1995.04.27 / Harry Conover / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: 27 Apr 1995 14:41:12 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : : Droege would not be qualified or able to set up Patterson style cells. : As I mentioned in the thread titled "Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars : CETI is only working with qualified experts from institutions that enter into : formal agreements. They also insist on a formal one-week training course, even : for the experts. That is very wise policy, in my opinion. Cough, snort, choke.....ROFL! Jed, you are improving with age and get funnier every day! Hey guys, don'tcha know that "you must believe in order to see." Also, ritualistic magic usually requires a purification rite. With skeptics and scientists tainted with the corruptive influences of logic, knowledge and objectivity, no skeptic or real scientist is likely to be admitted to the inner sanctuary of **JEDLAND** or to personally experience the rapture of CF. Seriously though, If there are any significant revelations of discoveries implicit in this work, isn't it realistic to believe that given a one page description of the concept and implementation, any competent experimental physicist could replicate the phenomena (if in fact there is any phenomena to replicate). The notion that specialized, esoteric knowedge is required to replicate a funcamental scientific effects is, on the face of it, laughable. It may play well at the county fair to a group of farmers, but within this community of readers it is simply a shallow facade concealing emptiness. Harry C. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Tom Droege / Griggs Trip Publicity Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Griggs Trip Publicity Date: 27 Apr 1995 19:04:13 GMT Organization: fermilab The Griggs trip made the news media. From "de Volkskrant" Zatertag 25 Maart 1995 Headline - "Een sprankje hoop of energie uit niets" Een perpetuum mobile, of kou- de kernfusie; het zijn fysiche verschijnselen die te mooi lij- ken om waar te zijn. Zo maar in een apparaat energie stoppen, en er meer uit krijgen, uit het niets; er zijn in de wereld een paar gelovigen, maar de meeste onderzoekers halen hun neus op voor energiemachines die niet werken volgens de theoretische gebande paden. Zo niet Tom Droege, een van de ont- werpers van de elektronica voor de ma- chines ... The article fills about 1/3 of a full newspaper page. Looks like a Sunday supliment article on science in the US. The article in on the bottom third of a page titled "WETENSCHAP". It includes about a 4"x4" picture of the Griggs machine, with the caption "De Griggs-machine grengt water aan de kook. Maar er is meer. Er wordt namelijk, zo claimt de uitvinder, minder energie in gestoken dan er uit komt. Inspectie van de waterkoker door een Internet-gebruikersgrouep bracht vooral een gebrek aan inzicht en zuivere meetgegevens aan het licht." Sorry if I made typos. They are hard to see. My fingers are tired from typing all those aa and z combinations, Next "Cold Fusion" the Wayne Green publication, published the entire report. Under the heading "Subject: Griggs Visit" This in Issue No. 9. No date on copy they sent me. The "New Scientist" published a one column piece in the 15 April 1995 issue. Headline - "Inspector draws blank on fusion" "THE second law of thermodynamics is safe, at least for now. The jury is still out on the Griggs' pump, a device which its inventor says produces more energy as heat than is needed to run it. Tom Droege, an engineer and physicist from Chicago, has inspected the pump on behalf of scientists who contribute to a forum on the Internet called sci.physics.fusion, which discusses all types of fusion. ..." The article covers my missing log book comments, and the Griggs pledge to buy a log book. It ends with my comment "There is a 'journal' ready and willing to publish his paper. It is sci.physics.fusion. I can guarantee he will get a prompt and fair -- if somewhat racous -- reading." In a note to me, Marcus Chown the author said that "I'm afraid it got heavily edited". Yep. They cut down the article if you don't cause a controversy. I was determined to focus on the science. It is obvious that I would have gotten much more space, and used up more of my "15 minutes of fame" if I had said something like "the Griggs device is just junk". Instead I consciously chose to point out how to turn a publicity claim into a scientific one. This does not make good press, and it does not sell newspapers. But I think it the right way to do science. Still there is a part of me that would have liked to have been on TV and had reporters call from around the world. So I gave up my opprotunity for fame. One has to make choices. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Roberto / Cold Fusion, Question. Originally-From: k948368@kingston.ac.uk (Roberto D`Amico) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion, Question. Date: 27 Apr 1995 18:10:48 GMT Organization: Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames,UK. I'm a Layman in the field of Fusion, so be gentle. My intrest started in fusion has been growing over a period of time and I would like to ask, In Cold Fusion , heavy water is used and in the heavy water are placed two palladium terminals. An electric current is then passed thorugh the heavy water. The hoped result is fusion of duetirium in the pallaium, as the palladium attracts more and more deutirium atoms togther some mgiht fuse. I'm not sure if I got ir completely right. heres my question, I am assuming a current of 4 watts was passed through the heavy water Q: Can increasing the electrical current passed through the heavy water increase the attraction between the deutiriun and palladium. Which if my assumption is correct the deutirium atoms would be packed together at a greater density resulting in Fusion. I would be greatful for an anwser, and any corrections to my assumptions and errors. Roberto D'Amico. