FIBROSIS OF THE LUNGS. TARGET ORGANS NONE IDENTIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS GENERALLY AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE NONE IDENTIFIED ROUTES OF ENTRY NONE INDICATED EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES INGESTION: IF SWALLOWED AND THE PERSON IS CONSCIOUS, IMMEDIATELY GIVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION. INHALATION: IF A PERSON BREATHES IN LARGE AMOUNTS, MOVE THE EXPOSED PERSON TO FRESH AIR. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION. EYE CONTACT: IMMEDIATELY FLUSH WITH PLENTY OF WATER FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION. SKIN CONTACT: IMMEDIATELY WASH WITH PLENTY OF SOAP AND WATER FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 - REACTIVITY DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STABILITY: STABLE HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR CONDITIONS TO AVOID: NONE DOCUMENTED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 - SPILL AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MSDS for SAND Page 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A SPILL OR DISCHARGE WEAR SUITABLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING. CAREFULLY SWEEP UP AND REMOVE. DISPOSAL PROCEDURE DISPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 - PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENTILATION: USE GENERAL OR LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION TO MEET TLV REQUIREMENTS. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: RESPIRATORY PROTECTION REQUIRED IF AIRBORNE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS TLV. AT CONCENTRATIONS UP TO 2 PPM, A DUST/MIST RESPIRATOR IS RECOMMENDED. ABOVE THIS LEVEL, A SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS IS ADVISED. EYE/SKIN PROTECTION: SAFETY GLASSES WITH SIDESHIELDS, PROPER GLOVES ARE RECOMMENDED. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 - STORAGE AND HANDLING PRECAUTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAF-T-DATA(TM) STORAGE COLOR CODE: ORANGE (GENERAL STORAGE) SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS KEEP CONTAINER TIGHTLY CLOSED. SUITABLE FOR ANY GENERAL CHEMICAL STORAGE AREA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 - TRANSPORTATION DATA AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOMESTIC (D.O.T.) PROPER SHIPPING NAME CHEMICALS, N.O.S. (NON-REGULATED) INTERNATIONAL (I.M.O.) PROPER SHIPPING NAME CHEMICALS, N.O.S. (NON-REGULATED) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / Martin Sevior / Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results? Originally-From: Martin Sevior Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results? Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 11:30:23 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote: > >What about hydrogen? > Marshall OK I goofed. I was also told so privately by email as well. If the process D + D => 4He + excess energy ( nothing ionizing!) can occur then I guess it's possible to assume that the reaction D + P => 3He + excess energy Can also occur. The protons could come from the H2O contamination in the heavy water. It's bound to be at the 1% level since most D2O comes from the Canadian Heavy water program. They need it to moderate their beautiful CANDU reactors which burn natural Uranium. With light water concentrations at 1% of heavy the reactor can achieve criticality. I withdraw my objection to 3He production on nuclear physics grounds in the E-QUEST device. Regarding Dick Blue's Post about the availablity of 3He at Los Alamos. Isolated 3He is incredibly expensive and is normally used in closed cryogenic systems. The idea of blowing it off into the atmosphere is crazy. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the local concentration of 3He is enhanced in any lab. But I agree it would have been nice to have a direct measurement of the atmospheric concentration, just to make sure. Regarding Dick Blue's suggestion that 4He is being absorbed by the heavy water or Palladium target, and is released under ultrasonic activity, the E-QUEST WWW document http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeoge/index.html#Microfusion states that blank experiments did not reveal any 4He production. One would expect elevated levels of 4He in these experiments if the source of Helium is atmospheric contamination. So to me the question of where the Helium both 4He and 3He comes from in this experiment is open. Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy15 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / mitchell swartz / Info on Heavy Water Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.misc,sci.med,rec.arts.sf science,sci.physics.accelerators Subject: Info on Heavy Water Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 11:35:59 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water William Rowe [browe@netcom.com] writes "Huh? Isn't this the basically the same statement in different words?" No. It is not the same statement. To wit: "Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a chemically distinct manner in certain rate-sensitive systems." is simply not identical to "Deuterium and Hydrogen do behave in a chemically similar manner but differ in reaction rates." Is it? cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / Martin Sevior / Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results? Originally-From: Martin Sevior Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with E-QUEST results? Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 11:48:15 GMT Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics Sorry I screwed up the WWW address, it's http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge/index.html#Microfusion Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy15 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / John Logajan / Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence,ColdFusion, Griggs Generator Date: 15 Apr 1995 17:23:26 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: : 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. Well we know the driving motor is (nearly) constant speed, so any reduction in drag will result in a reduction of input torque. If the water is at boiling point, then there is likely to be a good mix of steam and water rather than just 100% liquid water, so there is likely to be a reduction in the drag coefficient -- somewhere between that for 100% steam and that for 100% water. Of course, under this reasoning, the torque reduction should always appear in steam production mode even if the "anomalous" heat mode appears or not. *But* the point of steam creation is important. It is possible under pressure to keep the water as liquid until it exits the system "nozzle" were it expands to steam. The rotor would then see 100% liquid water. However, if the temperature is sufficient to cause flashing to steam in the rotor/case space, then the drop in drag would manifest itself. So depending upon conditions, even in steam mode, the steam production location might first appear (or only appear) at the exit nozzle, and then perhaps only later move to rotor/case gap. If "anomalous" heat were occuring, this could coincidentally be