1995.05.01 / Paul Koloc / Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 00:29:17 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article awc@slcawc aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes: >In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: >> In article awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes: >> >Whether a concept is good or bad, science and society are >> >best served by information which is easily available. >> I don't agree. [Exposition of Paul Koloc's heroicism for telling us >> anything at all.] >I can accept it if you want to play your cards close to your chest for >commercial reasons, but then what are you doing here? And how can you >criticize the "tokamak community" for not seriously considering your >concept if you aren't willing to tell us about it in sufficient >detail? Let me get this straight, are you saying that the tokamak community wants to seriously consider another concept which could replace it as candidate for fusion reactor of the century ... or two or three?? Do you think they will announce this turn around soon??? I'm ready, just have your Lab director send me an invitation. Or are you just joisting at wind driven leaves? BTW, I think I have done my share. The community has been investigating my first generation concept for many many years. But the tokamak keeps plodding along, getting larger and larger, and more and more complex, and more and more costly. But I will say this, there are now a number of chaps that do have guts and courage to drive against the monopolistic funding fancies of big single fusion concept government driven international programs. After all these chaps are getting support for AC work by hook or crook. That is, they have guised it as an weapon application (Phillips Lab), OR as refueling wad, (injected spheromak fuel package), Or they employ many other clever strategies to keep their work progressing. >> Of course we are interested, ... I am, that is, John?? >> But you have the papers I sent, or didn't you receive them?? >They got here. Thanks. (The address is OK, except the new ZIP is >85748.) I've only had time to start looking at them. >> Maybe you can make a few of your comments here on the net??? >I'm starting to build a web page, in which my plasmak comments will >figure prominently. Anything new I will also post here. >-- >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: cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Richard Schultz / Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Date: 1 May 1995 03:58:20 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >The helium in the metal and the water were both sampled. How? (i.e. how was the concentration determined?) -- Richard Schultz "The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?" --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992 cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / David Wyland / Re: Experimental methods in CF and particle physics Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Experimental methods in CF and particle physics Date: 1 May 1995 04:51:20 GMT Organization: Netcom A little food for thought from a lurker. Much of physics these days (at least measured in dollars and headcount) seems to be concerned with particle and/or nuclear physics. The quantities in this branch of physics are of the form A = b*10**x, where |x| > 8. Measurements of mass, energy length, equipment cost, time, experimental budget, events analyzed, etc. are of this form. Things are measured in GEV and angstroms, light years and femtoseconds. It takes a lot of time and money to generate results, and usually you need to do a lot of delicate acquisition and analysis to get reliable results. This is due, in part, to the wide range of magnitudes used in these experiments, where second order effects can invalidate the data. The experimental activity in CF and other thermal devices that seem to give unexpected results seem to be of the form where |x| < 4, the range of simple, classical, even high school physics. For example, things are measured in degrees, milliliters, seconds, and centimeters, usually to an accuracy of 0.1% or better by instruments that cost less than $1000. A reasonable argument can be made that these experiments may not need the same degree (or type) of care that is required to find the top quark, for example. This is not an argument for sloppy science. Care must always be taken, and all potential sources of error must be identified and evaluated for their effect on any results. This qualifies the results. What _is_ required is that the experiment be convincing to the open minded sceptic. If experiments produce valid results, are repeated often enough, in enough variety, by different people, they will be accepted. The people doing the accepting will not be the proponents nor the critics, but the third parties who are merely curious and have no oratorical stake in the results. Dave "The equipment in the lab may not have heard of your theories." "The proof of the engineering is in the working." cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 12:09 -0500 (EST) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: -> Well, more broadly, our eyes are intruments themselves, but we have an -> intuitive understanding of the limits of their resolution, and in -> the case of the A bomb or flight, it was clear the observed effects exceeded -> the error bars on our eyes. Can we really say that? I see the opposite arguement used when people claim to have seen UFO's, aliens or ghosts. In the case of the Atomic bomb, it left behind lots of physical evidence. I suspect however, if it had been tested only once on some remote island, and no one else was allowed to see the physical evidence, then those who witnessed it would be no more believed than those who are today reporting other unknown or strange phenomena. