1995.05.03 / John A / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: "John A. Rusi" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 07:13:09 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Well what was all this money to send you there for anyway? why did you not make measurements youself? cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenwindski cudfnJohn cudlnA cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / David Wyland / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 3 May 1995 07:44:41 GMT Organization: Netcom In <3o6om3$spe@deadmin.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > >In article "John A. Rusi" writes: >> 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. >> > >This is not a question of what we have not yet discovered, its >a question of what we have already _verified_ in the past. There >may be a vast amount of unkown future knowledge, but how >much of it will require us to make _major_ revisions of previous >knowledge. This is virtually unheard of----even such radical theories >as special relativity, general relativity and quantum-mechanics did >not overturn the established physics of the day. They mainly added >to it, by _extending it_ into a realm where it was previously known >to be poorly applicable. No one came along and found that gravity >was really an inverse 8th power law instead of a 2nd power law. If CF turns out to be valid, there appear to be a number of plausible mechanisms that could explain it without invalidating all of physics. The point is, "no one" in the past seems to have looked at what happens in certain very specific kinds of electrochemical reactions which generate the CF effects. In the same way, "no one" in the past investigated what would happen if you ionized a helium-neon mixture with semi-transparent mirrors at the ends (i.e., a helium-neon laser). I think Mr. Rusi still has a point. The universe of even very practical, mundane things to know is necessarily much larger than what can be known. One of the main purposes of a theory is to predict the results of an infinite number of experiments of a certain type by performing only a few. But all the theories that exist do not exhaust all experimental possibilities. Like Cantor dust, their infinities do not include all the space. > >In the CF arena, the main issue is nuclear reaction rates, which >we think are pretty well understood, and the CF-ers like to claim that >these rates are radically altered, and the reactions themselves modified, >by the prescence of the solid state. Now, this idea is superficially >appealling, but our understaning of nuclear processes makes it unlikely, >and further is not, to my knowledge, any theoretical or experimental >evidence that clearly supports this yet. (Certainly no one has diagnosed >nuclear reactions occuring in the solid state with any where near the precision >that they have been monitored in classical nuclear physics---so the >experimental jury has to be considered out, even by CF proponents.) > .. sign off deleted ... A small point: the nuclear reactions are assumed as a starting hypothesis, if I understand correctly, as the seed of a theory. The CF effect, if experimentally valid, is the thing to be explained. The current nuclear hypothesis in its many variations seems the most likely one. If not, try something else. To say that no other hypotheses are possible without violating known science seems to me to be merely a lack of imagination. Dave Wyland "...but nobody understands this! Nobody!" Feynman on quantum mechanics, Columbia lectures (on film) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / John A / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: "John A. Rusi" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 07:36:38 GMT Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever You replied to the helium/glass sponge attacks what about the E-quest questions? This is the classic debate I been looking for in this group. Can anyone prove he still is employed? That should be easy. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenwindski cudfnJohn cudlnA cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Paul Koloc / Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Synchrotron Radiation in Tokamak's Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 05:49:53 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <3nqp25$10v@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter writes: >In article Arthur >Carlson TOK, awc@spelsf.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes: >So while synchrotron losses from a high-beta advanced-fuels machine >will be lower than a low-beta advanced-fuels machine, I think they're >still going to be higher than your standard D-T tokamak. Yes, and then there are the harmonics! In really strong fields and energetic plasmas, the harmonics to the 10th can be excited and that can really move energy. >> Higher beta also >> gives you a higher power density, hence a cheaper machine for a given >> power level. This, of course, is easier said than done. Another route >> would be to reflect the radiation back into the plasma, but this does >> not seem to be feasible. >Actually the answer we were given on this in class was that it *was* >possible to reflect *synchrotron* radiation back into the plasma with >a high level of efficiency. YES if you can close up those beam ports, rf obstructions, and vac ports. My, my what a clutter. You too, could stop the leak. Probably that silver painted mylar "boy scout survival blanket" could be draped across everything that looks absorbing or non-reflective within the toroidal chamber. Naw, on second thought it would probably just add a slightly larger impurity source. >>(Paul Koloc will give you a different >> opinion on both these points.) The calculations would be relatively >> straightforward, except that a reactor plasma is typically optically >> thick to synchrotron radiation, so you need to take density and >> temperature profiles into account. Hey! I'm agreeing, as usual you are doing quite well when your addressing problems you recognize in your pet dinosaur. >Right, it's a messy one. Really, one doesn't give a hoot about the plasma synch generator, it's the surround that counts. Just close it up tight to reflectable radiation, and it will all get back to the plasma, so the net heat flux from this source will be net pretty close to naught. >Synchrotron radiation is lower in fusion machines than in accelerators >primarily because (a) the particles have much less energy, so they >don't radiate as much, and (b) the plasma is generally optically-thick >to the radiation, which provides a certain measure of insulation against >radiation losses. Right, it radiates only from the surface, (or is reflected at the surface.) >The dominant method of radiation loss in most fusion plasmas is (I think) >not actually synchrotron radiation, but bremsstrahlung. Because we have >electrons colliding with ions, the electron bremsstrahlung radiation is >large. Bremsstrahlung losses also scale unfavorably with plasma beta, >and will be quite a problem for high-beta advanced-fuels machines. Actually, scaling is not unfavorable, since remember as the Beta increases the optical thickness also inceases, but also power density generated increases in density by the square ofthe Beta (n^2). Besides it can only get so "black". So, if it wasn't for the highly reflecting super electron dense Mantle's inner surface during a p^11B burn, then the loss from synchr radiation enhanced by higher harmonics would be very troublesome, indeed. But, the skill and genious of the system's approach has placed the elegant multi-functional and straight forward solution in place. We call it the PLASMAK(TM) generator. >*************************** >Robert F. Heeter >Email: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu >Web: http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter >Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University >As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton! +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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: cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Jane Selin / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: selin@admaix.sunydutchess.edu (Jane Selin) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 3 May 1995 03:03:24 GMT Organization: Dutchess Community College Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote: : I have been on TV before. Out in South Dakota circa 1986-87 I was put : on TV bicycling into Vermillion in the middle of winter. : I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour : with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I I wish we could see it in Poughkeepsie. Especially if you admit that you Gay on the trans-galatic network that the tralfamadorians installed before that test pilot tied out that new fuel. J.S. Don't respond Archie, I don't recognize a joke within a joke even if it gets told on TV. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenselin cudfnJane cudlnSelin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Arthur TOK / Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Date: 03 May 1995 09:15:41 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > " from an engineering point of view, how valid is this [extrapolation]." > To which you glibly reply: > > >Incomparably more valid than an extrapolation from a spark in a garage > >to a rocket to Mars. > > Just a spark? But - it is one that produces a stable, high internal > energy strongly compressible (and heatable) magnetoplasmoid? One which > doesn't have the "wall problem" created by surrounding the highest > temperature plasma in the universe with some of the coldest matter in > the universe (cryo-cooled mags). Was this a cheap shot, my friend? It was an easy shot, because you've been setting yourself up for it, but it was not a "cheap" shot--you deserved it. Even if you have produced the miracle you think you have, it is a small, cold, high Z plasma with no internal heating. A reactor grade plasma is none of these. The tokamak program tends to build new machines with parameters at most 3 or 4 times larger than existing machines. That is a small enough jump to be sure the new machine will work, but large enough that you will learn something interesting. The development of a compact concept can proceed much faster, but it can't skip any steps, and it is always possible that it will stop working at some scale. With respect to the pulse time of tokamaks, we have regimes of good confinement that are stationary over many energy and particle confinement times. The only thing that could stop a steady state machine from functioning the same way is a phenomenon with a longer characteristic time scale. Candidates are impurity accumulation, wall pumping, and wall heating. We take the difficulties of extrapolation seriously, you don't. > NOTE: > System engineering, isn't exactly the most successfully utilized > discipline in development the tokamak concept. I don't think you have any idea how many engineers are working at the plasma labs and on the design of ITER. The tokamak program is not just physicists. And well we're on the subject, I would like to point out that *real* engineers, embodied by the IEEE, have endorsed an expanded fusion program. They support alternate concepts and ICF, but the first item on the list is ITER. Take note: Professional engineers ... support ... a tokamak. > In conclusion I don't think you are taking these matters seriously. The engineers I work with are well aware of torques and image currents. They tell me what we're asking for is difficult, but doable, and if we would like to make their life easier, we will look for plasma physics that will allow a tokamak to run with less current and lower peak heat loads. So let me go do that now ... -- To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin Dr. Arthur Carlson Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics Garching, Germany carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Arthur TOK / Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Date: 03 May 1995 09:29:54 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > >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?? Yes. We are constantly considering alternatives. We support the tokamak because it is the most promising fusion energy concept at this time. And we support fusion because it is one of a few promising long term energy options. And we support energy so that Mom can bake her apple pie. The newest paper you sent me starts to be the sort of information I need to decide what I think of your experimental results. It needs to simmer for a while. -- To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin Dr. Arthur Carlson Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics Garching, Germany carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 3 May 1995 21:40:01 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu) writes: > this is pathetic. > i wish you ran a public company, i would short the shit out of it. > > -- > > Wendy Gramm For First Lady !!! > dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu Lu for you to be on TV, you really have to watch your choice of words. But your wish came true. For although The Plutonium Atom Foundation is not a public corporation as yet. It will be once it licences out some of it's patents which are patent pending. In the meantime, PAF owns shares of publicly traded companies. Three of its big holdings is Marion Merrell Dow MKC, Upjohn UPJ, and Schering-Plough SGP. So then, D. T.K. Lu please be true to your word and start shorting any one of those companies with the vengeance you speak of , . . (ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Bob Michaelson / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Bob Michaelson Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 3 May 1995 22:11:36 GMT Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu) wrote: > > In article <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, > Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >I have been on TV before. Out in South Dakota circa 1986-87 I was put > >on TV bicycling into Vermillion in the middle of winter. > > > >TV waves are forever unless intercepted. What I mean by that is that if > >higher intelligence is listening in on us from another planet, they can > >see me pedalling into Vermillion. Then, so very importantly, tune in to > >(our) Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE "Slice of Life in > >Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 and for those in the armed forces > >(military) that is 19:30 hour. (I just did not want the armed forces to > >miss this treat.) > > > > In Boston 7:30 PM on Channel 5 WCVB > > > > In Hanover carried on New England Cable News Channel, channel 34 > >at > > 8:30 PM > > > > I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour > >with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. I > >especially give kind thanks to two very nice people, both Lyn and Art > >who made this thing happen! > > > > So then, if our imagined superior intelligence is listening in on > >Earth, on 23 May 1995 (their time) they will be self assured, comforted > >by the fact that us Earthlings will have finally got that science > >discovery correct. > > > > I think we are the most advanced creatures in the universe, though. > > this is pathetic. > i wish you ran a public company, i would short the shit out of it. > What a moronic metaphor. > > Wendy Gramm For First Lady !!! Ah, that explains it. Bob Michaelson rmichael@nwu.edu cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenrmichael cudfnBob cudlnMichaelson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 22:22:22 GMT Organization: Improving blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: [snip] >There are some among us who may hold the view that theories to support >deuterium fusion as the source for "excess heat" do have sufficient merit >to keep the cold fusion debate alive. But what about a theory for cold >fusion fueled by H2O? OK you heavy hitters on the cold fusion theory >team when are you going to step up to the plate and take a swing at >that one? >Dick Blue Dick, I'm no heavy hitter, however if one is going to entertain the notion of cold fusion at all, then surely at least two possibilities present themselves. 