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenk948368 cudlnRoberto cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Tom Droege / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: 27 Apr 1995 19:20:20 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com says: >I know a lot about them and I can report that they are over my head. > >- Jed Jed, Have you thought about what you said here? Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / Tom Droege / Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Date: 27 Apr 1995 19:37:01 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com says: >I accuse Close et al. of believing the textbooks instead of the experiments. >They gleefully admit that is true, at every opportunity. > >- Jed Jed, If you understood how science works, you would not make this statement. I can only speak for myself, but in general a scientist does not "believe" in anything. He observes experiment and theory, and weighs the evidence. He notes that some combinations of theory and experiment are pretty good predictors of new experiments. These he gives high weight as future predictors. Others don't work so well and so are discarded in favor of those that work better. In general, we all welocme a better theory and a better experiment even if it destroys an old theory that we have grown to love and understand. It may be that experiments derived from the "cold fusion" work will overthrow physics as we know it. But so far I have not seen any experiment that is repeatable and which makes sense. When I do, I will start doing experiments again. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.24 / Travis Stone / Re: What Will it Be Like? Originally-From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What Will it Be Like? Date: 24 Apr 1995 17:37:14 GMT Organization: University of Nebraska Omaha David Belliveau (fatspidr@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca) wrote: : Heck, what if I could get a set-up that would keep a beachfront property warm : and summerlike here on the New Brunswick coast in the middle of February? And : what's to stop countless others from doing the same? If CF actually _does_ work, and if it works the way Pons & Fleischmann set it up, then I'd say..... The cost of the D2O. _That's_ what would stop countless others from doing it. Oh, and the cost of the Palladium, too. That stuff's not cheap, from what I've heard. T.R. Stone University of Nebraska-Omaha stone@cwis.unomaha.edu "Cyanide is so poisonous that one drop of it on a dog's tongue will kill the strongest man." .....Anonymous grade-school student cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenstone cudfnTravis cudlnStone cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 15:48:51 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) asks: "Could you elaborate on the significance of the 22Ne to 4He ratio? I think I know what you are hinting at, but want to know for sure before making any comments about this." Sorry, I did not mean to hint. The ratio of helium to neon sometimes indicates a leak from the outside. This is described in detail in the ICCF4 paper: D. Gozzi et al., "Helium-4 Quantitative Measurements in the Gas Phase of Cold Fusion Electrochemical Cells," Proc. ICCF4, Vol. 1, paper #6 . . . and if I had a scanner I would OCR a bunch of it, but I am feeling too lazy to type it. What it boils down to is the rate at which helium and neon leak can be predicted with precision according to "a simple Knudsen mechanism of preferential inflow of helium with respect to neon." Adjusting for gradient pressure and cranking an equation, Gozzi comes up with a ratio of 0.64 in his experiment (that is: if the ratio is 0.64, it's a leak). This, he sadly point out, does not prove a thing in his case, because "0.64 is neither consistent nor fully unconsistent with the data." Anyway, it usually works. Neon has another advantage with Gozzi's experiment: "neon is the only possible marker of air contamination which was not going to be condensed at liquid nitrogen temperature during the inlet procedure." Also, Gozzi plots the ratio of He/Ne over time, with their on-line detector. That sounds to me like a better way to do it, rather than relying on the Knudsen mechanism equation. E-Quest could not do that, because they did not sample on line. And there is discussion of neon isotopic ratios, which I don't feel like typing. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Barry Merriman / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: 28 Apr 1995 00:38:21 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3noqpk$l4t@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: > In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com says: > > >I know a lot about them and I can report that they are over my head. > >- Jed > > Jed, Have you thought about what you said here? > Well, in fairness to Jed ( I'll try anything once :-), I think he's just saying he knows enoiugh about them to know that he doesn't understand them. Sort of a meta-statement. Makes sense to me. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Charles Sites / Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named? Originally-From: cbsite01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Charles B Sites) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named? Date: 28 Apr 1995 00:13:22 GMT Organization: University of Louisville, Louisville KY USA In scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >>Does anyone know how the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion received that label? >>Why was the label sci.physics.fusion chosen? Who chose it? >Well, in 1989 I was having difficulty following all of the discussion about >P&F's announcement, so I proposed (on alt.config) the creation of 'alt.fusion' >to gather all of the discussions into one place. Very shortly thereafter, >Kevin Scott of UCSF ran a Usenet "vote" to move alt.fusion to a mainstream >group, as sci.physics.fusion. >So, I guess you'd say I chose it. > \scott Ahh, Those were the days. A no-holds-bared collection of wild speculation. Does any on remember a thread on cold fusion in sci.physics that occurred about a month or so before the P&F announcment? I always wondered if that had anything to do with P&F's decision to hold a press conference rather than publish and wait for a reaction. >-- >Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott >Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. Chuck Sites Electrical Engineering System Programmer University of Louisville http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~cbsite01 (502)-852-7020 -- Chuck Sites Electrical Engineering System Programmer University of Louisville http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~cbsite01 (502)-852-7020 cudkeys: cuddy28 cudencbsite01 cudfnCharles cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.27 / jonesse@plasma / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: 27 Apr 95 12:46:03 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University Jed Rothwell writes: "When I talk about the need to put aside the palladium heavy water approach ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ and try other methods instead, scientists often misunderstand me. ... I say we need to drop it temporarily, and to concentrate instead on what works spectacularly well today. We must build 20 kilowatt light water reactors so we can convince the world that cold fusion is real. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That will bring in rivers of money -- oceans of money. " If anyone can get 20 kilowatts of *fusion* power using *light* water, I'll gladly shave my head. No way. Notice that the Patterson cell, the Griggs device, and the Bologna device that Jed touts so loudly all involve *hydrogen* rather than deuterium. (Hey, I thought we sent Tom Droege to investigate the Griggs device, and he found that claims of 'excess heat' from this machine were terribly exaggerated- yet Jed again hypes the Griggs device...) I would hope that investors can see through such hype and keep their hands on their wallets, money intact. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Michael Corrado / A revery for sonoluminescence Originally-From: Michael Corrado <75040.3575@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: A revery for sonoluminescence Date: 28 Apr 1995 09:35:37 GMT Organization: Compuserve Does sonoluminescence explain the presence of microparticles of diamond in some meteors? Does it occur in magma? Does it occur in stars? (I.e., how can it not?) What are the constraints on nano-assembly of devices using SL? (Thinking of silicon. TI's al/si solar cells.) SL as a replacement for laser catalysis of new materials? Biomaterials? cudkeys: cuddy28 cuden3575 cudfnMichael cudlnCorrado cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / John Logajan / Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Date: 28 Apr 1995 00:02:33 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: : in general a scientist does not "believe" in anything. He observes : experiment and theory, and weighs the evidence. He notes that some : combinations of theory and experiment are pretty good predictors of : new experiments. These he gives high weight as future predictors. : Others don't work so well and so are discarded in favor of those that : work better. I think this is both the ideal and the practice of many individuals, but (and I apologize for forgetting the name of the author who popularized this concept) there is little denying that scientific understanding tends to proceed in paradigmatic steps. The "young turks" fight to overthrow the existing paradigm, and if and when they accomplish that, they establish a new paradigm, which in turn they defend against the next wave. And so it goes. The existence of these paradigms are at odds to the ideal you painted above -- especially as it pertains to the "average" or "mainstream." -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / John Logajan / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: 28 Apr 1995 04:36:18 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote: : I thought we sent Tom Droege to investigate the Griggs device, and he : found that claims of 'excess heat' from this machine were terribly : exaggerated Did he???? Could you recite Tom's reported numbers on this? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Dieter Britz / Help with literature please Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Help with literature please Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 14:25:06 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Hello starry droogs, there are a few references I have been chasing for quite some time, without any luck. Our librarians here can't handle them, it seems. Is anyone out there able to get hold of copies of the following? 1. J. Bennett, "The Joker in the Deck: The Return of Cold Fusion?", Strategic Investment April 20, 1994, p.6. 2. A. Gross, "Building neo-Aristotelian Theory:...", Quarterly J. Speech (sometime since last summer, when it was said to be in print). 3. MI Martynov, AI Mel'dianov, AM Chepovskii, Vopr. Atom. Nauk Tekh., Ser. Termoyader. Sintez 1991 (2) 77-81 If so, any chance of sending me a copy? Thanks in advance. (Sufficient address below). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Jon Kogut / Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Originally-From: jkogut@teal.csn.org (Jon Kogut) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: I. Johnston's statements about Rothwell are fabrications Date: 28 Apr 1995 14:53:25 GMT Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc. In article <3norot$l4t@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Tom Droege wrote: > I can only speak for myself, but in general a scientist >does not "believe" in anything. He observes experiment and theory, >and weighs the evidence. Does this principle extend to behavioral science with respect to working scientists? Is your "theory" about how scientists behave based on a careful weighing of the evidence, or does it merely express your belief that they behave as they should? Do you really believe that no "true" scientist has ever been blinded by theory? If so, I suggest you do a little more reading in the history of science. -- jkogut@csn.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjkogut cudfnJon cudlnKogut cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / MalfaX / A new waving theory Originally-From: MalfaX Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: A new waving theory Date: 28 Apr 1995 15:18:53 GMT Organization: Politecnico di Milano Obj. A new Waving Theory for masses and fields. In Internet a new, causal, waving unitary theory called: The Waving Theory of the Field. (WTF) === We make the hypothesis that the subatomic particles are the elementary sources of spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all fields ascribing to the particles. === From this work's hypothesis we can get out a new unitary theory that will becomes a new paradigm that will replace Quantum Mechanics. In this theory, purely causal, the same indetermination principle becomes determinate. The duality's paradoxes becomes understandable waving models. The photon becomes understandable like a wavig variation. The electron assumes a dimensional structure, so that all particles lose the puntual nature, and can be described with the same structurate waving model. This waving models reveal the existence of a simple symmetry's principle that explains the four interactions, and discover (1984) the existence of a fifth antigravitational repulsive interaction. (Latest experimentally discovered from E. Fischbach et al. at Purdue University and publied in 1986 on Physical Review.) Changing the actual starting hypothesis on the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous space-time, (described with mathematical evidence from Albert Schild in 1947 on Phy.Rev.), that may becomes the agent and, at same time, the background of physical phenomena. In this modular space-time, lacks from anisotropical contra-indications, organized like a discrete lattice, can occur states of geometric perturbations of the structure of this discrete lattice, derived from variations of time quanta, that move like waves along the relativistic geodetics, identified by integral Lorentz transformations. These perturbations can become spherical waves surfaces that move its own discrete spherical surface's parts, in the discrete lattice, like bidimensional planes. On these bases, we make a new physics that, starting from existence of a discrete space-time, obeys to laws of a discrete space-time geometry, that connect microphysics to macrophysics. With it we can comprehend and connect Quantum Mechanics at General Relativity, and Mechanics at Cosmology in one global design. On the same base, we can understand: gravitational interactions, electromagnetic interactions, and a new model for nuclear interactions. We discover a waving resonance mechanism of autocreation that conduces to giustify a structurate model of elementary particles, adapts to describe all microphysics' phenomena. This waving resonance mechanism, obeying to one symmetry principle, leaves out the nightmare of the singularity, allowing an understandable, mere causal explanation, able to justify all passages and phenomena, apparently indeterministic, inherited from Quantum Mechanics. This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes (1984) a new feebler nuclear force, that it is coherent with theoretical justification for experimental phenomena of the Cold Fusion, describing, at the same time, the composition of a structurate wave-model of the particles' family and all its decays. The new wave-model of interactions produces a wave-explication for the bodies' inertia, conducing the Clein-Gordon formula to a complete physical comprehension that, freeing Relativity from the assumption of identity between inertial forces and gravitational forces, derives a causal explication of a new Waving Quantum Gravity. Follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity and an antigravitational Fifth Interaction, derived by model, coherently from the relativistic limitation of the light velocity, that regulates the composition and behavior of macrobodies in the Universe. We can draw a new way for the rationalization of the controversial astronomical observations that interest the actions and existence of many cosmological phenomena. Moreover, we announce to Stephen Hawking that he has won the bet, made against bad luck with Kip Thorne, on the possibility that black holes were a complete failure. You will never find a black hole in ''Cygnus X 1'', because black holes can't exist. We are doubly sorry for him but, for the same reason, also big bang can't exist. The entire Waving Theory of the Field explains it consequently, showing many causal and rational consequences that bring to a