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / David Wyland / Re: All technology takes specialized, esoteric knowledge Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: All technology takes specialized, esoteric knowledge Date: 1 May 1995 05:02:32 GMT Organization: Netcom In jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > >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. .. stuff deleted ... Another note from a lurker. Jed makes a reasonable point, that most experiments require some kinds of specific technical knowledge. Most experiments do. Even the ones that seem so simple and obvious in the past tense. They are easy to replicate for the nth time because people improve their experimental technique and develop support instruments to make it easier. Even then, it's not easy. Try to make a working interferometer on the optical bench sometime. "Its easy when you know how." Dave "You can't come back from where you haven't been." (John Byram) cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / David Wyland / Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Date: 1 May 1995 05:44:25 GMT Organization: Netcom In matt@dogbert.lbl.gov (Matthew Austern) writes: > >It has now been six years since Pons and Fleischman reported "cold >fusion" in electrochemical Pd-D cells. I was excited at the time; >but my excitement died away pretty quickly. I didn't see the sort >of followup-up work and confirmation that would have convinced me .. text deleted ... Boy, are you going to get comments and flames on this one! However, I hope I can slip in with a quiet comment or two before the klaxons start up. It's been six years since the P&F flurry. If you look at most inventions, scientific or otherwise, it seems to take about 20-25 years before they become accepted and take off. So, it's early yet. >This is what the current situation looks like to me: > [+] A few groups report weird results from electrochemical cells. > [+] Most groups that try to replicate those results see nothing > weird, just normal electrochemistry. > [+] Of the groups that see something weird, that "something" > could be anything: neutrons, gammas, tritium, He(3), > He(4), or just slightly more heat than they think they > ought to get. Even among the groups with positive results, > it's rare for two groups to see the same thing. > [+] Most groups aren't even using the same experimental setup. > Sometimes the positive results involve Pd, sometimes Ni. > Sometimes they use D2O, and sometimes (!) H2O. > [+] Genuine replications are either rare or nonexistent. By a > "genuine replication" I mean two groups that use the same > experimental setup and get the same positive result. About the experiments to date: there is a lot of joyful confusion there. I don't know what's going on, either. It seems that some repurable people are getting some tough_to_ignore results. My impression is that that this is similar to most other times in history when a new piece of science or technology has been discovered. It always looks so much neater and logically sequential in the encyclopedia. > [+] There aren't any theories that can explain all of the positive > results, or even a decent fraction of them. That's the point. Something is happening that isn't supposed to happen. As the experimental situation gets sorted out, the theories will emerge. It is the usual chicken-and-egg race. Experiments give consistent, unexplained results. A theory tries to explain the results and predict the next experiment, which gives newer, better unexplained results. And so on. Assuming that the results are real (I don't know; flame off, please.), a theory will come. However, you can't come back from where you haven't been. (John Byram) > [+] The mainstream scientific community has no interest in cold > fusion. Of the few scientists who have looked at the subject > at all, most have concluded that the positive results are > simply the result of experimental error. A reasonable position. The results in CF produce "impossible" results at the classical physics level, and are not easily duplicated. Maybe it is all smoke, mirrors and self delusion. Given the "wild west" atmosphere associated with most new ideas, it is reasonable to wait it out until it is safer and there are some straightforward things to do. There are many other valid fields of investigation to do to pass the time, and these other fields were there before CF came on the scene. > [+] There aren't any major companies selling cold fusion-based > products. > [+] Cold fusion technology is not the basis of any industry. By the time this happens (or if it happens), the field will look much different. A repeatable technology is, by definition, a repeatable experiment, typically produced in volume. > >and cold fusion technology remains economically negligible? When will >it be time to give up? .. rest deleted ... When the hobby is no longer interesting or fun. It seems that it is still fun, if the experimenters are getting the results they say they are. Might even be useful. Might even learn something, if so. Dave "You say this is a wierd theory? And you believe in quantum mechanics?" cudkeys: cuddy1 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Dieter Britz / The vote Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: The vote Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:25:49 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Hello contributors to the fund that sent Tom to Griggs: time is up for making suggestions on what to do with the remaining $700. I have collected the following: (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated children of CNF researchers]? (2) Fund another trip. (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f. [e.g. Tom] (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors. (5) give to some charity of Tom's choice. (6) Since Marshall Dudley has already indicated that he doesn't want to accept any of these funds to further his expedition to perform quantitative tests on the Griggs device, I think we should seriously consider Scott Little's offer to test a similar pump to which have been ascribed O/U claims. It's the closest thing to an actual GG we could get for 700$. (7) Purchase a device/cell for a lab to test, provided the experiment is conducted 'on-line' or at least reported so. I'd kick in more $$ to support this. (8) Give it to the graduate student that writes the most compelling essay, posted to s.p.f, making the case either for or against cf. (9) Giving it to the National Science Foundation as 'seed money' to support the hot fusion program. ;-) That's it. The wording might be a bit strange in no. 6 etc, because I have taken it straight out of the email I got making that suggestion. OK, you have all of May to email me your vote (I have two already and will note them). Only those who have contributed may vote. Dick F, maybe you qualify, I'll check with Tom. This is pretty informal, so the exact manner in which you send your vote doesn't matter; either send me a plain number, or write an essay - as long as it's clear which choice you mean. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Questions from a Newbie Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie Date: Mon, 1 May 95 10:17:31 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) writes: "Well.....I don't think you can really, honestly classify Taubes' book as a "highly imaginative work of fiction"; I think he was perfectly factual in describing the null results of experiments carried out in places like Harwell, MIT, Georgia Tech, and others." I disagree. I do not know about Georgia Tech, but he is mistaken about Harwell and MIT. Long before he wrote the book, both of those experiments were carefully re-examined, and it was shown that both generated excess heat. Anyone familiar with the literature would know that. His descriptions of other experiments that I checked were completely incorrect. He made countless errors describing elementary facts about other experiments. For example, he claimed that researchers did not monitor and record voltage when their published papers clearly show that they did. He made astounding, elementary errors describing experimental protocols. For example, he assumed that when people test for tritium, they do not reserve a sample of electrolyte before the experiment begins as a control. "And I suspect he didn't make up _too_ many of the quotes he attributed to people like Chuck Martin and Steve Koonin." I doubt that he made up any quotes. I am sure that all of his "facts" came from somewhere, but I am equally sure they did not come from the scientific literature. "Right now, I'm not 100% sure exactly _who_ Taubes actually spoke to in writing his book." The people he interviewed are listed on pages 475 - 481. Only a few of them know anything about the subject. Most of them have not performed any experiment, published any scientific paper about CF, and many of them have never even bothered to read the literature, so they are not qualified to judge the work or to pontificate about it. "I'll have to take a more careful look at it in that regard. Now, which CF scientists have _you_ talked to? (I want to see if I recognize any names in either Taubes' or Huizenga's books.)" I have spoken to all of the leading people, but "speaking to people" does not do much good. It is far more important to read the literature, attend the conferences, and establish a base of knowledge. Then you will find it worthwhile to talk to the researchers. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Richard Blue / Re: Jones' hypothesis for E-Quest helium Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis for E-Quest helium Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 15:40:35 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Each time Jed Rothwell responds on a matter involving the basic facts surrounding a cold fusion experiment he shows that he has either missed a significant point entirely or he proceeds to dig himself in a little deeper. To my suggestion that there could be helium in both the water and the metal sample employed in E-Quest experiments Jed responded: "Helium in the metal and the water were both sampled..." That raises a question as to how these samples were tested for helium content, when they were tested for helium content, and under what experimental conditions were they tested for helium content. For example, if the D2O as delivered from the supplier in a sealed container were tested for helium prior to any experimental runs does this give any assurance that the D2O remains in a pristine state of purity up to the point where samples are drawn from the cover gas to be analyzed for helium. Perhaps a more telling question is, given that the D2O has been tested for helium content, why is not a determination of helium content of the D2O the definitive measurement for helium production in these experiments? If helium is actually being produced in the D2O or in materials immersed in the D2O shouldn't we expect the rise in helium concentration to be most dramatically demonstrated by an analysis of helium concentration in the D2O? Why bother with an analysis of the cover gas? That leads into the next point. How and when does helium disolved in the D2O move to the argon cover gas. Here we need only consider Jed's expert opinion (?) when he says: "There is no mechanism that would have caused a release of gas when there was excess heat..." Clearly there must be a mechanism that causes a release of gas from the D2O or the entire measurement of helium in the cover gas would be pointless. What Jed is telling us is that he does not know anything about that mechanism and what experimental parameters may influence it. He assumes that it is not likely to have anything to do with heat. Is there any experimental evidence to support that view? Is it even reasonable? If there are no facts in evidence we can always try to turn the debate to "people" issues. Jed says: "Blue should realize that the people doing these experiments .... are not fools." I would prefer that such questions not be brought into the discussion. However, I must respond to the charge, "Blue has not seriously addressed these reasons...." I have made a serious attempt to address any issue that Jed has raised relating to the E-Quest helium results. I did point out (seriously) that the evidence that has been quoted here as "proof" that the helium could not be from atmospheric contamination is inadequate. Jed did not respond in anyway to my comments on differences between the signature for "leaks" as opposed to "diffusion" Jed has not responded to my simple, direct question. IS THE GAS SAMPLE PROCESSED IN ANY WAY PRIOR TO ANALYSIS FOR HELIUM CONTENT? Jed, you certainly should know by now that I don't bow down in awe at your mention of "experts from E-Quest, Los Alamos, SRI, or elsewhere." In the cold fusion racket "experts" come onto the scene and then fad into oblivion in well damped waves. Perhaps we should start a list of your experts whose stars have clearly begun to fad. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Richard Blue / Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 16:11:08 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Sometimes the examples Jed Rothwell chooses to pull from the history of science and technology are tailor-made to be turned against his arguments. I would say that Marconi's struggle to establish trans-Atlantic radio communication should be seen as a clear demonstration of the folly of Jed's notion that some experiments don't need error bars. Firstly it should be noted that Marconi had no need to demonstrate the existance of electromagnetic waves. That had already been done! If you want to make a proper presentation of the history of Marconi's development work, Jed, surely you should mention Maxwell and Hertz. When Marconi undertook to establish radio communication as a commercial venture his initial efforts were plagued by the highly irreproducible signal-to-noise ratios. It was never a matter of demonstrating absolutely without any doubt that communication was possible. In fact is was sometimes not possible. There were "error bars" to be considered, and quite obviously there was a need to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Given Marconi's example, why is it that cold fusion advocates continue to fail to note that their signal-to-noise ratio is not improving. We still are being fed this notion that 1 watt will bloom into many kilowatts any day now, because there is simply no way in which a one watt signal could be misread. After six years haven't we seen enough examples that demonstrate that one watt signals can, indeed, be misread? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Barry Merriman / Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Date: 1 May 1995 17:58:02 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article matt@dogbert.lbl.gov (Matthew Austern) writes: > But what if that doesn't happen? What if ten years from now, or > twenty, or a hundred, the experimental situation is still a mess, the > scientific community still thinks that cold fusion is just a delusion, > and cold fusion technology remains economically negligible? When will > it be time to give up? > -- > Matt Austern matt@physics.berkeley.edu Never. See alt.physics.perpetual-motion-devices, alt.physics.psychics, alt.physics.ufos, alt.physics.ghosts, alt.physics.homeopathy, etc... :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Bryan Wallace / The Farce of Physics Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (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: The Farce of Physics Date: 1 May 1995 14:34:16 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. This post is in reply to the post by Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez dqua@Prometheus.EarthLink.Net who wrote in reply to my post that mentioned that I would no longer have the email address of wallace@eckerd.edu. Derick wrote: >What happened? Did you graduate or ..., well, ...? > >Just curiously, Bryan, how much physics training have you had? >I am at present reading your book (interesting reading)... >I will reserve judgement until I am finished with my second pass >and commentary, but I have a very difficult time believing your >claims. In reply to Derick, on 11 April I received and email letter from Marisa H. Pfalzgraf pfalzgmh@eckerd.edu with the Subject: Removal of Your Account. Marisa is the System Administrator of the Eckerd College Computer System, and she sent carbon copies of the letter to the Director of the Computer Center Sharon R. Setterling settersr@eckerd.edu and the Dean of Eckerd College Lloyd W. Chapin chapinlw@eckerd.edu. The contents of the letter are as follows: >Bryan, > >Due to repeated incidents where you have continued to post >articles to a wide number of newsgroups and the complaints we >are receiving not only from wide-spread Internet users but also >from local Eckerd College employees, your privilege of access >is being revoked. I will be removing your accounts on all >Eckerd College systems on Tuesday, April 18, 1995. If you need >any assistance in removing your files, please contact me. > >On November 16th, you were warned of the possibility of your >account being removed due to your posting to 212 newsgroups on >the net. Since that time, you cross-posted your article "The >Farce of Physics" on at least two occasions, February 10th to >25 newsgroups and around April 2 to 14 newsgroups. I have >received complaints for both incidents. > >If you have any questions or comments, you may contact Sharon or >me. After I received Marisa's letter I received a free 3.5" HD Windows software disk and opened a 10 hour free trial subscription to America Online and was impressed by the fancy graphics and sounds on my PC home computer. Then I found that the many hours I had spent for free connected to the Eckerd Computer would now cost $2.95 per hour which could add up to a large monthly bill for a retired person without much income! In the past 2 years I had used the Eckerd Internet connection to send out over 6000 free email copies of the ASCII 311KB version of my book "The Farce of Physics" to people all over the world. Now I find there seems to be no way to send the copies of the book from my new account, and if I can, it probable will cost a fair amount per book sent. Next I found that there seems to be no way to properly crosspost to more than one newgroup on the Usenet so there is no more than one file per post on any Internet computer system. I don't want to have people flame me again for spamming like they did last November, so I'll only post to sci.physics and put a short pointer message in the 13 other newsgroups I've been crossposting the "The Farce of Physics" thread on. I started this thread last November and since then there has been 305 posts by 131 people. My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text. Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will uncompress the .gz format. The stats from EU Net show a peek of 2013 copies sent by ftp last November. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so the fact that I can no longer send copies by email should not be much of a problem for those who can't get them by ftp. A paperback version of the book for about $5.95 should soon be available and I will post information on it on this thread. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via: URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html With regard to Derick's request for my educational background, I made up the following bio facts for the publisher of my book: Name: Bryan G. Wallace Marital Status: Married 1953, 4 children Education: High School G.E.D., Technical Degree in Electronics, U.S. Army 1950 Military Service: U.S. Army, 1948-1952 Work Experience: 1952-1957 - Minor jobs in auto mechanics, electrical work, and T.V. and radio repair 1957-1965 - Technical Assistant PR-25, General Electric Pinellas Peninsula Plant 1965-Present - Retired and living on investment income; research and study in physics Self educated in physics, retired in 1965 to live on investment income and devote full time to physics research, elected each year from 1974 to 1982 to an unpaid official position of Physics Research Associate at Eckerd College, have unofficial position of Associate from 1982 to the present time, was nominated and elected to membership in the American Physical Society in 1976, in 1992 I was elected to be a member of the organizing and editorial