1) It is the small amount of deuterium in the light water that is undergoing fusion. - I believe Jed has mentioned in a previous posting that these cells actually run better with heavy water? 2) There is a fusion reaction going on between the protium, and either the metal of the cathode, or dare I suggest even oxygen? (1H + 16O -> 17F + 600 keV ;first step) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Paul Koloc / Re: All technology, esoteric knowledge, Does Sci Drive??? alone? Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: All technology, esoteric knowledge, Does Sci Drive??? alone? Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 19:36:16 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <3o0fas$ev9@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes: > .. . Often you appear unable distiguish between >experiment and theory, and frequently appear to lose sight of >which of these is the driver, and which is the driven. And pray tell me, which is which. My understanding is that they are two separate trees, each interpollenating the other. >In this case, you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between >the esoteric and the scientific -- entirely opposite poles of >the knowledge spectrum. Esoteric?? are you certain you don't mean NEOteric?? Esoteric simply means it isn't yet shared by the masses, but rather passed around privately. Einstien's work was esoteric for a while. Science drives then why not a laser in 1919?? Technology does rescue. So much so, apparently, that the laser wasn't a reality until T.H. Maiman, Hughes produced one using a flashlamp and ruby. Yet six journals refused publication, until Nature published (a different editor to be sure). Once made available in real working physical embodiement then it could be widely accepted and it was "ok" for the lower chaps to study without losing tenure, and then for "Companies" to expand .. . Javan at BTL. Now what is the "SCIENCE of the laser"?? Well once it's built, then it can be investigated, so here is an example of Electrical Engineering "driving science". And that drive didn't just stop there, since the laser is a tool physicists and chemists (as well as engineers) employ n nearly uncountable ways to measure the nature of things. > .. The esoteric knowledge of the alchemists >enabled them to turn base metals into gold (not), while scientific >foundations of engineering and technology led to the development >of electric generators and motors, internal combusion engines, >aircraft, electric light bulbs, mercury thermometers, atomic >bombs, and, yes, ever Fermilabs confirmation of the 'Top Quark.' Gee, I thought Tesla was more of an engineer? or are you referring to that "other guy's dc motor". And wasn't Edison the nation's chief tinkerer? He was more technologist. How about fusion? We KNOW what fusion is. Right SCIENCE??? We know how to make it. Just do like the stars and COMPRESSION HEAT plasma in a SUSTAINED WAY, and surround the hot stuff with a media which doesn't COOL IT much or transport impurities net inward. We KNOW this because this is how the vast majority of working fusion machines work!!! Now can science help us more .... OBVIOUSLY NOT, since the physics run the fusion program (well... used to be, but now a self preserving rotten beast) hasn't gotten us into a concept which can get us to the above desired and NECESSARY plasma regimes and characteristics. So way is it so hard for a scientist to make a mechanically compressible chamber that traps mag flux and improves by passing the fusion energy into a medium which can directly drive electric currents at 60 hertz?? They aren't taught THAT stuff nor are they taught to think, no just rote physics and they must use vacuum chambers with solid state walls, so that's all they know. What else, pray tell, could thier fusion dream be then the nightmare we call the tokamak?? So back off on this crap that physics runs the knowledge world, there are two co-equal funnels up there and they both have to be filled. Engineering Physics (sciences) and Sytems Engineering should probably be the drivers for commercial development of ANY technology, and that is not the case here as far as I can see. But the to funnels are technology and science. Thank God the Japanese and the Germans know this, otherwise we would be without a lot of good off the shelf consumer technology. These two dumb blind idiots that could help each other seem to just be happy sitting back and playing school boys.. (sorry females of the species, my understanding of human dynamics is limited or I might have included your gender). >By contrast, esoteric knowledge has given us dowsing, mind >reading, astral projection, and the para-sciences (with not >a germ of a value in the entire lot). And you are forgetful of the crap that "science" has projected as truth??? Come on. this just isn't a credible or balanced presentation. >Speculation is wonderful, but realize the speculation unfounded >in scientific principle has a name -- Science Fiction. No it doesn't have this name. It's gives us the list of possibilities from which to select a better model. Without it science is creed, not a living function -- growing in understanding and knowledge. Perhaps you are paradigm locked. >Realize that this is the realm of your writings and speculations. A fertile imagination is the first requisite of a great scientist. >I can only hope that your enthusiastic ignorance is not contagious, >and that naive individuals are not drawn to foolish investments in >"esoteric CF technology" based upon your ravings! Ah! the truth, the bugging itch, the seed of discontent REARS it's ugly little head, and what spews forth??? Do I see concern for the Global TAXPAYER that do NOT buy into this wasteful fusion research program, but nevertheless are helpless to stop it?? NO! Why?? perhaps Harry benefits some how, and he doesn't want some jerk mucking it up by doing something smarter. I'll give you a clue, there are people out there doing MUCH smarter things and getting paid by the government, so don't count on the tokamak being " forever and ever .. .and .. .. .. ... .. ... . . . . . pop -- oops! So Physics (science) (theory) drives .. .. Ha! they wouldn't have much to drive if that were really the case. kind of like our fusion electric heated homes. nada? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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: cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / WThreeton / Nuclear Weapons Originally-From: wthreeton@aol.com (WThreeton) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Nuclear Weapons Date: 3 May 1995 21:47:28 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Please send me any information on the construction of nuclear weapons. I am writing a paper for my high school physics class. Your assistance is appreciated. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenwthreeton cudlnWThreeton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Greg Ewing / Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Originally-From: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Date: 4 May 1995 01:06:34 GMT Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand In article <3o8dq1$plg@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) writes: |> |> Fine by me. If you can *boil* a gallon of water from an Energizer |> D-cell and nothing else, that counts. |> |> PS: it has to keep working. Haven't you heard? Energiser: it keeps going, and going, and going... :-) |> matt Greg cudkeys: cuddy4 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.04.30 / Chen Jiahao / Fusion energy release wanted Originally-From: jiahao@temasek.teleview.com.sg (Chen Jiahao) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fusion energy release wanted Date: 30 Apr 1995 17:03:14 +0800 Organization: Teleview, Singapore Telecom Hi! I just want to ask about the following: 1. What is the *complete* fusion chain like? (H->He->what?) Inclusive of other consequences...maybe ending up like a "fusion web" 2. How much energy is released at each stage? (%age of total mass AND exact numbers, if possible) 3. If Iron (Fe) is the last step in the fusion chain, how did all the other stuff like uranium and xenon come about? 4. What is the possibility of having fusion plants within: a) 10 years b) 50 years c) 100 years d) never e) when it will be 100% 5. Okay. Suppose fusion plants are practical and used for power generation. What would it be? Nuclear energy-> electricity, or will the heat release still go into the chug-chug-puff-puff steam turbine? Besides, how many watts would you think they would produce? cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenjiahao cudfnChen cudlnJiahao cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / paterricus@del / Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Originally-From: paterricus@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Date: Wed, 3 May 95 23:11:25 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) It seems to me that the error in the Pons/Fleischman discovery was to label it as fusion. It should have been termed the Pons/Fleischman Phonomenon. Then it should have been left to qualified physicists to theorize and attempt to explain the phenomenon. This may take many years. We still don't understand ball lightning. It may have nothing to do with fusion at all. Or it may be some mind-bogglingly complicated shifting of quarks. However, a phenomena need not be understood or explained to be put to some use-- even if the use is merely demonstrating fascinating experiments. If the experimenters are able to produce practical devices, then the presence or lack of theoretical explanations is secondary. ........Jim H. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenpaterricus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / prasad / Re: Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Prize Challenge for future Lightwater CF demo! Date: 3 May 1995 16:28:58 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <3nr8pj$5d@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: |> 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. :-) Or using *Ganga* water - it's suitably holy. Hare rama, hare krishna. Though there's a chance this prize may never be claimed (since there *are* those who dispute *fusion*). :) cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / 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: 3 May 1995 17:50:11 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , "John A. Rusi" says: Well what was all this money to send you there for anyway? why did you >not make measurements youself? > > > > As any one at a major university or government laboratory will tell you, the world is full of people with perpetual motion machines, cars running on water etc.. They all want you to explain to them why their device will work if only some minor problem is fixed which you (the major laboratory person) is supposed to fix. So the first job is to look and see if they have done decent scientific work to back up their claim. In my opinion, Griggs is not doing credible work. As evidence I point to the lack of a log book. This may seem like a trivial objection to you, but it is just indicitive of the work quality. To make an astounding claim, an astounding experiment is required. Griggs' work is just sloppy amateur work. Why should I waste my time doing work if Griggs has not done some good work first? But if Griggs does some good work, and publishes a description of it, then we will all look at it. As before, I propose that he can get it published here. A lot of people will look at it. What more can he ask in science? Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.02 / 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: 2 May 95 09:55:18 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > 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 Jed conveniently left out his comments to which I was responding, in which *he* (not I) "dragged in" a reference to fusion for light water cells: Jed> "We must build 20 kilowatt light water reactors so we can convince the world that cold fusion is real." I challenge also Jed's assertion that I "know/ perfectly well that the calorimetry proves the point beyond any doubt." Au contraire -- Tom Droege examined the Griggs device and concluded that there is no conclusive evidence supporting the notion that it "gets energy from ... light water" -- and I agree with Tom, not Jed. Finally, Jed erroneously states "He [Jones] knows perfectly well that it makes no difference whether it is fusion, ZPE or green cheese enrgy [sic]..." In reality, the basis of the putative energy is crucial to environmental and economic and finally to societal acceptability. Jed's attempt to steer clear of troubling theoretical objections is noteworthy, as is his vain attempt to put words in my mouth. --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Kennel / Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Expanded PLASMAK tutorial now on the world wide web Date: 3 May 1995 17:09:44 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN Arthur Carlson TOK (awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote: > In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > > >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?? > Yes. We are constantly considering alternatives. We support the > tokamak because it is the most promising fusion energy concept at this > time. And we support fusion because it is one of a few promising long > term energy options. And we support energy so that Mom can bake her > apple pie. Dr Koloc, the 'tokamak community' is like the 'internal combusition engine' community. GM is in the business of selling cars to get people around. If trained hamsters were to do it cheaper, they'd sell V-60 hamster engines. Was AT&T in the "copper-cable-analog-transmission-of-signal" industry? > Dr. Arthur Carlson > Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics > Garching, Germany > carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Kennel / Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Date: 3 May 1995 17:16:49 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > Relating this to the Cravens CETI cell, some people have said that a closed > loop self-sustaining motor would prove the issue without error bars or numbers. > This is true. But suppose you saw an open loop test along these lines: a > small battery powers a large cell, hich is extremely hot and which causes > a gallon of water to boil continuously. (This would be impossible to do > at this stage, but just pretend you see it). This is qualitatively the same > as the small 1-watt test, and since it is not self-sustaining, a person > could argue that it requires a numeric, quantitative analysis with error > bars. However, anyone with common sense knows that a small battery cannot > output enough energy to make a gallon of water boil, so this test would > obviously be so far above the error bars it would be ridiculous to doubt it. OK. Fine by me. If you can *boil* a gallon of water from an Energizer D-cell and nothing else, that counts. PS: it has to keep working. Next D-cell, next gallon of boiled water. Et cetera. (no special preparation that could store extra energy, but that would still be very interesting physics doing it that way). > - Jed matt cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Kennel / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 3 May 1995 17:21:36 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN David Wyland (dcwyland@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > If CF turns out to be valid, there appear to be a number of plausible > mechanisms that could explain it without invalidating all of physics. Like what, for instance? cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / Chris Kostanick / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 19:52:23 GMT Organization: Storage Technology Corporation Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: >>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 Make that three shaved heads. I'd LOVE to see pratical fusion. Chris "will shave my head for practical REPLICATED cold fusion" Kostanick -- Chris Kostanick chrisk@gomez.stortek.com cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / vnoninski@fscv / RE: Fusion Digest 3655 Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 3655 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:06:03 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / 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: 3 May 1995 17:34:04 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Mark Hopkins (mark@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote: : DC = David M. Cook (dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu) : BW = Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) : LE = Letter set to BW from system administrators, : acknowledged and posted by BW. : : DC> 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. : : Actually no. This is how McElwre lost access 2 years ago. Remember: : "Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System"? Larsonian Physics: the : New and Coming Revolution (in typing with STUCK CAPSLOCK KEYS, that is), etc. : : Only the freshest of the USENET virgins are not aware of this since it found : its way into infecting just about many newsgroups too. : : BW> I find you very naive Dave. : : Ironic. : : BW> 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.... : : By your own acknowledgement you were spamming: : : LE> 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. : : and you even referred to it (the first incident) as spamming. The second and : third are not only just as much, but they're virtually record-breakers in : themselves too. And not only was there vertical spamming (one article, many : newsgroups, 14 or more here), but also horizontal spamming: (1 newsgroup, many : repititions of the same material). : : BW> now my use of a commercial Internet provider : will allow me to be much more open in my crusade to reform modern physics. : : Oh no, think again. AOL is infamous for its disastorous entry into USENET -- : in fact they're the very people the word "spamming" was coined in honor of -- : and on account of it they will never live down the reputation of being a : backwater BBS filled with clueless users that they got as a result of it. : : So they will not suffer even the slightest hint of the same farce of posting : the same thing to 14 (or 212 newsgroups) or posting the same thing repeatedly : to the same newsgroups. The exact opposite. You have a very narrow minded view of what constitutes spamming and using the Internet for communication on the most important topic of our time. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 3 May 1995 21:28:22 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article fairley@law3.law.ucla.edu (ALAN FAIRLEY) writes: > In article <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dar mouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > >From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) > > > I think we are the most advanced creatures in the universe, though. > > Of which you are undoubtedly the most advanced. > > Alan Subtle humor is the best humor, agreed? cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / John White / Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Date: 3 May 1995 23:37:43 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 The Patterson Power Cell demo at ICCF5 is easily explained by chemistry. jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > There was about 200 ml of lithium sulfate electrolye in a recirculating loop. Known chemistry (hydrogen peroxide) can store 4MJ/l, so 200 ml can store 800 kJ. > He estimates the demo unit ran approximately 90 hours at one watt excess > with the above quantities of unreplenished components. 90 hours at one watt excess gives 324 kJ, only about 40 percent of what could be produced by chemistry. It is interesting to note that this cell is a minor variation of the electrolytic methods that were used to manufacture peroxide commercially. Those methods almost always involved some sulfate. The sulfate would be converted to persulfate at the Platinum anode, then the persulfate would react with water to form hydrogen peroxide and regenerate the sulfate. The commercial methods I know of use salts like potassium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, or even just plain sulfuric acid. The Patterson Cell uses lithium sulfate. -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / David Wyland / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 4 May 1995 05:37:02 GMT Organization: Netcom In <3o8e30$plg@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) writes: > >David Wyland (dcwyland@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > >> If CF turns out to be valid, there appear to be a number of plausible >> mechanisms that could explain it without invalidating all of physics. > >Like what, for instance? > I have seen a few float by, such as the possibility of a resonance interaction between the H or D nucleus and the Pd or Ni lattice, etc. I'm not selling any theory, nor am I planning to defend someone else's theory. I'm just saying that I hold some of the fundamental beliefs of science, such as: 1) that what does happen can happen, 2) that nature is consistant and can be understood by humans, and 3) that we can create theories to predict what does happen. Ptolemy and Copernicus both had theories for predicting stellar positions. The Copernican theory turned out to be better; but it didn't invalidate prior observational data. If the experimental evidence of CF is valid, I'm sure a theory will be created which is consistant with other prior experimental evicence. P.S., I'd like to know how it works, too. Dave Wyland cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Martin Sevior / E-QUEST claims challenged Originally-From: msevior@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Martin Sevior) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: E-QUEST claims challenged Date: 4 May 1995 05:24:54 GMT Organization: University of Melbourne Steven Jones writes. >( much deleted) >Russ George of E-quest Sciences is referred to prominently in the article: >"George tells C&EN that the 'super-dense plasma' formed during sonication >blasts the metal target with deuterium atoms, forcing them into the lattice >and >triggering unspecified nuclear reactions." > >"The helium levels are 10 to 1,000 times greater than that found in the >atmosphere, they claim. ... "We can completely rule out contamination as the >source of the helium we're measuring," George says." > >How? They don't say. But let me remind the cautious reader that, as I have >pointed out here and to Russ George previously, comparing the helium level >with that found in the *atmosphere* is irrelevant and misleading. >The relevant comparison is with the helium level in the *laboratory*, which >may very likely be much higher than that of the atmosphere. As I have >reported >before, I have visited Tom Claytor's lab where these measurements were taken >(we were told), and I have seen a bottle of helium gas in that laboratory! >Tom says he uses helium. > >So what is all this talk of helium level in the E-quest experiments being >much greater than the *atmospheric* concentration? Rather, one must ask: >what was the helium concentration in the lab *during the experiments*? > >I asked this of Russ George (not at Ph.D. scientist, incidentally), and he >replied that the helium concentration in the lab during the experiments >was *not* measured. I gather that they have not measured the helium levels in >the lab *at all*. > >I claim therefore that George and Stringham of E-quest >cannot rule out helium contamination. Until they measure helium levels in >the *laboratory* during their experiments, their results will remain >inconclusive and questionable. Potential investors in their company ought to >be made aware of these facts. > >--Steven Jones I really think this does NOT serve the interests of science or humanity. To me the E-QUEST case is pretty good. 1. They measure a sizable excess heat with palladium or Titanium targets in heavy water. 2. They do not measure excess heat with any setup in light water or stainless steel in heavy water. 3. They used a carefully designed stainless steel system to contain any effluent gasses and avoided glass because of it's known affinity for Helium. 4. They measured 4He production at concentrations 100 times greater than atmospheric abundance in excess heat producing runs. They found no excess helium in runs which produced no excess heat. 5. They measured concentrations of 3He 10,000 times greater than atmospheric and their ratio of 3He/4He is 10,000 times greater than the ratio found in the atmosphere. 6. The Helium measurements were made at the Lab (Rockwell) acknowledged to be the best in the USA and the error bars on the concentrations were such that the signals were over 40 standard deviations away from a null result. 7. The target metals were also checked for Helium and the concentrations of helium found in them were too small by many orders of magnitude to account for the Helium found in the Argon used to pressurize the device. Against this is the claim that the Helium could have come from atmospheric contamination locally enhanced by a Helium gas bottle observed in the lab where the measurement took place. While I agree that a direct measurment of the Helium concentrations would be a good check, to me this sounds like nitpicking. The null (helium) results with the null excess heat runs are already very strong evidence against this. Add to that the well designed, stainless steel environment and finally the RADICALLY different isotopic ratios. I can just buy a local enhacement by a factor of 100 in 4He, a factor of 10,000 enhancement in 3He is really hard to explain. 3He costs $60,000 per litre. No one would just blow that off into the atmosphere. Now I won't really believe in cold fusion until it's used to heat my house. On the other hand E-QUEST have produced results that if it weren't for my theoretical predjudces I'd believe. This seems to be a very promising line of research and if there are investors out there with a few grand they could miss, I'd suggest they invest it in EQUEST. The payback could be many many fold. I say, on the face of it, fund EQUEST to maximum level they could absorb for two - three years then evaluate their progress. The payoff is too big to ignore. Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / John Logajan / Re: Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Date: 4 May 1995 05:46:44 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. John N. White (jnw@elvis.vnet.net) wrote: : The Patterson Power Cell demo at ICCF5 is easily explained by chemistry. : > There was about 200 ml of lithium sulfate electrolye in a recirculating loop. : Known chemistry (hydrogen peroxide) can store 4MJ/l, so 200 ml can store : 800 kJ. You aren't going to get that square peg into the round hold this time. :-) We have three different sets of data from runs done by Klein and Cravens published in both Infinite Energy and "Cold Fusion" magazines. Three virgin cells were run through alpha and beta phase charging protocols -- the only time that energy could be "stored" in the electrolyte. I will assume worst case conditions, namely that all the energy went into producing your hydrogen peroxide and no other byproducts were produced. Further, since the voltage changes from start to finish, I will use only the highest reading (currents were constant) rather than an estimated average. For Ni/Pd/Ni microspheres in lightwater, the charging protocol had an absolute maximum energy storage of 65.7kJ. The Ni/Pd lightwater system had 1.35kJ. The Ni/Pd heavywater system had 2.1kJ. Surprisingly, thought the Ni/Pd/Ni system had to charge for nine times longer (9 hours) in the alpha phase than the other two, most of the energy input was during the one hour beta phase when they applied an unusual 2.2 amps of current. In the other two, the beta phase was 0.1A for an hour. The alpha phase is typically 0.02A at approx 3 volts. So since we had over 300+kJ out, that is 4-5 times more than could be explained by the worst charging protocol reported by Klein et al. If you postulate storage of any form, H2O2 or otherwise, you have to have a commensurate storage period before the excess energy is released. -- - 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: cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / David Wyland / RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 4 May 1995 06:25:30 GMT Organization: Netcom In <9505031507.AA12719@kemi.aau.dk> britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes: > >Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) in