the point at which the temperature becomes sufficient to move the steam generation point into the rotor/case gap, so at least theoretically, the relationship between the occurance of anomalous heat and the onset of torque reduction could be only coincidentally linked. -- - 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: cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.16 / Chris Lawson / Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water Originally-From: claw@werple.mira.net.au (Chris Lawson) 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: 16 Apr 1995 05:03:47 +1000 Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: >In article , 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hi, Tom. Can you explain what this means in proper toxicological terms? regards, Chris Lawson Internet claw@werple03.mira.net.au cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenclaw cudfnChris cudlnLawson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / Tom Droege / Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: REQ: inffo on Heavy Water Date: 15 Apr 1995 19:56:58 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , neufeld@caliban.physic .utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) says: > I guess I'll post, save Tom the trouble of looking it up. I won't trim >the newsgroups line this time, but followups be careful... Thanks Chris, looks like these can be gotton on line. >SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS > KEEP CONTAINER TIGHTLY CLOSED. SUITABLE FOR ANY GENERAL CHEMICAL STORAGE > AREA. God must have read this. That is why we are spinning out here in space away from everyone else. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / Tom Droege / Working on the Certificates Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Working on the Certificates Date: 15 Apr 1995 20:00:24 GMT Organization: fermilab That is why I am here today. I am throwing in a picture of our lab for your amusement. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / 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.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic .particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 15 Apr 1995 17:05:21 -0400 Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida I will no longer have the email address wallace@eckerd.edu starting April 18th, and my new address is wallacebg@aol.com. This should give me more freedom to speak openly about the problem of modern physics being a farce. It will take me a while to learn how to use the new system and it will no longer be practical for me to send out email copies of my book "The Farce of Physics" for people who can't get them by ftp. There are no restrictions on people making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so this should not be much of a problem. The book explores and documents the fact that modern physics is little more than an elaborate farce. The book contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people including Albert Einstein. It is meant for anyone who is interested in this subject, and I have attempted to reduce the technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach the widest possible audience. The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and religion were not separated. The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at the base of all of natural science, religion, and technology. Richard Feynman was one of a relatively small number of modern physicists with the intelligence and courage to challenge the current sacred relativity doctrine that argues that empty space is an invisible solid with infinite mass and energy that can create the universe in a Big Bang. Feynman argued that Isaac Newton was right and that a photon of light is a particle composed of a drop of dynamic ether fluid moving through empty space at the speed of light. My 1969 paper showed that an analysis of the Venus radar data was consistent with the Newtonian particle model of light, and my computer simulation research of the dynamic ether showed the proper magnitudes for the gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from positive and negative electrons, just as John Archibald Wheeler suspected. I expect that some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological trick that will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass annihilation will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to space travel at near light speeds. This book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text. Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html Bryan cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.15 / Joseph Wood / Re: Info on Heavy Water Originally-From: bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu (Joseph Bret Wood) Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.med,sci.physics.fusion sci.research,rec.arts.sf.science Subject: Re: Info on Heavy Water Date: 15 Apr 1995 15:33:01 -0700 Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept. In article , mitchell swartz wrote: > > 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. If the rates of reaction differ, then in a system where there is a competing reaction which doesn't involve the X-H(D) bond, the ratio of the various products will also differ. Thus by changing the concentration of deuterium in water, the products of some reactions can be changed to a certain degree. This can (and does) have disaterous effects on certain physiological processes. -Bret Wood -bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu PS -- I would assume that if the natural H:D ratio was around 1:1, then pure D2O, or pure H2O would both be toxic, because they would shift the products out of balance in opposite directions. But the natural concentration of deuterium in water is so low, that removing it would have a negligable effect. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbretwood cudfnJoseph cudlnWood cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.16 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: Warm Fusion Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Warm Fusion Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 00:14:39 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway >Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion >Subject: Re: Warm Fusion >Date: 13 Apr 1995 18:44:33 -0400 >Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) > >I've also been interested in ultrasound and water/metal systems. I >wouldn't dignify what I've been doing as experimentation; more like >dabbling. At any rate, I find that I can produce a tremendous amount of >excess heat using water and aluminum in an ultrasonic bath. However, this >is not anomalous because aluminum oxide has a very heat heat of formation. > I wonder if others showing excess heat results in ultrasonic systems have >had the same observation. > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Yellow Springs OH Elliot, Have you actually chemically tested for the presence of large quantities of Al3+ ions in the water? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk the cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 16 04:37:06 EDT 1995 ------------------------------