new Waving Steady State, for a much more comprehensible cosmology . A new vision of the Compton effect carries a waving explication, derived from an extending of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and permits, to come to a description of all interactions of particles and fields. A natural extension of the same Compton effect drives to electron's waving model, and to all subatomic particles, placing a valid causal base for the waving explications of the Lorentz force, derived from the space-time quantization, that produces a causal model of electromagnetic interactions, that brings to a consequent perception of meaning of the electric charge's nature. We rediscover a coherent atom's model in which a causality chain, purely waving, permits to follow the development, step by step, of the waving action on the photoelectric phenomena, revealing the really waving nature of the fine structure constant, connected to a light emission's mechanism, merely causal. WHAT IS HAPPENED ? Is happened that the denied crisis of Quantum Mechanics have produced what had to become sooner or later. We see to appear a new paradigma. As it was inevitable, the crisis has been solved from the external. So try to formalize yourself not too much, and try to find some linking points with the previous paradigma. In spite of the elaboration of the Theory elapsed thirty years, it is still very young, it needs criticism to get sharp, but it is yet strong enough to support many experimental possibilities of falsification. The Waving Theory of the Field has been already publied in Italy, from author Walter E. R. Cassani, in October 1984 on the book entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), and distributed from author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists. A next evolution has been publied from the same way in 1989 with title: La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo. (The Waving Theory of the Field). (This is actually translated and showed in Internet) No reaction from the official universitary circuit. A third book entitled: Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI, ( Albert Was Right - GOD DOESN'T PLAY DICE) is publied in Milan at January 1994, and distributed in 300, universitary et non, book-shops. The firth edition (5.000 copies) shortly sold. Many hentusiastic letters from students, chemists, engineers, etc. A first conference in the Aula Magna of the Physical Dept. of Bologna University. 250 students, 1 Relativity Prof. 1 Dept. Chief. full hentusiasm from the students. No reaction from the physicists. No reaction from the scientific journalists, in many ways requested. It's here and now possible to begin in Internet a new international scientific revolution, that involves physics foundations and assists the appearing of a new paradigm ? Perhaps that Internet just not for this it's born ? From you, must come the stimulation to falsify it in the Popper's spirit or, eventually, promote it. But not you content of this initial provoking summary, examine in detail the brief , but sufficient, exposition of The Waving Theory of the Field, with geometric models and simple mathematical proofs. ( In Microsoft Word 6 ). To whom it may immediately concern, this brief exposition, of the new waving theory (1,500 K), is located in: //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// pub / theory to "linux.infosquare.it" if you have problems, to try again FTP to 194.133.1.6 pub / theory Or contact the author: e-mail << cassani@linux.infosquare.it >> or << cassani@194.133.1.6 >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenqua1390 cudlnMalfaX cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / jedrothwell@de / All technology takes specialized, esoteric knowledge Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: All technology takes specialized, esoteric knowledge Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 11:26:42 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: "The notion that specialized, esoteric knowledge is required to replicate a fundamental scientific effects is, on the face of it, laughable." Don't be ridiculous, Conover. Consider how much specialized, esoteric knowledge the people at Fermilab require to observe the top quark. That is about as fundamental as any scientific effect can be! Think about how much knowledge and hard work it took to make the atom bomb or the hot fusion reactor. Here are some other devices that replicate fundamental scientific effects, which took terrific amounts of knowledge and years of effort to produce: The telescope. Without Galileo's brilliant work on optics, it would have remained a toy for another century. Nobody then or now could easily master his texts. Watt's steam engine. The mercury thermometer. Perfecting that took the skills of Joule himself! The electric motor. The transistor. Marconi's trans-oceanic long wave radios. It took giant buildings full of high tech equipment! The zipper, which is the result of 30 years of excruciating hard labor and countless trade secrets. A YKK zipper factory here in Atlanta has the highest density of high tech million dollar equipment and trade secrets per cubic meter that I have ever seen in my life. The Exacto knife. The incandescent light bulb -- a perfect example. It one took 20 years of work by some of the best scientists who ever lived, including Farmer, Weston, and, of course, Edison. The final battle to build the first bulbs involved two years of teeth grinding work doing thing like building the best vacuum pump ever seen until that time. Without J. P. Morgan's millions, it would never have been done. Naturally, when they finally got the thing to work, the newly formed company (which became General Electric) kept the technology as secret as long as possible. Conover's comments betray astounding ignorance of history, technology, manufacturing, business, patents and common sense. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of technology -- anyone who has ever read even one book about Edison! -- will know that when these "simple" technologies began, they required *years and years* of excruciating labor and hard thinking by some of the greatest geniuses in history. A simple gadget like the lightbulb may seem like a trivial thing today. We have billions of them. You can walk into any grocery store and buy as many as you like. Yet it took a monumental struggle, knowledge and labor to build the first lightbulb, and to develop the technology to mass produce lightbulbs. Countless secret techniques had to be developed before the first lights went on at Menlo Park. The techniques were either kept secret or patented. Our ancestors were bowled over by Edison's achievement because they knew that the secrets of this "simple" device had eluded the best scientific minds for a generation. Our ancestors knew it, I know it, but Conover, alas, either forgot it or he never learned it in the first place. His previous postings about the Wrights reveal that he does know any history. People who do not know history can never understand the present, or predict the future. You cannot know yourself or your culture, and you cannot grasp what science is or how it came about, unless you have studied history. Most tragically, as Santayana put it, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The fact is, every "simple" piece of technology that we take for granted is the work of genius, and almost all technology is kept secret when it is first invented. Most of us -- including most scientists -- could not begin to replicate such "simple" technology without years of training and more esoteric knowledge than Conover could imagine. Even ancient technology is far beyond our skills and knowledge: I am quite sure that no ordinary untrained scientist could make a proper flint cutting blade, hunting bow, or Eskimo jacket. I know some scientists who can do these things, but they worked for years to master the techniques, as did the ancient people who made these marvelous tools. The scientific model, in which something like an HTSC is invented and soon replicated, is practically never seen in the real world of technology. Very few devices have been easy to replicate and have consequently spread like wildfire soon after they were invented: the photograph and the x-ray are two rare examples. There are not many others, because most things are difficult to make. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 11:32:56 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >If anyone can get 20 kilowatts of *fusion* power using *light* water, Whether it is fusion power, or whether it comes from some other force of nature is immaterial. Energy is energy, not matter what causes it, and we do, definitely, get energy from the light water Patterson cells, Griggs devices and other gadgets. Steve Jones cannot possibly dispute this assertion of mine, because he knows perfectly well that the calorimetry proves the point beyond any doubt. Therefore, he drags in this red herring irrelivant argument about whether it is fusion or not. He knows perfectly well that it makes no difference whether it is fusion, ZPE or green cheese enrgy, and he knows that neither I nor Patterson, nor Griggs has ever claimed it is fusion, except as a tentative hypothesis to explain the phonomenon. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 11:34:17 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Harry H Conover writes: >Cough, snort, choke.....ROFL! Jed, you are improving with age and get >funnier every day! Snort yourself, you fool. Your statements betry *astounding* ignorance of history, science and technology. See my thread: All technology takes specialized, esoteric knowledge - Jed cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / Richard Blue / RE: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 16:44:56 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Jed Rothwell's contempt for and lack of understanding of basic textbook physics is certainly showing on this issue! No matter what evidence is put forth to support the claim that helium is not "leaking" into the E-quest device this evidence has no bearing on the question which Jones and others have raised. Let me say it one more time. Helium can enter a closed system by diffusion through certain common materials. The signitures for leaks from the atmosphere to which Jed refers would not apply in the case of diffusion. For example, the ratio of neon to helium would not be preserved. In fact helium could be expected to enter the system at a detectable rate while no significant quantities of any other atmospheric gases were entering. Jed's second point seems to be that the association of a rise in detected helium with some other feature of the experiment is further proof that helium is not simply leaking into the system. I believe this too is an overly simplistic view of the experimental conditions. As I understand it, most of the volume in which the helium is thought to be produced is filled with D2O. Helium disolved in the D2O or any other material in the cell is as likely a source for the detected helium as any contamination that may enter the cover gas directly. Unexplained correlation between the appearance of helium in the cover gas and any changes in other experimental parameters is just that - unexplained. If we assume that Jed's "evidence" against the hypothesis that atmospheric contamination is the source of the E-Quest helium is derived from the actual