FD 3653; >Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise >Date: 3 May 1995 07:44:41 GMT .. text deleted ... >>If CF turns out to be valid, there appear to be a number of plausible >>mechanisms that could explain it without invalidating all of physics. >>The point is, "no one" in the past seems to have looked at what happens >>in certain very specific kinds of electrochemical reactions which >>generate the CF effects. In the same way, "no one" in the past >>investigated what would happen if you ionized a helium-neon mixture >>with semi-transparent mirrors at the ends (i.e., a helium-neon laser). .. text deleted ... >I don't know whether you, David, are a pathological science advocate but I >do know that they often claim that "noone knows" about this, that or the >other, in blissful (or deliberate) ignorance of the fact that a lot of >people do in fact know a lot about it (I am assuming that your quote marks, >as in "no one", are intended to emphasise, rather than to cast doubt on the >word[s]). For example, the sort of electrolysis cold fusion people do is >pretty classical, the hydrogen evolution reaction at metals like Pt or Pd >being a classical problem; then there are lots of scientists who know a lot >about hydrogen in metals, all sorts of aspects of that. The only way you can >make your "no one" true is if you pathologically invoke some unusual, >hitherto unseen, reactions; such as peroxide formation (I know that Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "no one", I meant that probably few, if any, people in the past had conducted the specific experiments that now seem to be generating unusual results, if the experimental reports are valid. The very specific experimental conditions that generate these results may not have been duplicated by any researcher in the past, (the "... unusual, hitherto unseen, reactions" you refer to), and the effects may not occur without these specific conditions. I gave an analogy to illustrate this state: the helium-neon laser. This is conceptually a simple device: a glass tube filled with a mixture of helium and neon gases containing a mirror at one end and a partially silvered mirror at the other end, carefully aligned. Ionize the gas, and you have a laser. The technology to make such a device was available at the turn of the century or earlier. If someone had accidently made one before 1900 and got the pure laser light out, he/she would have had some experimental results for which there was no theory. I do not intend to cast doubt on anyone's work or knowledge. Like most, I have little patience with those who claim that professional scientists and engineers are ignorant, prejudiced and unable to absorb new theories. Many hyped breakthroughs are often revealed to be nothing more than sloppy science and self delusion. But not all. If I am honest, I must acknowledge that it is possible for someone else to learn something new, something that neither I nor my collegues know, even if the discoverer is an amateur and/or ignorant of the field of knowledge relating to the discovery. I believe this has happened at times in the past history of science and technology. Dave Wyland cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / PAIN DOC / Re: Nuclear Weapons Originally-From: PAIN DOC Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Nuclear Weapons Date: Thu, 4 May 95 02:49:55 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Here are three sources that come to mind: The Making of the Atomic Bomb, (Richard Rhodes) The Los Alamos Primer, (Robert SErber) U.S. Nuclear Weapons, (Chuch Hansen) Hope this is some assistance. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Nick Maclaren / RE: Impact fusion Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Impact fusion Date: 4 May 1995 11:14:43 GMT Organization: U of Cambridge, England In article <9504250955.AA03431@kemi.aau.dk>, britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes: |> |> >OK, now plug in 10 km/s = 10^4 m/s, and let's assume an iron projectile (M=56) |> >and we get about 30 keV/atom, quite respectable. You expect to be able to see |> >some fusion at 1 keV or more, so this might do it, if shot at a deuterated |> >target such as LiD, used by the Russians. How about the Russians, with their |> >pellets flying "slowly" at 200 m/s? I get about 12 eV/atom, not enough, unless |> >you invoke some hitherto unknown bla bla. |> |> Here I goofed with the value of M, by not sticking to SI units; M is, of course |> 0.056 kg/mol, not "56 g". Shame, shame. When I put in the correct value, I get, |> for that projectile going at the phenomenal velocity of 10 km/s, an energy of |> "only" 30 eV/at, not quite as respectable as the 30 keV I got before. You don't |> expect any fusion from that, and certainly not from the super-slow-moving |> Russian pellets going at 200 m/s, whose energy now comes to only 0.012 eV/atom. |> |> Sorry, folks, this is not a feasible way to produce fusion. Um, yes, but you don't have to throw the particles by hand! 200 m/s is the speed of an air-rifle pellet :-) Even 10 km/s isn't impossible using current explosive methods. 100 km/s is a bit tricker .... Now, I am not a physicist, let alone a nuclear one, but I did some calculations a few years back and believe that I can see how to get a macroscopic particle up to 100-1000 km/s. Admittedly, macroscopic here means 1-10 micron in diameter! Someone with more knowledge than me might like to check the calculations. Take a single crystal sphere of (say) 1 micron in diameter, and charge it up to the point where its cohesion is in doubt. This is the weak bit of my argument, because I don't know what voltage you would need to do that. Accelerate it through a few MV/m for 10 m and it will be going quite fast. My estimate was that you could get it up to speed. As a practical method, this is undoubtedly a disaster, but might cause enough fusion to be detectable. Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679 cudkeys: cuddy4 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Dieter Britz / RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Subject: RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 12:20:59 GMT Date: 4 May 1995 06:25:30 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) in FD 3658; Date: 4 May 1995 06:25:30 GMT Subject: RE: Marconi, signals, and noise >In <9505031507.AA12719@kemi.aau.dk> britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) >writes: >> >>Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) in FD 3653; >>Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise >>Date: 3 May 1995 07:44:41 GMT >.. text deleted ... [... snip snip ..] >>being a classical problem; then there are lots of scientists who know >a lot >>about hydrogen in metals, all sorts of aspects of that. The only way >you can >>make your "no one" true is if you pathologically invoke some unusual, >>hitherto unseen, reactions; such as peroxide formation (I know that >Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "no one", I meant that >probably few, if any, people in the past had conducted the specific >experiments that now seem to be generating unusual results, if the >experimental reports are valid. The very specific experimental >conditions that generate these results may not have been duplicated by >any researcher in the past, (the "... unusual, hitherto unseen, >reactions" you refer to), and the effects may not occur without these >specific conditions. Sorry, David, for my not putting in the right quote marks in my last posting. However, that was my point, i.e. those very specific experimental conditions; what are they? Lots of people have done electrolysis in those electrolytes and those cathode materials. About the only thing I can think of that is different is the length of time of electrolysis. Also, you are no doubt aware of the fact that by now, quite a variety of experimental conditions are claimed to produce excess heat and helium; did these all accidentally hit on just the right conditions? Still seems pathological to me. Before I do any heavy thinking about the reason for the alleged effects, I'd have to be convinced that there are in fact effects there, and not just experimental error, and selection of results. -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Patterson Power Cell demo easily explained by chemistry Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 09:33 -0500 (EST) jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) writes: -> The Patterson Power Cell demo at ICCF5 is easily explained by chemistry. -> -> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: -> > There was about 200 ml of lithium sulfate electrolye in a recirculating lo -> -> Known chemistry (hydrogen peroxide) can store 4MJ/l, so 200 ml can store -> 800 kJ. -> -> > He estimates the demo unit ran approximately 90 hours at one watt excess -> > with the above quantities of unreplenished components. -> -> 90 hours at one watt excess gives 324 kJ, only about 40 percent of what -> could be produced by chemistry. OK, lets assume you are correct. What mechanism of chemistry can produce excess energy? Since the "excess mode" turns on almost immediately, there is little if any storage of energy involved. Just how does the production of hydrogen peroxide produce more energy than is being supplied? I am unaware of any chemical systems or theories which would allow this. If you could explain it, it would be most helpful. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Alan M / Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Highlights of the Fifth International CF Conference Date: 4 May 1995 15:15:23 +0100 Organization: Home In article: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick) writes: > Make that three shaved heads. I'd LOVE to see pratical fusion. > > Chris "will shave my head for practical REPLICATED cold fusion" Kostanick > Me too. But if we have to rely on Jed as guide and teacher, my skull will probably have lost its flesh as well as its hair before I need to shave it! -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Alan M / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 4 May 1995 15:15:22 +0100 Organization: Home In article: jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > Nope. I mean I am sick of answering stupid questions from people who are > too lazy to do their own homework. If you want details, you can darn well > get them from the same place I do. I don't feel like spoon feeding you > information. This is standard Jed retort 3(b) (he probably has it hot-keyed on his PC) which he always uses when a questioner probes until his lies show. -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Alan M / Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Date: 4 May 1995 15:15:28 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <9505031629.AA13261@dxmint.cern.ch> drom@vxcern.cern.ch writes: > However in the summer of 1993, L'Express reported that supported by the > theoretician, Prof. Vigier, Dr. Jacques Dufour had begun experiments at the > Shell laboratories near Rouen and then moved to the labs of CNAM, the > Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers. Dr. Dufour was quoted as saying "I > obtain out an energy double What I put in." However at ICCF4, J. Dufour, J. > Foos and J.P. Millot of CNAM, Paris, did not report any positive results but > proposed a theory involving three-body collisions and virtual polyneutron > states such as (proton plus an electron) which would explain the otherwise > impossible results of low amounts of tritium, neutrons and 3He also variable > amounts of 4He, and transmuted nuclei. They said they were going to test this > unusual theory by sparking in hydrogen isotopes. > At Monte Carlo Drs. Dufour and Foos were delighted to tell me that they had > greatly improved and extended their apparatus and while they did have anomalous > effects, they had made a major effort to measure nuclear products and concluded > that they were definitely not observing cold fusion. This is how the scientific > method should work - try and prove yourself wrong. Jed - In all your reporting about ICFC5, I don't remembering your mentioning that Dufour was now not claiming any fusion-related output. On the contrary, I seem to remember than you have been continuing to claim 'Shell Oil' (actually it's Shell Francais Recherche) as a site where positive CF results are routinely obtained. How did this rejection of the CF hypothesis, by another of its active experimenters, manage to slip past you unnoticed? -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Willy Moss / Re: Nuclear Weapons Originally-From: Willy Moss Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Nuclear Weapons Date: 4 May 1995 15:33:45 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD wthreeton@aol.com (WThreeton) wrote: >If anyone can tell me about how nuclear weapons work, I'll appreciate it. >I have a research paper due for my high school physics class, any help >will be appreciated.=F7 There should be enough information in any Encyclopedia. Do what you can first, then ask questions. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Tim Mirabile / Re: Uranium / Fission question Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question Date: 4 May 1995 06:37:47 GMT Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210 scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > In article <3ngob0$8cp@crcnis3.unl.edu>, poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu (Paul A. Poydence) writes: > |> I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions, > |> and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material. > |> What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so. Please > |> help. If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it, > |> please respond via e-mail. Thanks. > The only difference between the isotopes U238 and U235 is the > number of neutrons - U235 is short three compared to U238 - this makes U235 > much more likely to capture a neutron and thus continue the fission process. I think he means U235 vs Pu239. I'm curious to know the answer to that one too. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Tim Mirabile / Re: Prayer to our Maker,sing Miss Saigon, THE LAST ELECTRON OF THE Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math Subject: Re: Prayer to our Maker,sing Miss Saigon, THE LAST ELECTRON OF THE Date: 4 May 1995 06:48:11 GMT Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210 Is there a May Fools' Day? :) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Mike Baker / Re: Uranium / Fission question Originally-From: baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu (Mike Baker) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question Date: 4 May 1995 16:58:48 GMT Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; College of Engineering >> |> I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions, >> |> and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material. >> |> What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so. Please >> |> help. If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it, >> |> please respond via e-mail. Thanks. If you want an explanation try Introductory Nuclear Physics by Krane. -- =============================================================================== Michael Baker ... baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu =============================================================================== cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenbaker cudfnMike cudlnBaker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Kennel / Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion: when will it be time to give up? Date: 4 May 1995 17:15:45 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN paterricus@delphi.com wrote: > It seems to me that the error in the Pons/Fleischman discovery > was to label it as fusion. It should have been termed the > Pons/Fleischman Phonomenon. Then it should have been left to > qualified physicists to theorize and attempt to explain the phenomenon. Duh. They claimed to have a neutron spectrum which got people all hot and bothered, but it turned out to have been fabricated. > ........Jim H. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 13:41 -0500 (EST) "Alan M. Dunsmuir" writes: -> > Nope. I mean I am sick of answering stupid questions from people who are -> > too lazy to do their own homework. If you want details, you can darn well -> > get them from the same place I do. I don't feel like spoon feeding you -> > information. -> -> This is standard Jed retort 3(b) (he probably has it hot-keyed on his PC) -> which he always uses when a questioner probes until his lies show. So you are saying Rockwell is incompetent to measure helium. Since every post I have seen on Rockwell has indicated that they are one of the worlds best facility, if not the best, for measuring helium, I would be very interested in what information you have to the contrary. I will forward any information you provide to them for a rebuttal. We will see who is lieing here. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Barry Merriman / What's up with Marshall D's Griggs expedition Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: What's up with Marshall D's Griggs expedition Date: 4 May 1995 18:44:19 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: MD: whats going on with your Griggs expedition. I think it would be good if you presented your research plan here for comments prior to the big trip. Curious... -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Jason Floyd / Re: Uranium / Fission question Originally-From: jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question Date: 4 May 1995 17:52:49 GMT Organization: University of Maryland College Park Tim Mirabile (tim@mail.htp.com) wrote: : scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal) wrote: : > In article <3ngob0$8cp@crcnis3.unl.edu>, poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu (Paul A. Poydence) writes: : > |> I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions, : > |> and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material. : > |> What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so. Please : > |> help. If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it, : > |> please respond via e-mail. Thanks. : > The only difference between the isotopes U238 and U235 is the : > number of neutrons - U235 is short three compared to U238 - this makes U235 : > much more likely to capture a neutron and thus continue the fission process. : I think he means U235 vs Pu239. : I'm curious to know the answer to that one too. For a fission reactor you want an isotope that is easy to fission. U233,U235, and Pu239 all have nice large fission cross sections. The even numbered isotopes (e.g. U238) do not fission by thermal neutrons and fission less easily at high neutron energies. Of the above three fissile materials only U235 is easy to come by (sort of). It is .7% of naturally occuring U. The others have to be made in a reactor from Th232 (U233) or U238 (PU239). So U235 has an advantage in the sense that one only needs to mine U and enrich it slightly to make a reactor. The other fuels must be obtained by reprocessing. This is politically unfavored. However it has the advantage of being able to utilize much more of the availible energy present in the ores. -- Jason E. Floyd jfloyd@wam.umd.edu pnkfloyd@eng.umd.edu Department of Materials and Nuclear Engineering University of Maryland at College Park College Park, MD 20742 "Life is a grapefruit." - Douglas Adams NOW ANNOUNCING A NEW WEB HOME PAGE http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jfloyd cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjfloyd cudfnJason cudlnFloyd cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Barry Merriman / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 4 May 1995 18:52:53 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3o7c99$ocs@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) writes: > To say that no other hypotheses are possible without violating known > science seems to me to be merely a lack of imagination. > > Dave Wyland I have plenty of imagination---but after 6 years of claims (+ the previous 5 years during which P&F researched in secret), its seems appropriate to ask ``where's the beef''. I.e., lets fixate on a single, reproducible experiment and diagnose it to death, just to demonstrate the _existence_ of the effect----for this is probably the most amazing effect ever discovered, if it really exists: an effect that alters nuclear interaction properties at room temperature. Take a gander at the field of psychic research sometime---they have the most amazing hypothesis about communications, yet after a century of trying they still don;t have an experiment demonstrating the effect really exists. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Bill Page / Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Date: 4 May 1995 19:34:46 GMT Organization: Daneliuk & Page In article <471470922wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, "Alan M. Dunsmuir" says: > >In article: <9505031629.AA13261@dxmint.cern.ch> drom@vxcern.cern.ch writes: >> ... >> At Monte Carlo Drs. Dufour and Foos were delighted to tell me that they had >> greatly improved and extended their apparatus and while they did have anomalous ----------------------- >> effects, they had made a major effort to measure nuclear products and concluded ------- ---------------- >> that they were definitely not observing cold fusion. This is how the scientific ----------- = cold *nuclear* fusion >> method should work - try and prove yourself wrong. > >Jed - In all your reporting about ICFC5, I don't remembering your mentioning that >Dufour was now not claiming any fusion-related output. On the contrary, I seem to remember >than you have been continuing to claim 'Shell Oil' (actually it's Shell Francais Recherche) >as a site where positive CF results are routinely obtained. > >How did this rejection of the CF hypothesis, by another of its active experimenters, >manage to slip past you unnoticed? > Seems to me that Douglas Morrison is actaully emphasising a rather fine point here. But I am glad that he agrees that Dufour's scientific method is correct. At ICCF5 Dufour did say that they have measured excess heat as well what appears to be highly anomalous (meaning extraordinarily high) loading ratios for Nickel cathodes during "sparking". Dufour at least implied that he thought this might be due to a hydrino like species (ala. Vigier and Mills) that simply escapes from his apparatus undetected. He thinks he has ruled out experimental error. Anomalous effects such as these were also mentioned by Srinivasin of India. And during an interesting exchange between Scott Chubb and Martin Fleischmann, Martin claimed that contrary to the current literature on the absorption of hydrogen by Nickel, one must consult the *old literature* on these effects to really find out what is going on. I'd sure like to know more about why the famous duo are so interested in the old literature - remember Alfred Coehn? Cheers, Bill Page. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Dick Jackson / Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 22:12:38 GMT Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea In article pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: >NOTE: >System engineering, isn't exactly the most successfully utilized >discipline in development the tokamak concept. If it were, then it >is likely the tokamak would be a PLASMAK(tm) like embodiment. Paul, its been a while since I last asked: how is your construction going? Are you in a position to estimate a time for first ignition? I for one am looking forward to cheering you on. Dick Jackson cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Conrad / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad) 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: 4 May 95 22:23:03 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: >: BW> now my use of a commercial Internet provider >: will allow me to be much more open in my crusade to reform modern physics. >: >You have a very narrow minded view of what constitutes spamming and >using the Internet for communication on the most important topic of our >time. Mr. Wallace, you have a very narrow minded view of what constitutes "the most important topic of our time". Your crusade does not exempt you from the rule of netiquette that most users of netnews voluntarily follow. From my perspective, you are espousing a new theory of physics. Therefore, I suggest you limit your posts to alt.sci.physics.new-theories. I've the set the follow-ups to that group. If you don't understand the rules of netiquette, please go read news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions. If you don't accept the rules of netiquette, you should not be using netnews. -- //===============================\\ || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || || You have to decide to live. || \\===============================// cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Sergio Pomante / fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Date: 4 May 1995 23:30:33 GMT Organization: none Content-Type: Application/octet-stream; name=lettera.txt Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64 DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQogICAgIA0KKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq DQogDQpJbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBhIG5ldywgY2F1c2FsLCB3YXZpbmcgdW5pdGFy eSB0aGVvcnkgY2FsbGVkOiAgDQpUaGUgIFdBVklORyBUSEVPUlkgIE9GICBU SEUgIEZJRUxELiAoV1RGKSAgDQogIA0KPT09ICBXZSBtYWtlIHRoZSBoeXBv dGhlc2lzIHRoYXQgdGhlIHN1YmF0b21pYyBwYXJ0aWNsZXMgYXJlIHRoZSAg DQplbGVtZW50YXJ5IHNvdXJjZXMgb2Ygc3BoZXJpY2FsIHdhdmVzIHRoYXQs IGluIGNvbXBsZXgsICANCmNvbnN0aXR1dGUgYWxsIGZpZWxkcyBhc2NyaWJp bmcgdG8gdGhlIHBhcnRpY2xlcy4gID09PSANCiANCkZyb20gdGhpcyB3b3Jr J3MgaHlwb3RoZXNpcyB3ZSBjYW4gZ2V0IG91dCBhIG5ldyB1bml0YXJ5IHRo ZW9yeSB0aGF0ICANCndpbGwgYmVjb21lcyBhIG5ldyBwYXJhZGlnbSB0aGF0 IHdpbGwgcmVwbGFjZSBRdWFudHVtIE1lY2hhbmljcy4gDQogDQpJbiB0aGlz IHRoZW9yeSwgcHVyZWx5IGNhdXNhbCwgdGhlIHNhbWUgaW5kZXRlcm1pbmF0 aW9uIHByaW5jaXBsZSANCmJlY29tZXMgZGV0ZXJtaW5hdGUuIA0KIA0KVGhl IGR1YWxpdHkncyBwYXJhZG94ZXMgYmVjb21lcyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kYWJsZSB3 YXZpbmcgbW9kZWxzLiANCiANClRoZSBwaG90b24gYmVjb21lcyB1bmRlcnN0 YW5kYWJsZSBsaWtlIGEgd2F2aWcgdmFyaWF0aW9uLiANCiANClRoZSBlbGVj dHJvbiBhc3N1bWVzIGEgZGltZW5zaW9uYWwgc3RydWN0dXJlLCBzbyB0aGF0 IGFsbCBwYXJ0aWNsZXMgIA0KbG9zZSB0aGUgcHVudHVhbCBuYXR1cmUsIGFu ZCBjYW4gYmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIHdpdGggdGhlIHNhbWUgIA0Kc3RydWN0dXJh dGUgd2F2aW5nIG1vZGVsLiANCiANClRoaXMgd2F2aW5nIG1vZGVscyByZXZl YWwgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiBhIHNpbXBsZSBzeW1tZXRyeSdzIA0KcHJp bmNpcGxlIHRoYXQgZXhwbGFpbnMgdGhlIGZvdXIgaW50ZXJhY3Rpb25zLCBh bmQgZGlzY292ZXIgKDE5ODQpIA0KdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiBhIGZpZnRo IGFudGlncmF2aXRhdGlvbmFsIHJlcHVsc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbi4gDQoo TGF0ZXN0IGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbGx5IGRpc2NvdmVyZWQgZnJvbSBFLiBGaXNj aGJhY2ggZXQgYWwuIGF0ICANClB1cmR1ZSBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IGFuZCBwdWJs aWVkIGluIDE5ODYgb24gUGh5c2ljYWwgUmV2aWV3LikgICANCiANCkNoYW5n aW5nIHRoZSBhY3R1YWwgc3RhcnRpbmcgaHlwb3RoZXNpcyBvbiB0aGUgY29u dGludW91cyBzcGFjZS10aW1lICANCm5hdHVyZSwgd2UgY2FuIGltYWdpbmUg YSBkaXNjb250aW51b3VzIHNwYWNlLXRpbWUsIChkZXNjcmliZWQgd2l0aCAg DQptYXRoZW1hdGljYWwgZXZpZGVuY2UgZnJvbSBBbGJlcnQgU2NoaWxkIGlu IDE5NDcgb24gUGh5LlJldi4pLCAgDQp0aGF0IG1heSBiZWNvbWVzIHRoZSBh Z2VudCBhbmQsIGF0IHNhbWUgdGltZSwgdGhlIGJhY2tncm91bmQgIA0Kb2Yg cGh5c2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hLiAgDQogDQpJbiB0aGlzIG1vZHVsYXIgc3Bh Y2UtdGltZSwgbGFja3MgZnJvbSBhbmlzb3Ryb3BpY2FsIGNvbnRyYS1pbmRp Y2F0aW9ucywgDQpvcmdhbml6ZWQgbGlrZSBhIGRpc2NyZXRlIGxhdHRpY2Us IGNhbiBvY2N1ciBzdGF0ZXMgb2YgZ2VvbWV0cmljICANCnBlcnR1cmJhdGlv bnMgb2YgdGhlIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvZiB0aGlzIGRpc2NyZXRlIGxhdHRpY2Us IGRlcml2ZWQgZnJvbSAgDQp2YXJpYXRpb25zIG9mIHRpbWUgcXVhbnRhLCB0 aGF0IG1vdmUgbGlrZSB3YXZlcyBhbG9uZyB0aGUgcmVsYXRpdmlzdGljICAN Cmdlb2RldGljcywgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBieSBpbnRlZ3JhbCBMb3JlbnR6IHRy YW5zZm9ybWF0aW9ucy4gDQpUaGVzZSBwZXJ0dXJiYXRpb25zIGNhbiBiZWNv bWUgc3BoZXJpY2FsIHdhdmVzIHN1cmZhY2VzIHRoYXQgbW92ZSANCml0cyBv d24gZGlzY3JldGUgc3BoZXJpY2FsIHN1cmZhY2UncyBwYXJ0cywgaW4gdGhl IGRpc2NyZXRlIGxhdHRpY2UsIGxpa2UgIA0KYmlkaW1lbnNpb25hbCBwbGFu ZXMuICANCiANCk9uIHRoZXNlIGJhc2VzLCB3ZSBtYWtlIGEgbmV3IHBoeXNp Y3MgdGhhdCwgc3RhcnRpbmcgZnJvbSBleGlzdGVuY2UgIA0Kb2YgYSBkaXNj cmV0ZSBzcGFjZS10aW1lLCBvYmV5cyB0byBsYXdzIG9mIGEgZGlzY3JldGUg c3BhY2UtdGltZSAgDQpnZW9tZXRyeSwgdGhhdCBjb25uZWN0IG1pY3JvcGh5 c2ljcyB0byBtYWNyb3BoeXNpY3MuICANCiANCldpdGggaXQgd2UgY2FuIGNv bXByZWhlbmQgYW5kIGNvbm5lY3QgUXVhbnR1bSBNZWNoYW5pY3MgYXQgIA0K R2VuZXJhbCBSZWxhdGl2aXR5LCBhbmQgTWVjaGFuaWNzIGF0IENvc21vbG9n eSBpbiBvbmUgZ2xvYmFsIGRlc2lnbi4gDQogIA0KT24gdGhlIHNhbWUgYmFz ZSwgd2UgY2FuIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQ6IGdyYXZpdGF0aW9uYWwgaW50ZXJhY3Rp b25zLCAgIA0KZWxlY3Ryb21hZ25ldGljIGludGVyYWN0aW9ucywgYW5kIGEg bmV3IG1vZGVsIGZvciBudWNsZWFyIGludGVyYWN0aW9ucy4gICANCiANCldl IGRpc2NvdmVyIGEgd2F2aW5nIHJlc29uYW5jZSBtZWNoYW5pc20gb2YgYXV0 b2NyZWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgIA0KY29uZHVjZXMgdG8gZ2l1c3RpZnkgYSBzdHJ1 Y3R1cmF0ZSBtb2RlbCBvZiBlbGVtZW50YXJ5IHBhcnRpY2xlcywgIA0KYWRh cHRzIHRvIGRlc2NyaWJlIGFsbCBtaWNyb3BoeXNpY3MnIHBoZW5vbWVuYS4g IA0KIA0KVGhpcyB3YXZpbmcgcmVzb25hbmNlIG1lY2hhbmlzbSwgb2JleWlu ZyB0byBvbmUgc3ltbWV0cnkgcHJpbmNpcGxlLCAgDQpsZWF2ZXMgb3V0IHRo ZSBuaWdodG1hcmUgb2YgdGhlIHNpbmd1bGFyaXR5LCBhbGxvd2luZyBhbiB1 bmRlcnN0YW5kYWJsZSwgIA0KbWVyZSBjYXVzYWwgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24sIGFi bGUgdG8ganVzdGlmeSBhbGwgcGFzc2FnZXMgYW5kIHBoZW5vbWVuYSwgIA0K YXBwYXJlbnRseSBpbmRldGVybWluaXN0aWMsIGluaGVyaXRlZCBmcm9tIFF1 YW50dW0gTWVjaGFuaWNzLiANCiANClRoaXMgbW9kZWwsIHNob3dpbmcgdGhh dCB0aGUgZWxlY3RyaWNhbCBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbnMgYXJlIGFic2VudCBpbiB0 aGUgc3BhY2UgIA0Kb2YgbnVjbGVhciBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbnMgKGF0IGRpc3Rh