committee of the March 1994 III International Conference on Space and Time Problems in Natural Sciences to be held in St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Russia, in 1982 I won Forth prize in Arthur Schawlow's "Instant fame and small fortune" contest (Physics Today April 1982 page 72), I've published about 14 papers, 7 letters, and been a participant in around 18 conferences and meetings, many with published abstracts, and written 1 book titled "The Farce of Physics". Bryan cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / RichardFre / cmsg cancel <3nuovc$cr1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Originally-From: richardfre@aol.com (RichardFre) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <3nuovc$cr1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Date: 1 May 1995 15:03:28 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Please cancel this posting cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrichardfre cudlnRichardFre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Warren Lavallee / 2nd CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization Originally-From: warren@syra.net (Warren Lavallee) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.chem,sci.chem.electr chem,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.philosop y.tech,sci.physics.fusion Subject: 2nd CFV: sci.physics.fusion reorganization Date: 1 May 1995 16:26:18 -0400 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) moderated group sci.physics.fusion.research unmoderated group sci.physics.fusion.misc (replaces sci.physics.fusion) Newsgroups line: sci.physics.fusion.research Nuclear fusion (hot & cold). (Moderated) sci.physics.fusion.misc Nuclear (cold) fusion. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 10 May 1995. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions only contact Warren Lavallee . For questions about the proposed group contact Dieter Britz . DISTRIBUTION This CFV has been cross posted to: sci.chem sci.chem.electrochem sci.energy sci.energy.hydrogen sci.physics sci.skeptic sci.philosophy.tech CHARTER The scholarly discussion of fusion, including hot and cold, both of ongoing actual research and results as well as discussion of fusion; reports of advances in fusion science/technology and national policies on fusion. It is simultaneously proposed that the existing group's name be changed to sci.physics.fusion.misc. The main argument for this is along the lines that this is a trend, removing some administrative problems in the setting up of the new group; it would also prevent the presentation of the proposed new group as a subgroup of the old one. This proposal would be voted independently of the main one. Since this is a name change only, the charter of this 'new' group would be that of the existing one, sci.physics.fusion. MODERATION Scott Hazen Mueller (zorch@uunet.uu.net) has agreed to moderate the proposed group, to some extent automatically; i.e. there will be a positive list of posters whose postings will be accepted automatically. The list will initially be open to all, but may be modified according to posting behaviour; i.e. whether the postings are indeed scholarly and express a scientific interest etc as outlined in the charter above. Elementary enquiries and FAQ's will be passed on to the existing unmoderated group, sci.physics.fusion. Scott Hazen Mueller at present collects, mails and archives the Fusion Digest, containing all postings to sci.physics.fusion and is well respected and generally recognised as a neutral party. RATIONALE Motivation for the proposed new group is that in the existing group, sci.physics.fusion, there is a large volume of postings that are not about fusion. There are many cross postings about unrelated issues, there is propaganda for what amounts to perpetual motion machines under the catch cry of 'cold fusion' and plain crank postings. Moderation would reduce this to a smaller number of postings that those of us interested in the science of fusion would be interested in reading, instead of spending time skipping past most messages. In order to escape the unrelated postings, a private mailing list has been started recently, specifically to discuss a forthcoming cold fusion symposium and issues likely to be raised there. That mailing list has attracted the sort of argument one would like to see in the proposed group and it is our belief that this shows that there is a sufficient body of people interested in such discussions, given an appropriate group to post to. HOW TO VOTE Erase everything above the top "-=-=-=-" line and erase everything below the bottom "-=-=-=-" line. Do not erase anything between these lines and do not change the group name. Basically, remove everything except the ballot - we have to save them all on disk. Give your name on the line that asks for it. Place a YES or NO in the brackets next to the group name to vote for or against it. Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your reply inserts. Send MAIL to: voting@Syra.NET Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list. -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- sci.physics.fusion reorg Ballot (Don't remove this marker) Give your real name here: If you do not give a real name your vote may be rejected. [Your Vote] Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ ] sci.physics.fusion.research [ ] sci.physics.fusion.misc (replaces sci.physics.fusion) -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Neither ABSTAIN nor CANCEL messages are counted as votes; they serve only to cancel any previous vote. Abstentions are noted in the final vote list, whereas CANCEL removes your vote from that list entirely. (This is the only difference between the two.) Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge- ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. If you later change your mind you may vote again; only your last valid vote will count. Standard Guidelines for voting apply: no more than one vote per person, no more than one vote per account. If you attempt multiple votes or other vote fraud, all your votes may be canceled and your name published. The complete vote list will be posted with the vote result, including how each person voted. Note that Usenet votes are not done by secret ballot. There will then be a five-day period during which the published vote list may be corrected and any irregularities addressed. The requirements for group creation are 100 more YES votes than NO votes, and 2/3 of all counted votes being YES. cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenwarren cudfnWarren cudlnLavallee cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jonesse@plasma / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 1 May 95 11:13:19 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University Evidently due to a glitch in the system somewhere, Jed's post "Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium' just arrived here yesterday, and I have just read it this a.m. Dick Blue has already responded admirably; let me add a bit to the discussion. The history of helium contamination in cold-fusion-like cells goes way back -- all the way to 1926! "Two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, published a paper in Die Naturwissenschaften 14 956 (1926) in which they reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis at room temperature occurring whenever hydrogen is absorbed by finely ground *palladium* metal." Whoa- cold fusion in 1926?!?! "They performed *numerous* control experiments to check for possible errors in the interpretation of their results. ...Glass tubes, which gave off no detectable helium when heated in vacuum or in an oxygen atmosphere, yielded up absorbed helium in the quantities observed when heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen [Nature 706 (1927)]. Hence they were in a position to give an explanation of the occurrence of the observed very small quantities of helium in their experiments as coming from absorbed helium...without having to conclude the synthesis of helium from hydrogen. These authors then acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air, and published a retraction from their earlier claim." [J. Huizenga's book on CF, p. 13 -=- well done John!] So one sees the justifiable reason for skepticism about helium claims -- these have a *long* history! Jed cites two others who have claimed He production: Miles at China Lake and the folks at NTT. Prof. Hansen and I have written a paper showing that contamination has not been ruled out in the Miles et al. experiments, and this will be published soon*. And NTT -- please Jed, you're pulling our legs again! At the CF conference in Nagoya in 1992, Yamaguchi claimed production of heat and helium. Nate Hoffman (a helium-detection expert) then rose and asked Yamaguchi if he had *any* glass in his system, since the Paneth & Peters experience had shown that glass is a veritable sponge for helium. Yamaguchi said "No", emphatically. There was also a press conf. to tout these results to the world -- and at the same time NTT stock jumped up by billions of dollars! NTT even offered a "kit" for about $450,000 so anyone could repeat the experiment. Then the whole thing crashed: in subsequent questioning, Nate and I learned that in fact there is glass in the NTT set-up -- lots of it! Yamaguchi faxed me with an admission of glass windows 5 cm thick, and an apology. The NTT kit is no longer available, and Yamaguchi was 'released' from NTT (I understand -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Let me make it clear that George and Stringham of E-quest have much more to do to be sure that the helium they allegedly "produce" is not in fact due to contamination: 1st they must measure the He-4 and He-3 in the lab room during the experimental run -- this obvious check they did not do. But there is more. 2. They must look for the energy signature attached to the helium-nucleus synthesized, if they are to conclude that energy production is associated with helium synthesis. This may take some cleverness, but that's the business of science. (A surface-barrier detector for charged-particle detection would be great; coupling this with a thin dE/dx detector would be state-of-the-art. They have not done any of this.) 3. When I spoke to Russ George, he said that their input power was determined using a *clip-on ammeter* and a voltmeter. Would anyone trust excess-heat claims when the input power is so measured? No where near good enough, guys -- hopefully they're using better equipment now. (How about it?) 4. They must be able to perform the experiment reproducibly. In this spirit, I must ask, why does E-quest still talk about results from about a year ago as their best data? Haven't they been able to scale up the helium production? Or repeat those earlier results? Apparently not. This raises (to me) a red flag that they are chasing noise. They should think of other checks -- if they will ever publish details of their experiments, I may be able to help further. And that's the way I look at this, folks -- my comments can and should help them to establish (or dismiss) an important claim. I would be happy, very happy, if some new physics were involved here -- that's what makes science exciting! On the other hand, claiming "We can completely rule out contamination as the source of the helium we're measuring" as Russ George is quoted in C&EN of 10 April 1995 -- this is premature and unsubstantiated hype. Makes me puke, well, almost. Get serious, guys. You're not going to overthrow existing evidence and ideas without extensive checks and reproducibility, using state-of-the-art equipment. I've even offered to help George and Stringham-- so far they have not accepted my offer. Why not? --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jonesse@plasma / cancel <1995May1.101159.2201@plasma.byu.edu> Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cancel <1995May1.101159.2201@plasma.byu.edu> Date: 1 May 95 11:14:23 -0600 cancel <1995May1.101159.2201@plasma.byu.edu> cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Date: Mon, 1 May 95 17:10:08 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard Schultz writes: >How? (i.e. how was the concentration determined?) The folks over at Rockwell did that, they might be able to tell you a bit more than I can. They vaporized a 10 milligram sample of the metal and ran it through a mass spectrometer. Extrapolating back to the full size of the metal sample and the full amount of helium the E-Quest device produced, they figured they would have had to vaporize ten billion samples to liberate that much helium. As one fellow remarked, Los Alamos would have noticed. It would have shown up big time on their electric bill! I don't reckon they could even fit 10 million kilograms of metal into the room. E-Quest has actually vaporized metal samples with their high powered CF reaction, but they have not scaled it up to handling 10 billion samples in few hours, as far as I know. That was helium-4. There was not enough helium-3 in the metal to detect, which is not surprising since it came from earth not the moon. They found plenty of helium-3 in the gas after the excess heat runs. That couldn't have been contamination either. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jedrothwell@de / Re: patterson and griggs patents? Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: patterson and griggs patents? Date: Mon, 1 May 95 17:12:37 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I do not know about resources on the net, but there is an outfit in Washington DC that will mail you patents for $3 each (more for foriegn patents, $10 or $20 I think). You can drive downtown to get them for free but it is more convenient to fax these people: The Library Connection Tel: 804-758-3311 Fax: 800-325-2221 - Jed cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Bryan Wallace / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (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: 1 May 1995 16:37:34 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. David M. Cook (dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu) wrote: : In article <3nje69$7bn@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, : David de Hilster wrote: : >Are we living in the dark ages? What is going on out there? This smacks : >exactly of what Bryan talks about in his book. [...] : He was kicked off for spamming, not for scientific apostasy. I suspect : that most of the people who complained couldn't give a rat's ass about : the scientific issues BW was writing about. : Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was not aware that his spamming was that bad : that it justified yanking his account. I think they may have been a : little too harsh. : Dave Cook I find you very naive Dave. My thread was not spamming since it is properly crossposted with only one file per computer system and it is on topic for each newsgroup. In fact, I limit my posting to groups that have responded to past postings, by book requests, email letters, or positive posts with regard to the topics in my book. The real reason for my loss of computer privileges at Eckerd College was that several faculty members felt that posting a thread with such a controversial title would have a negative impact on the College. I realized I was pushing it by my posting, and now my use of a commercial Internet provider will allow me to be much more open in my crusade to reform modern physics. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / jedrothwell@de / Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: Mon, 1 May 95 17:43:44 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) In response to my description of Marconi's 1901 trans-Atlantic long wave transmission, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: "When Marconi undertook to establish radio communication as a commercial venture his initial efforts were plagued by the highly irreproducible signal-to-noise ratios. It was never a matter of demonstrating absolutely without any doubt that communication was possible. In fact is was sometimes not possible. There were "error bars" to be considered, and quite obviously there was a need to improve the signal-to-noise ratio." Blue is confusing the issue here. He and I are talking about two completely different events. He refers to Marconi's initial establishment of commercial radio communication, which took place in 1896. An important improvement was introduced by Karl Braun in 1897. I refer to the trans-Atlantic transmissions, which began with an single test transmission in 1901 with a kite antenna. Full scale commercial transmissions began in Jan. 19, 1903. Contrary to Blue's claims, the issue of contention was not S/N ratio or error bars or the existence of radio waves, it was the curvature of the earth. Marconi thought that by some mechanism, radio waves could go around the curve of the earth. The scientists who attacked, denigrated and ridiculed him thought this was impossible. It did not occur to them that there might be some mechanism that would allow it; that is, they did not realize that there might be some aspect of nature they did not know about: the ionosphere. Physicists often develop the illusion that they know everything, and that they can safely ignore experimental evidence of unexpected phenomena that contradicts their theories. Marconi and Braun shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the ionosphere and establishment of trans-oceanic communication. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Jim Carr / Re: Certificates Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Certificates Date: 1 May 1995 18:04:33 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article <3nltao$iou@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: > >I have received several mailings thanking me for the certificate. >I hasten to point out that Scott Hazen Mueller and Nancy did the >work of printing the certificates. I just signed them and mailed >them out with the picture. They certainly were nicely done, but the picture alone was worth the donation to the project! What an operation you have, Tom. -- James A. Carr | "My pet light bulb is a year old http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | today. That is 5.9 trillion miles Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | in light years. Your mileage may Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | vary." -- Heywood Banks cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Tom Droege / Re: Griggs Trip Publicity Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Griggs Trip Publicity Date: 1 May 1995 22:59:50 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <3noprd$l4t@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says: > >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 ... I am told that this says I was responsible for designing the Griggs electronics. To set the record straight, I did not. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Tom Droege / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: 1 May 1995 23:03:41 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <1995Apr27.124603.2198@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says: > >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 Me too! Nothing like a gaggle of shiny topped skeptics to make Jed happy on the way to the bank. But I think we should think up a suitable penalty for Jed if the water heater does not appear by - say January 1 1997? What say Jed, two shaved heads against your one. How can you resist those odds? Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / E Corp / Re: info on hair care Originally-From: eaton1@coho.halcyon.com (Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: info on hair care Date: 1 May 1995 19:30:31 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services RichardFre (richardfre@aol.com) wrote: : I will be glad to mail anybody the latest information on Hair. I have : devoted my entire medical practice to : hair loss. please send SASE to Dr. Dilon Ellis, 155-21 Cherry Ave, : Flushing, NY 11355 -- To complain about advertizers, try postmaster@aol.com. I expect that if no one objects to advertizing like the above, then there will be quite a lot more of it in the future. -Bill Beaty cudkeys: cuddy1 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / 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: 2 May 1995 00:46:58 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote: : Nothing like a gaggle of shiny topped skeptics... The fact that some of us are losing hair due to the natural course of aging should not be interpreted as indicating that we are siding one way or the other on the issue. :-) -- - 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: cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / Richard Schultz / Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis on E-quest helium Date: 2 May 1995 04:20:30 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >>How? (i.e. how was the concentration determined?) >The folks over at Rockwell did that, they might be able to tell you a bit more >than I can. They vaporized a 10 milligram sample of the metal and ran it >through a mass spectrometer. What kind of mass spectrometer? >They found plenty of helium-3 in the gas after the excess heat runs. >That couldn't have been contamination either. Bzzt. Nice try, but thanks for playing. If you don't understand why I am skeptical about claims of He being detected mass spectrometrically against what can quite reasonably assumed to be a large hydrogen background, then you have no business making claims about their level of competence. The reason that I ask what kind of mass spec they used is that if it was a quadrupole, I am skeptical about their ability to correctly measure the amount of He present even if they could prove a zero hydrogen background. -- Richard Schultz "The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?" --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.01 / Doug Shade / Re: Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Date: 1 May 1995 15:51:07 GMT Organization: Motorola LICD > 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. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hey... this is the internet... how do we know Dr. Jones isn't already bald!? Doug Shade rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / William Rowe / Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 04:57:38 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) I wrote: Jed implies the easily detected heat puts the Patterson cell in the same category as heavier than air flight. I would argue this isn't the case. If instrumentation is needed to observe the effect then error bars are needed. In response, Jed cited Marconi's transatlantic radio communication and Morse's telegraph as counter examples, illustrating something that required instrumentation and no error bars. I agree these things do not need error bars. However, these also do not address the point I was making. Perhaps it would have been better if I had stated measurements require error bars. By measurement, I mean something that results in numerical data other than simple counting of events. Neither Morse's telegraph message nor Marconi's transatlantic radio message involved measurement. Other similar examples of things which required instruments are Pasteur's observation of microbes or Galileo's observation of Jovian moons. None of these are measurements. All are observations which do not require error bars. In fact, since they are not numerical there is no meaningful error bars that could be applied. Back to the Patterson cell. The result which is being reported is inherently numerical. So many joules of excess energy, so many degrees of temperature rise etc. These are measurements that need error bars. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / Jurgen Botz / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: 2 May 1995 05:31:12 GMT Organization: Mount Holyoke College, MA, USA In article <3o3pcd$bar@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Tom Droege wrote: >But I think we should think up a suitable penalty for Jed if the >water heater does not appear by - say January 1 1997? What say Jed, >two shaved heads against your one. How can you resist those odds? Well, I've put my funny-money on CF in the idea futures, but it has no judgement date and the claim is specifically about D-Pd CF. Maybe Jed should add a light water claim. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, try "http://if.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml", the concept seems to be particularly relevant to this newsgroup. ;-) cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenjbotz cudfnJurgen cudlnBotz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / John A / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: "John A. Rusi" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 06:08:20 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever You hit upon something inherent in American education. Namely the untrue concept that we know 99% of what can be known. I think we probably know less than a an almost infinite number of magnitudes less than that. Edison always said his work always, always went far beyond what was known. All this bluster about CF is from "experts" who have never traveled far from what (they were taught) was known. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwindski cudfnJohn cudlnA cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / John A / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: "John A. Rusi" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 06:08:26 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever You hit upon something inherent in American education. Namely the untrue concept that we know 99% of what can be known. I think we probably know less than a an almost infinite number of magnitudes less than that. Edison always said his work always, always went far beyond what was known. All this bluster about CF is from "experts" who have never traveled far from what (they were taught) was known. cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenwindski cudfnJohn cudlnA cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 2 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------