experiments, it would appear that neither Jed nor Mr. George has a solid grasp of the physics involved. It then seems unlikely that the experiments have been well designed to deal with the problem. There is one other question that I have asked on several occasions as it relates to the E-Quest helium data. Is the gas that is analyzed by Rockwell just as it was drawn off from the experiment, or has it been subject to some "processing"? If we don't know the answer to that question we really have no way to evaluate the E-Quest data. How about this, Jed. Do you know whether the E-Quest gas samples are processed before analysis? If, to your certain knowledge, they are filtered in anyway please describe how that is done. If the gas samples are not filtered that will raise some other questions. If you don't know one way or the other the "Jones' Hypothesis" is still alive and well. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / ProFusion / Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Logajan's questions about Patterson Power Cell Date: 28 Apr 1995 15:35:47 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Tom--- I seem to remember a similar attitude of withholding conclusions on your part during the visit to Griggs. One need not always have strong opinions, particularly with inconclusive data. And with conclusive evidence, one can let one's readers judge for themselves. ---Vic cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / John Logajan / Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Date: 28 Apr 1995 17:31:31 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Doctor Steven Jones (jonesse@plasma.byu.edu) wrote: > If anyone can get 20 kilowatts of *fusion* power using *light* water, > I'll gladly shave my head. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think this is a better prize than the $700 left over from the Droege/Griggs fund. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / John Marshall / Fussion Originally-From: John Marshall Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fussion Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 22:15:26 GMT Organization: MV Communications, Inc. Hello, Fussion rules! So you geniuses over there and get it up and running! cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjm cudfnJohn cudlnMarshall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Thanks for the post, Jed Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 21:16:39 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Barry Merriman writes: >Well, in fairness to Jed ( I'll try anything once :-), I think >he's just saying he knows enoiugh about them to know that he >doesn't understand them. Sort of a meta-statement. Makes sense to me. Actually, I should have said "a lot of it is over my head." Not all. Some is straightforward. If you read the Patterson patents you will have a very good idea what I mean. That patent is for people who are skilled in the arts of surface chemistry and electrochemistry. You can get the basic idea from it, but it takes a real expert to appreciate it or replicate it. Patterson has been a leading expert in thin film surface catalysis since the 1950s. He is a real expert, yet he says there are a few patents that even he has trouble replicating (from other experts I mean). This is an arcane specialty. The fact is, very few of the CF scientists are real experts in surface chemistry or materials science. Those who are, like Ed Storms, really make waves and they are the source of a lot of progress. The physicists don't know where to start. I think it will take the chemist and materials people to jump start the industry, and after we have big, hot cells, then the physicists can come in, find nuclear products (or whatever they find) and develop theories. No doubt the theories will be vital to refining and improving the machine, but the first steps have to be made by people who already experts in related areas, like Storms and Patterson. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.28 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 21:34:15 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >*hydrogen* rather than deuterium. (Hey, I thought we sent Tom Droege to >investigate the Griggs device, and he found that claims of 'excess heat' from >this machine were terribly exaggerated- yet Jed again hypes the Griggs >device...) I do not know what you sent him to do, but he did not investigate the device. He looked for lab notebooks and found none. He did not look at the device, he did not take any readings, he did not even bother to write down how many horsepower the motor delivers. He did not bother to bring back the data printout from the run that Griggs performed. He did, however, speculate that the machine might have interfered with the thermocouples. He could checked to see if this speculation has any basis in reality, by watching the computer printout, or by holding an ordinary thermometer in the water for a minute. However, he chose not to do this. If he had, he would have seen that this speculation is wrong. The reason he did not check is obvious: if he had, he would have had to admit his idea was wrong. Tom likes to raise doubts and muddy the issue, but he does not have the guts to test his ideas, even when the "test" would take only a minute. He is smart though. He knows that if you are going to make wild, absurd unsuportable claims about electric motors magically interfering with dial thermometers and thermocouples, or water at 100 deg C which looks like it is boiling but it isn't, then the last thing you want to do is put your claims to the test in an experiment. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 29 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------