bmNlIG9mIDEgRmVybWkpLCBkZXNjcmliZXMgKDE5ODQpIGEgbmV3IA0KZmVl YmxlciBudWNsZWFyIGZvcmNlLCB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIGNvaGVyZW50IHdpdGgg IHRoZW9yZXRpY2FsIGp1c3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIA0KZXhwZXJpbWVudGFs IHBoZW5vbWVuYSBvZiB0aGUgQ29sZCBGdXNpb24sICBkZXNjcmliaW5nLCBh dCB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aW1lLCANCnRoZSBjb21wb3NpdGlvbiBvZiBhIHN0cnVj dHVyYXRlIHdhdmUtbW9kZWwgb2YgdGhlIHBhcnRpY2xlcycgZmFtaWx5IA0K YW5kIGFsbCBpdHMgZGVjYXlzLiANCiAgIA0KVGhlIG5ldyB3YXZlLW1vZGVs IG9mIGludGVyYWN0aW9ucyBwcm9kdWNlcyBhIHdhdmUtZXhwbGljYXRpb24g Zm9yIHRoZSAgDQpib2RpZXMnIGluZXJ0aWEsIGNvbmR1Y2luZyB0aGUgQ2xl aW4tR29yZG9uIGZvcm11bGEgdG8gYSBjb21wbGV0ZSBwaHlzaWNhbCAgDQpj b21wcmVoZW5zaW9uIHRoYXQsIGZyZWVpbmcgUmVsYXRpdml0eSBmcm9tIHRo ZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9uIG9mIGlkZW50aXR5ICANCmJldHdlZW4gaW5lcnRpYWwg Zm9yY2VzIGFuZCBncmF2aXRhdGlvbmFsIGZvcmNlcywgZGVyaXZlcyBhIGNh dXNhbCAgDQpleHBsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBhIG5ldyBXYXZpbmcgUXVhbnR1bSBH cmF2aXR5LiANCiANCkZvbGxvd3MgYSBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlvbiB0aGF0IGNv bmR1Y2VzIHRvIGEgY29tYmluYXRpb24gZnJvbSBncmF2aXR5IGFuZCAgDQph biBhbnRpZ3Jhdml0YXRpb25hbCBGaWZ0aCBJbnRlcmFjdGlvbiwgZGVyaXZl ZCBieSBtb2RlbCwgY29oZXJlbnRseSBmcm9tIA0KdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZpc3Rp YyBsaW1pdGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBsaWdodCB2ZWxvY2l0eSwgdGhhdCByZWd1 bGF0ZXMgdGhlIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uICANCmFuZCBiZWhhdmlvciBvZiBtYWNy b2JvZGllcyBpbiB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2UuICANCiANCldlIGNhbiBkcmF3IGEg bmV3IHdheSBmb3IgdGhlIHJhdGlvbmFsaXphdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgY29udHJv dmVyc2lhbCAgDQphc3Ryb25vbWljYWwgb2JzZXJ2YXRpb25zIHRoYXQgaW50 ZXJlc3QgdGhlIGFjdGlvbnMgYW5kIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZg0KbWFueSBjb3Nt b2xvZ2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hLiAgDQogDQpNb3Jlb3Zlciwgd2UgYW5ub3Vu Y2UgdG8gU3RlcGhlbiBIYXdraW5nIHRoYXQgaGUgaGFzIHdvbiB0aGUgYmV0 LCAgIA0KbWFkZSBhZ2FpbnN0IGJhZCBsdWNrIHdpdGggS2lwIFRob3JuZSwg b24gdGhlIHBvc3NpYmlsaXR5IHRoYXQgYmxhY2sgaG9sZXMgIA0Kd2VyZSBh IGNvbXBsZXRlIGZhaWx1cmUuICANCiANCllvdSB3aWxsIG5ldmVyIGZpbmQg YSBibGFjayBob2xlIGluICcnQ3lnbnVzICBYICAxJycsIGJlY2F1c2UgYmxh Y2sgaG9sZXMgIA0KY2FuJ3QgZXhpc3QuICANCldlIGFyZSBkb3VibHkgc29y cnkgZm9yIGhpbSBidXQsIGZvciB0aGUgc2FtZSByZWFzb24sIGFsc28gYmln IGJhbmcgIA0KY2FuJ3QgZXhpc3QuIA0KDQpUaGUgZW50aXJlIFdhdmluZyBU aGVvcnkgb2YgdGhlIEZpZWxkIGV4cGxhaW5zIGl0IGNvbnNlcXVlbnRseSwg DQpzaG93aW5nIG1hbnkgY2F1c2FsIGFuZCByYXRpb25hbCBjb25zZXF1ZW5j ZXMgdGhhdCBicmluZyB0byBhIG5ldyANCldhdmluZyBTdGVhZHkgU3RhdGUs IGZvciBhIG11Y2ggbW9yZSBjb21wcmVoZW5zaWJsZSBjb3Ntb2xvZ3kgLiAN CiAgDQpBIG5ldyB2aXNpb24gb2YgdGhlIENvbXB0b24gZWZmZWN0IGNhcnJp ZXMgYSB3YXZpbmcgZXhwbGljYXRpb24sIGRlcml2ZWQgIA0KZnJvbSBhbiBl eHRlbmRpbmcgb2YgR2VuZXJhbCBSZWxhdGl2aXR5LCB0aGF0IGludGVyZXN0 cyB0aGUgUXVhbnR1bSAgDQpNZWNoYW5pY3MgYW5kIHBlcm1pdHMsIHRvIGNv bWUgdG8gYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBvZiBhbGwgaW50ZXJhY3Rpb25zIG9mICAN CnBhcnRpY2xlcyBhbmQgZmllbGRzLiAgDQogDQpBIG5hdHVyYWwgZXh0ZW5z aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBzYW1lIENvbXB0b24gZWZmZWN0IGRyaXZlcyB0byBlbGVj dHJvbidzICANCndhdmluZyBtb2RlbCwgYW5kIHRvIGFsbCBzdWJhdG9taWMg cGFydGljbGVzLCBwbGFjaW5nIGEgdmFsaWQgY2F1c2FsICANCmJhc2UgZm9y IHRoZSB3YXZpbmcgZXhwbGljYXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBMb3JlbnR6IGZvcmNl LCBkZXJpdmVkIGZyb20gIA0KdGhlIHNwYWNlLXRpbWUgcXVhbnRpemF0aW9u LCB0aGF0IHByb2R1Y2VzIGEgY2F1c2FsIG1vZGVsIG9mICANCmVsZWN0cm9t YWduZXRpYyBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbnMsIHRoYXQgYnJpbmdzIHRvIGEgY29uc2Vx dWVudCBwZXJjZXB0aW9uICANCm9mIG1lYW5pbmcgb2YgdGhlIGVsZWN0cmlj IGNoYXJnZSdzIG5hdHVyZS4gICANCiANCldlIHJlZGlzY292ZXIgYSBjb2hl cmVudCBhdG9tJ3MgbW9kZWwgaW4gd2hpY2ggYSBjYXVzYWxpdHkgY2hhaW4s ICANCnB1cmVseSB3YXZpbmcsIHBlcm1pdHMgdG8gZm9sbG93IHRoZSBkZXZl bG9wbWVudCwgc3RlcCBieSBzdGVwLCAgDQpvZiB0aGUgd2F2aW5nIGFjdGlv biBvbiB0aGUgcGhvdG9lbGVjdHJpYyBwaGVub21lbmEsIHJldmVhbGluZyB0 aGUgIA0KcmVhbGx5IHdhdmluZyBuYXR1cmUgb2YgdGhlIGZpbmUgc3RydWN0 dXJlIGNvbnN0YW50LCBjb25uZWN0ZWQgdG8gDQphIGxpZ2h0IGVtaXNzaW9u J3MgbWVjaGFuaXNtLCBtZXJlbHkgY2F1c2FsLiANCg0KV0hBVCAgSVMgIEhB UFBFTkVEID8gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KDQpJcyBoYXBwZW5lZCB0aGF0 IHRoZSBkZW5pZWQgY3Jpc2lzIG9mIFF1YW50dW0gTWVjaGFuaWNzIGhhdmUg DQpwcm9kdWNlZCB3aGF0IGhhZCB0byBiZWNvbWUgc29vbmVyIG9yIGxhdGVy Lg0KDQpXZSBzZWUgdG8gYXBwZWFyIGEgbmV3IHBhcmFkaWdtYS4NCkFzIGl0 IHdhcyBpbmV2aXRhYmxlLCB0aGUgY3Jpc2lzIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNvbHZlZCBm cm9tIHRoZSBleHRlcm5hbC4NCg0KU28gdHJ5IHRvIGZvcm1hbGl6ZSB5b3Vy c2VsZiBub3QgdG9vIG11Y2gsIGFuZCB0cnkgdG8gZmluZCBzb21lIA0KbGlu a2luZyBwb2ludHMgd2l0aCB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgcGFyYWRpZ21hLg0KDQpJ biBzcGl0ZSBvZiB0aGUgZWxhYm9yYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIFRoZW9yeSBlbGFw c2VkIHRoaXJ0eSB5ZWFycywgDQppdCBpcyBzdGlsbCB2ZXJ5IHlvdW5nLCBp dCBuZWVkcyBjcml0aWNpc20gdG8gZ2V0IHNoYXJwLCBidXQgaXQgaXMgeWV0 IA0Kc3Ryb25nIGVub3VnaCB0byBzdXBwb3J0IG1hbnkgZXhwZXJpbWVudGFs IHBvc3NpYmlsaXRpZXMgb2YgZmFsc2lmaWNhdGlvbi4NCiANClRoZSBXYXZp bmcgVGhlb3J5IG9mIHRoZSBGaWVsZCBoYXMgYmVlbiBhbHJlYWR5IHB1Ymxp ZWQgaW4gSXRhbHksICANCmZyb20gYXV0aG9yICBXYWx0ZXIgIEUuIFIuIENh c3NhbmksIGluIE9jdG9iZXIgMTk4NCBvbiB0aGUgYm9vayAgDQplbnRpdGxl ZDogSWwgQ2FtcG8gVW5pZmljYXRvIChUaGUgVW5pZmllZCBGaWVsZCksIGFu ZCBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCAgDQpmcm9tIGF1dGhvciB0byB0aGUgSVYgTmF0aW9u YWwgQ29uZ3Jlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIEdlbmVyYWwgUmVsYXRpdml0eSAgDQphbmQg UGh5c2ljcyBvZiB0aGUgR3Jhdml0YXRpb24sIGluIEZsb3JlbmNlIChJdGFs eSkuIA0KICANCk5vIHJlYWN0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIHBoeXNpY2lzdHMgYW5k IGFzdHJvcGh5c2ljaXN0cy4gDQogDQpBIG5leHQgZXZvbHV0aW9uIGhhcyBi ZWVuIHB1YmxpZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgc2FtZSB3YXkgaW4gMTk4OSANCndpdGgg dGl0bGU6IExhIFRlb3JpYSBPbmR1bGF0b3JpYSBkZWwgQ2FtcG8uIA0KKFRo ZSBXYXZpbmcgVGhlb3J5IG9mIHRoZSBGaWVsZCkuIA0KKFRoaXMgaXMgYWN0 dWFsbHkgdHJhbnNsYXRlZCBhbmQgc2hvd2VkIGluIEludGVybmV0KSAgDQog DQpObyByZWFjdGlvbiBmcm9tIHRoZSBvZmZpY2lhbCB1bml2ZXJzaXRhcnkg Y2lyY3VpdC4gDQogDQpBIHRoaXJkIGJvb2sgZW50aXRsZWQ6ICANCkFsYmVy dCBBdmV2YSBSYWdpb25lIC0gRElPIE5PTiBHSU9DQSBBIERBREksIA0KKCBB bGJlcnQgV2FzIFJpZ2h0IC0gR09EIERPRVNOJ1QgUExBWSBESUNFKSBpcyBw dWJsaWVkICANCmluIE1pbGFuIGF0IEphbnVhcnkgMTk5NCwgYW5kIGRpc3Ry aWJ1dGVkIGluIDMwMCwgdW5pdmVyc2l0YXJ5ICANCmV0IG5vbiwgYm9vay1z aG9wcy4gVGhlIGZpcnRoIGVkaXRpb24gKDUuMDAwIGNvcGllcykgc2hvcnRs eSBzb2xkLiANCiANCk1hbnkgaGVudHVzaWFzdGljIGxldHRlcnMgZnJvbSBz dHVkZW50cywgY2hlbWlzdHMsIGVuZ2luZWVycywgZXRjLiANCkEgZmlyc3Qg Y29uZmVyZW5jZSBpbiB0aGUgQXVsYSBNYWduYSBvZiAgdGhlIFBoeXNpY2Fs IERlcHQuIG9mIA0KQm9sb2duYSBVbml2ZXJzaXR5LiAyNTAgc3R1ZGVudHMs IDEgUmVsYXRpdml0eSBQcm9mLiAxIERlcHQuIENoaWVmLiANCmZ1bGwgaGVu dHVzaWFzbSBmcm9tIHRoZSBzdHVkZW50cy4gDQogDQpObyByZWFjdGlvbiBm cm9tIHRoZSBwaHlzaWNpc3RzLiANCk5vIHJlYWN0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIHNj aWVudGlmaWMgam91cm5hbGlzdHMsIGluIG1hbnkgd2F5cyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQu IA0KICAgDQpJdCdzIGhlcmUgYW5kIG5vdyBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byBiZWdpbiBp biBJbnRlcm5ldCBhIG5ldyBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIA0Kc2NpZW50aWZpYyBy ZXZvbHV0aW9uLCB0aGF0IGludm9sdmVzIHBoeXNpY3MgZm91bmRhdGlvbnMg YW5kIGFzc2lzdHMgIA0KdGhlIGFwcGVhcmluZyBvZiBhIG5ldyBwYXJhZGln bSA/IA0KUGVyaGFwcyB0aGF0IEludGVybmV0IGp1c3Qgbm90IGZvciB0aGlz IGl0J3MgYm9ybiA/ICAgDQogIA0KRnJvbSB5b3UsIG11c3QgY29tZSB0aGUg c3RpbXVsYXRpb24gdG8gZmFsc2lmeSBpdCBpbiB0aGUgUG9wcGVyJ3MgDQpz cGlyaXQgb3IsIGV2ZW50dWFsbHksIHByb21vdGUgaXQuIA0KQnV0IG5vdCB5 b3UgY29udGVudCBvZiB0aGlzIGluaXRpYWwgcHJvdm9raW5nIHN1bW1hcnks IGV4YW1pbmUgDQppbiBkZXRhaWwgdGhlIGJyaWVmICwgYnV0IHN1ZmZpY2ll bnQsIGV4cG9zaXRpb24gb2YgIFRoZSBXYXZpbmcgVGhlb3J5IA0Kb2YgdGhl IEZpZWxkLCB3aXRoIGdlb21ldHJpYyBtb2RlbHMgYW5kIHNpbXBsZSBtYXRo ZW1hdGljYWwgDQpwcm9vZnMuICggSW4gTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgNiApLiAN CiANClRvIHdob20gaXQgbWF5IGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGNvbmNlcm4sIHRoaXMg YnJpZWYgZXhwb3NpdGlvbiwgb2YgDQp0aGUgbmV3IHdhdmluZyB0aGVvcnkg KDEsNTAwIEspLCBpcyBsb2NhdGVkIGluOiANCiANCi8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgcHVi IC8gdGhlb3J5ICAgdG8gICJsaW51eC5pbmZvc3F1YXJlLml0IiANCiANCmlm IHlvdSBoYXZlIHByb2JsZW1zLCB0byB0cnkgYWdhaW4gDQogICAgICAgICAg DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEZUUCAgdG8gICAgIDE5NC4xMzMuMS42ICAg ICBwdWIgLyB0aGVvcnkgDQoNCk9yIGNvbnRhY3QgdGhlIGF1dGhvcjogDQog ICBlLW1haWwgICAgIDw8ICBjYXNzYW5pQGxpbnV4LmluZm9zcXVhcmUuaXQg ICA+Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICBvciAgICAgICAgIDw8ICBjYXNzYW5pQDE5NC4x MzMuMS42ICA+Pg0KLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8NCiAgDQoNCg0K cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / DaveNugent / Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation Originally-From: davenugent@aol.com (DaveNugent) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation Date: 4 May 1995 20:03:08 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Are there any plans to make the Patterson Power Cell available commercially to other labs can duplicate their results? cudkeys: cuddy4 cudendavenugent cudlnDaveNugent cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / James Stolin / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 4 May 1995 21:58:20 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: >I have plenty of imagination---but after 6 years of claims >(+ the previous 5 years during which P&F researched in secret), >its seems appropriate to ask ``where's the beef''. I.e., lets fixate >on a single, reproducible experiment and diagnose it to death, just >to demonstrate the _existence_ of the effect----for this is probably >the most amazing effect ever discovered, if it really exists: an >effect that alters nuclear interaction properties at room temperature. Barry, First, I'm NOT meaning this as a flame. However, your comments on cold fusion sum up my feelings on "break-even" hot fusion. After all the years of research, break-even has not been reached with the methods tried. Instead, the "release date" of successful, self sustaining hot fusion keeps being pushed back. The bigger the budget, the farther out the date gets pushed. I think that Paul's (?) idea of funding a few alternative methods has merit. Whether methods are hot or cold, let future monetary allocations be based strictly on results. as it stands now, we are putting ALL out cash-eggs in the same Tok-basket. What if the basket gets dropped? - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Barry Merriman / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: 5 May 1995 00:47:56 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3o939s$6eq@otis.netspace.net.au> rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes: > blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: > > > 1) It is the small amount of deuterium in the light water that is > undergoing fusion. - I believe Jed has mentioned in a previous posting > that these cells actually run better with heavy water? I don't think so---spiking the Griggs device with D supposedly did not make any difference. And if it were D, then you should get enormous (~ 10,000) improvement from adding a few drops of D20. > > 2) There is a fusion reaction going on between the protium, and either > the metal of the cathode, or dare I suggest even oxygen? > (1H + 16O -> 17F + 600 keV ;first step) > Well, why do they see, supposedly, the production of Helium? That will only come from light nuclei fusions. I think both the above are ruled out, and barring a mircal,e I think the suuccess of light water CF spells big trouble for CF. (I'll take a look at Bass's theories of resonant penetration of the coulomb barrier, whch supposedly allow light water fusion, but I'm not holding my breath :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / John Logajan / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: 5 May 1995 02:20:46 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: : > these cells actually run better with heavy water? : I don't think so ... Patterson et al, in fact, claim that heavy water does have a noticeably higher output. -- - 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: cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / 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: Thu, 4 May 95 22:34:57 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >calorimetry proves the point beyond any doubt." Au contraire -- Tom Droege >examined the Griggs device and concluded that there is no conclusive evidence >supporting the notion that it "gets energy from ... light water" -- and I agree No, Tom did not examine the device. He refused to examine it. If he had, he would have seen for himself that it does exactly what Griggs and I say it does. Tom did not have the guts to examine it, but fortunately 40+ other scientists have gone there and examined it, and they have all seen that it does work. Since Tom refused to examine the machine or take any readings, his opinions count for nothing. Science is based on objective measurments and tests, not hot air and imaginary blather about magical effects on bimetalic thermometers and thermistors. Tom's "evaluation" of the machine was voodoo nonsense. If you buy it, then you don't understand the difference between science and make-believe. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / jedrothwell@de / Dufour hypothesis makes no difference Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Dufour hypothesis makes no difference Date: Thu, 4 May 95 22:36:31 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) "Alan M. Dunsmuir" asks: "Jed - In all your reporting about ICFC5, I don't remembering your mentioning that Dufour was now not claiming any fusion-related output . . . How did this rejection of the CF hypothesis, by another of its active experimenters, manage to slip past you unnoticed?" Don't be ridiculous, Alan. That's not my department. I don't give a damn what Dufour says it is. I do not give a damn whether it is fusion or not. You know my policy: it is heat beyond the limits of chemistry and *nothing else matters*. I never comment on theories to explain CF, or how many angels can dance on the head of pin. Dufour's heat comes from shrinking atoms or fusing atoms -- it is all the same with me. I don't care if he is looking at the same phonomenon as Pons and Fleischmann or something totally different. The only thing I care about is how much money the fuel costs. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / 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: 4 May 95 14:40:43 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > jonesse@plasma.byu.edu (Steve Jones) made up the following crazy story: > > "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)." > > This is truly breathtaking in its inventiveness. I hardly know where to begin. > I shall not even attempt to correct all of the farcical nonsense here, but > let me just point out a few things: > > 1. Yamaguchi faxed me, not Jones. I sent a copy on to Jones. The tone of the > message is not the least bit apologetic. It is informative. It corrects > these absurd illusions and mistaken ideas dreamed up by Hoffman and Jones > at ICCF3. They paid no attention to that fax or to any subsequent > communication with Yamaguchi, so he stopped trying to correct them. > How do you know that I did not receive a fax from Yamaguchi? I recal that I did, but since it is on paper rather than magnetic storage, it is unlikely that I will find it quickly (I did spend a short time looking, unsuccessfully). What I remember is that Yamaguchi was apologetic for having said "NO" in response to the question "Was there any glass in your system?" - Because there was abundant glass! This fax I received confirmed the idea of Hoffman's that there may have indeed been glass in the system, providing a source of helium, just as glass had been the source of helium seen by Paneth and Peters in 1926. And I certainly paid attention to the information from Yamaguchi. > 2. The fax showed how glass could not possibly have been the source of > contamination. Jones apparently believes that helium can spontaneously and > instantly leak through 5 cm of glass just at the moment an excess heat > event occurs, but that never happens during a test run or a run with no > heat. This is highly implausible, to put it mildly. > Jed misses a significant point here: the helium may come from the glass, as opposed to "leak"ing through the glass. Helium is stored in the glass, following exposure of the glass to air, for example. This is what Paneth and Peters observed (see my previous posting in its entirety, not just the section Jed selectively quoted). That is, I do not believe "that helium can spontaneously and instantly leak through 5 cm of glass just at the moment an excess heat event occurs" as Jed suggests. Moreover, Yamaguchi noted that deuterium is released rapidly with the heat event (a point to which I will return), and I noted to him that this deuterium can then "sweep" helium from the glass -- consistent with the observations of Paneth & Peters in 1926-1927. Indeed, the heat may well be caused by the expansion of deuterium as it leaves the metal. Yes, I mean what I say: deuterium has the property that it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases. This property may account for many putative "heat bursts" in cold fusion experiments, when the deuterium is released for example from high-pressure pockets in the metal. It's been some time since this was discussed here -- hope folks don't forget about this phenomenon. It is dangerous to play with pressurized hydrogen and not know about this. (No, Jed, I didn't make this up.) > 3. The work was subsequently replicated by others at NTT and Mitsubishi. It > has not been retracted. As far as I know, the kit is still for sale. > Where is this work published? Or is it published? > 4. Yamaguchi was not 'released' from NTT. They are still paying his salary. > > - Jed At the Maui meeting, I heard differently -- thanks for the correction. Is Yamaguchi still living in Japan? --Steve Jones cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / mitchell swartz / Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:22:46 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <1995May4.144043.2215@plasma.byu.edu> Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Steve Jones [jonesse@plasma.byu.edu] writes: > The fax showed how glass could not possibly have been the source of contamination. Jones apparently believes that helium can spontaneously and > instantly leak through 5 cm of glass just at the moment an excess heat > event occurs, but that never happens during a test run or a run with no > heat. This is highly implausible, to put it mildly. -Jed misses a significant point here: the helium may come from the glass, -as opposed to "leak"ing through the glass. Helium is stored in the glass, -following exposure of the glass to air, for example. Steve may be missing the point here. The amount in the glass is LIMITED. Perhaps a calculation is in order of the maximum contained therein :-) -Indeed, the heat may well be caused by the expansion of deuterium as it -leaves the metal. Yes, I mean what I say: deuterium has the property that -it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases. This property may -account for many putative "heat bursts" in cold fusion experiments, when -the deuterium is released for example from high-pressure pockets in the -metal. It's been some time since this was discussed here -- hope folks -don't forget about this phenomenon. It is dangerous to play with pressurized -hydrogen and not know about this. -(No, Jed, I didn't make this up.) Astounding!! "deuterium has the property that -it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases." If this is real it would overturn the gas laws. Talk about the minor effect of the cold fusion phenomena on known physics. Please do tell us more of your discovery. Sound like an anti-Charles law. Do you have a reference? Where is this work published? Or is it published? Thanks in advance. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Alan Betz / Re: Uranium / Fission question Originally-From: abetz@vanbc.wimsey.com (Alan Betz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question Date: 4 May 1995 20:55:28 -0700 Organization: Online at Wimsey Information Services Tim Mirabile writes: >scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >> In article <3ngob0$8cp@crcnis3.unl.edu>, poydence@unlinfo.unl.edu (Paul A. Poydence) writes: >> |> I have been reading various texts about nuclear fission reactions, >> |> and all of them indicate that Uranium 235 is the best usable material. >> |> What each of the texts neglects to mention is why this is so. Please >> |> help. If you have the answer or suggestions about where I may find it, >> |> please respond via e-mail. Thanks. >> The only difference between the isotopes U238 and U235 is the >> number of neutrons - U235 is short three compared to U238 - this makes U235 >> much more likely to capture a neutron and thus continue the fission process. >I think he means U235 vs Pu239. >I'm curious to know the answer to that one too. It is also interesting to note that fissionable elements of even atomic number, such as uranium and plutonium, have fissionable isotopes of odd atomic mass number, e.g. U233, U235, Pu239. Elements of odd atomic number such as neptunium and americium have fissionable isotopes of even mass numbers. There is also an isotope of curium with a relatively long half-life, with a very high fission capture cross section. The numbers have been published in some editions of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenabetz cudfnAlan cudlnBetz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Barry Merriman / Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 5 May 1995 03:55:12 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3obils$2tf0@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) writes: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > > >I have plenty of imagination---but after 6 years of claims > >(+ the previous 5 years during which P&F researched in secret), > >its seems appropriate to ask ``where's the beef''. > > First, I'm NOT meaning this as a flame. However, your comments on > cold fusion sum up my feelings on "break-even" hot fusion. After all the > years of research, break-even has not been reached with the methods tried. Well, it hasn't but its basically in sight. But certainly the ability to create substantial amounts of fusion reactions in a tokamak is well demonstrated. The only problem is that given the huge amount that we do know about tokamaks, its fairly clear that the only foreseable route to break-even is a large, costly experimental machine which some folks seem unwilling to fund. So, there is no comparable situation in hot fusion---our problem is we have mapped out the properties of the device _all too clearly_, to the point where we both its potential and its drawbacks. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 21:20 -0500 (EST) rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) writes: -> 2) There is a fusion reaction going on between the protium, and either -> the metal of the cathode, or dare I suggest even oxygen? -> (1H + 16O -> 17F + 600 keV ;first step) Although 17F is produced by deuteron bombardment of 16O with the release of a neutron, I don't think that there is much possibility of 17F being involved in CF. It has a 1.075 minute half life, and decays by positron emission. Average energy of the positron is 739Kev. When the positron combines with an electron a 511Mev gamma would be emitted. Particles of this high of an energy are quite easy to detect, and for the most part they have not been. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 21:31 -0500 (EST) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: -> Well, why do they see, supposedly, the production of Helium? That -> will only come from light nuclei fusions. Not necessarily so. Another source of possible He4 is alpha particles. Any nucleus which is unstable and emits alphas will give off He4. Ie. if a hydrogen nucleus were to fuse with another element and produce an isotope which is unstable and emits an alpha, you would end up with what appears to be a hydrogen to helium process. However for what it is worth, in the specific case of nickel and hydrogen, no isotope of copper can be created which is an alpha emitter. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / John Logajan / Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 5 May 1995 05:32:10 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote: : Steve Jones [jonesse@plasma.byu.edu] writes: : -deuterium has the property that it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike : -most gases. : : Do you have a reference? This is referred to as the "Joule-Thomson effect" or the "Joule-Kelvin effect." When a gas expands through a nozzle, the temperature decreases if the gas was initially below its inversion temperature, but the temperature increases if it was initially above its inversion temperature. The inverstion temperature for hydrogen is approximately -183C. So pressurized room temperature hydrogen warms up upon expanding through a nozzle. -- - 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: cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / R Berlingieri / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: rberling@pt8105.pto.ford.com (Raffaele Berlingieri (R)) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 5 May 1995 05:43:24 GMT Organization: Powertrain Operations, Ford Motor Company Hey Buddy, I think you posted this in the wrong area. This is the Invest.Stocks area. cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenrberling cudfnRaffaele cudlnBerlingieri cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.03 / jonesse@acousb / Reply to Shade, Rothwell, Logajan; Sonoluminescence note Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Reply to Shade, Rothwell, Logajan; Sonoluminescence note Date: 3 May 95 12:42:56 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University In article <3o301b$res@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) writes: >> 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 Hey, I've got hair -- just ask Jed! All seriousness aside -- there isn't enough radiation from CF to cause anyone to lose his/her hair. =( :-). On a more serious note, Jed and John Logajan ask me to clarify my remark about Droege's perceptions of the Griggs device. Glad to do so. Tom visited Griggs and company, sponsored by s.p.f., and found a lack of scientific rigor, e.g., no calibration curves, no error bars, no log books. He concluded (and I concur) that the Griggs et al. evidence does not provide compelling evidence for an over-unity device. --Steve Jones P.S. -- Nice article on SONOLUMINESCENCE in Science News, April 29, 1995. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Martin Sevior / Morrison's review of ICCF-5. Originally-From: msevior@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Martin Sevior) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Morrison's review of ICCF-5. Date: 5 May 1995 06:17:58 GMT Organization: University of Melbourne I found George Morrison's review of ICCF-5 interesting reading. It provided an counter point to Jed's and other CF believers review of the conference. However I was less than impressed with his treatment of the Paterson device demonstrated by CETI. Surely this was one of the most significant results of the conference. I real live "demonstration" device apparently producing a few watts of excess heat reliably all day every day. This is just what the mainstream of Scientists had been asking for. Surely this device deserves a detailed critique? This would be the perfect opportunity for a sceptic to look in detail and ask all the hard questions of the experimenters, examine the calibrations etc etc. Since George Morrison has been following the CF scene for some time he must be familiar with the pitfalls and mistakes of previous measurements that makes him sure CF is all noise. It should be easy for him to spot the error(s) the CETI people made that makes him sure their device is producing noise too. Why was this not done? Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Dieter Britz / fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Subject: fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 07:21:06 GMT Date: 4 May 1995 23:30:33 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante) in FD 3661, Subject: fields theory - lettera.txt [1/2] Date: 4 May 1995 23:30:33 GMT >DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQogICAgIA0KKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq >KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq >DQogDQpJbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBhIG5ldywgY2F1c2FsLCB3YXZpbmcgdW5pdGFy >eSB0aGVvcnkgY2FsbGVkOiAgDQpUaGUgIFdBVklORyBUSEVPUlkgIE9GICBU >SEUgIEZJRUxELiAoV1RGKSAgDQogIA0KPT09ICBXZSBtYWtlIHRoZSBoeXBv [...] ICBlLW1haWwgICAgIDw8ICBjYXNzYW5pQGxpbnV4LmluZm9zcXVhcmUuaXQg ICA+Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICBvciAgICAgICAgIDw8ICBjYXNzYW5pQDE5NC4x MzMuMS42ICA+Pg0KLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8NCiAgDQoNCg0K Oh, I see what you mean! -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.04 / Joe Filippo / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: jsan@acca.nmsu.edu (Joe San Filippo) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 4 May 1995 20:56:24 GMT Organization: New Mexico State University By my very posting, I am violating what I am about to say, but.... In ham radio, it is universally agreed that when you hear a real idiot on the air, the most effective way to make the idiot go away is to ignore him/her, completely. Yours in ignorance, Joe San Filippo WZ5R Las Cruces, NM cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjsan cudfnJoe cudlnFilippo cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / David Wyland / RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Marconi, signals, and noise Date: 5 May 1995 07:26:45 GMT Organization: Netcom In <9505041216.AA18551@kemi.aau.dk> britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes: .. text from earlier postings deleted ... >Sorry, David, for my not putting in the right quote marks in my last posting. >However, that was my point, i.e. those very specific experimental conditions; >what are they? Lots of people have done electrolysis in those electrolytes and >those cathode materials. About the only thing I can think of that is different >is the length of time of electrolysis. Also, you are no doubt aware of the >fact that by now, quite a variety of experimental conditions are claimed to >produce excess heat and helium; did these all accidentally hit on just the >right conditions? Still seems pathological to me. Before I do any heavy >thinking about the reason for the alleged effects, I'd have to be convinced >that there are in fact effects there, and not just experimental error, and >selection of results. You have a valid point. Repeatable results with understood error sources are the basis of a valid experiment. Ultimately, the results must be repeatable by others who are curious instead of convinced. If the CF effect is valid, the very specific experimental conditions might be nothing more than a combination of specific amounts of deturium and palladium, knowledgeable electrolysis with the proper electrolyte and charge transfer schedule, and calorimetry to look for excess energy. If any of these few things are off - such as the electrolysis time/charge transfer schedule you mentioned - you might not see the effect. If you do not do careful calorimetry, you won't see the effect, becasuse you are not looking for it! It could be that few researchers have ever tried (or had reason to try) conducting an experiment using palladium to disassociate heavy water where you carefully monitor the experiment for excess energy. Most researchers would _assume_ a passive system where energy out (including chemical) exactly equals energy in. If the instruments showed an excess, they would assume something got into the experiment, scrap the results, recalibrate the instruments and do the experiment again with more care. As you note, many people are apparently showing a variety of results in this area, from excess heat to helium and neutrons. Which ones are valid remains to be seen. Repeatability by many is the key, I think. Getting a lot of new results is not surprising, however. You get the thundering herd effect. It begins with "Hey, I've never tried that! I wonder if it works?" Everyone wants to play, and 17 more people try the experiment, with variations. You risk going from not seeing a result you weren't looking for to seeing something you expect to see that may not be there, just so you can join the crowd on the leading edge. This happens in the best of labs. Sorry to be so long winded. It's a hazard of the net, I think. Thanks for your reply. It is so pleasant to hear quiet voices on this posting. Dave Wyland cudkeys: cuddy5 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / mitchell swartz / Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 13:18:13 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3ocd8q$mpc@stratus.skypoint.net> Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: -This is referred to as the "Joule-Thomson effect" or the "Joule-Kelvin -effect." When a gas expands through a nozzle, the temperature decreases -if the gas was initially below its inversion temperature, but the -temperature increases if it was initially above its inversion temperature. The Joule-thompson effect is that a highly compressed gas, when allowed to expand without external work, cools --- and the cooling is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature squared. We have discussed throttling, and this previously. The question remains. Steve says: " deuterium has the property that it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases." Is there a reference? This would seem to be dynamically unstable according to the gas laws, since heating would cause more expansion .... and so on. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Richard Blue / Re: Theory for H2O fusion. Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Theory for H2O fusion. Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 15:41:07 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway So far there have been two suggestions relating to a theory for the Cravens results. We have the assertion that D2O does actually provide more excess heat than H2O and then we wander off into possible proton-induced reactions with anything that may be present. Wouldn't it be nice if the experiments could resolve even such basic questions as to whether deuterons are or are not involved in the reaction process? Is Cravens (or whoever) going to market this "technology" without ever resolving this question? I wouldn't be willing to lay much money on the line based on a demonstration of a possible one watt of power coming from some poorly described process. Shouldn't we be at least curious as to what are the likely requirements for scaling up to perhaps 10 or 100 watts? As to the suggestion that there is some proton-induced reaction involved, we come back to the same old question. Why is there no direct evidence to support the notion for any specific reaction process? What happens that can account for the occurance of a reaction in this system that does not occur in similar systems under similar conditions? Does anyone think that the production of 17F is impossible to detect? Of course those who are inclined to do so can call upon the required number of miracles to validate any conjecture. I just think we should keep score as to the number of miracles it takes. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / jedrothwell@de / Nothing is wrong with H2O cold fusion Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Nothing is wrong with H2O cold fusion Date: Fri, 5 May 95 11:07:44 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) and others have commented on the light water CF results: "I think both the above are ruled out, and barring a miracle I think the success of light water CF spells big trouble for CF." Cold fusion has been proved by experiment, not theory. It has been proved in thousands of experiments. Barring a miracle, nobody can show any significant errors in the experiments from Pons and Fleischmann, Cravens, Oriani, Yamaguchi, McKubre, KEK, Amoco or any of the other leading workers. If CF was based upon theory, and if that theory predicted that it cannot work with light water, then the nickel light water experiments would spell trouble, but it is not based on theory any more than high temperature superconductors are. The success of light water CF cannot spell any trouble for the experimental evidence. The only thing that could possibly endanger that evidence would be proof that a mistake was made in the calorimetry. Some people have suggested that the excess heat from nickel suggests that the blank experiments with Pd may not be so blank after all, but this is nonsense for two reasons: 1. Nobody has ever observed excess heat with palladium, only with nickel; 2. If there was undetected excess heat with Pd + light water, than would only mean that the baseline of the experiments is raised and there is actually a lot more heat with heavy water than we think. That would *add* to the reported heat. For some strange reason, pathological "skeptics" have trouble distinguishing between experiments with nickel and experiments with palladium. At ICCF3 Morrison said that nickel and palladium are, I quote, "the same thing." He is wrong about that. They are different elements. Ni is number 28, Pd is number 46, right smack below it on the periodic table. He forgot that in his analysis of ICCF5 as well. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 5 May 1995 15:09:55 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote: > In Message-ID: <1995May4.144043.2215@plasma.byu.edu> > Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium > Steve Jones [jonesse@plasma.byu.edu] writes: > [...] > > -Indeed, the heat may well be caused by the expansion of deuterium as it > -leaves the metal. Yes, I mean what I say: deuterium has the property that > -it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases. This property may > -account for many putative "heat bursts" in cold fusion experiments, when > -the deuterium is released for example from high-pressure pockets in the > -metal. It's been some time since this was discussed here -- hope folks > -don't forget about this phenomenon. It is dangerous to play with pressurized > -hydrogen and not know about this. > -(No, Jed, I didn't make this up.) > > Astounding!! > "deuterium has the property that -it heats rapidly on *expansion*, > unlike most gases." > If this is real it would overturn the gas laws. Talk > about the minor effect of the cold fusion phenomena on known > physics. Please do tell us more of your discovery. > Sound like an anti-Charles law. Do you have a reference? > Where is this work published? Or is it published? Hydrogen (and, I presume, deuterium) does, in fact, have a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient at room temperatures. From _Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics_, by Smith and Van Ness: "Hydrogen and helium initially at room temperature wil increase in temperature as a result of the expansion. However, most gases have a positive Joule-Thomson coefficient at ordinary conditions, and hydrogen and helium do at low temperatures [below about 100(K) for hydrogen and 20(K) for helium]." --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy5 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Richard Blue / Yamaguchi, E-Quest, Helium Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Yamaguchi, E-Quest, Helium Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 16:11:16 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Since the Yamaguchi experiment has been once again been mentioned, I would just like to point out that in addition to not having under- stood the helium contamination problem such that he could address it properly, Yamaguchi did not even understand the operation of his instrumentation well enough that he could produce a convincing signal for the presence of any helium from any source. You simply don't generate good data by driving the instrument into overload conditions! Relatively simply modifications of the experimental protocol could have avoided the problem, but that was never done as far as we know. Could it be that operating the mass spectrometer in an appropriate pressure range made the effect disappear? As for the E-Quest result, why do we keep hearing that Rockwell could not possibly have botched the helium analysis, but nothing is ever mentioned concerning the preparation of the samples that were sent to Rockwell for testing? I think this is a cleaver bit of misdirection. You tell folks a bunch of stuff that is not very significant to make them think the evidence is pretty convincing, but certain key details never see the light of day. We are told that the helium concentration in the cover gas goes to levels much higher than the world-wide average normal concentration of helium in the atmosphere, but that is not a very useful thing to know. We are told that the 3He/4He ratio is "abnormal" as well, but how is that data normalized? Someone suggests that 3He costs $60,000 dollars per liter and therefore its concentration is never elevated anywhere at anytime. I think there are several layers of misinformation here. I doubt that 3He costs $60,000 per liter because I have actually purchased several liters myself over the years, and I did polute the atmosphere with it. Furthermore I know first hand that other people do the same. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Tim Mirabile / Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Int Date: 5 May 1995 14:52:38 GMT Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210 pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote: > Tim Mirabile writes: > >pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote: > >> In article <3mqbj3$oe6@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mharmer@aol.com (MHarmer) writes: > >> >Muon catalized fusion is considered conventional fusion. It isn't any > >> >different except that it requires a muon source and lower temperatures. ^^^^^^ > >> You have that right. > >I'd call it conventional because it's been proven and > >doesn't require any "new physics". > Proven? > I thought the muons have a limited life, and don't catalyse a sufficient > number of burns to produce more energy out than is required to generate > and collect the muon beasties in the first place. So it's DISPROVEN, > except as a sort of laboratory parlor trick. This is sci.physics.fusion, not sci.energy.fusion. Muon catalyzed fusion has been proven to happen, I never said it was practical. But even that might change if we were able to develop a more efficient muon source, and to squeeze out more fusions per muon. > Besides, you do make a point. So, if muon cf is conventional, then > certainly BL is also conventional, since it is part of nature, and seems > to work well in the sun. As far as those avocating work in this area, > then consider Kadomtsev. Also the Russians and now the US have been > spending big bucks on this area of fusion on the quiet and for years. > Other names, are MICF or MTF. I think they receive a big chunk of the > 2 billion they were just funded for such work. Quite a bit of dough > for some allegedly non-conventional stuff! > No my friend, what we have here, is a chap trying desperately to protect > the old paradigm. If we start looking at a system of physics as > conventional or not, then you start to form a creed; it is then not a > system of improving understanding and knowledge. Convention in such > a young discipline as plasma physics should have NOTHING to do with > "what's conventional". After all, it was "convention" 60 years ago > to claim there was just 3 states of matter, which excluded the plasma > state altogether. Even the ancient Greeks did better than that. Let's > face it, we have a case of scientific censorship, mild though it seems. I also disagree with calling some types of fusion 'conventional' or 'unconventional'. Why not just be descriptive, like "Plasma fusion FAQ". I'm a CF skeptic, but I see no reason to show obvious bias by labelling some things 'conventional' and anything else therefore unconventional by default. cudkeys: cuddy5 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Sergio Pomante / FIELDS THEORY 2 THE REVENGE - lettera.txt [1/2] Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: FIELDS THEORY 2 THE REVENGE - lettera.txt [1/2] Date: 5 May 1995 16:34:03 GMT Organization: none *************************************************************** 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: cuddy5 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 12:48 -0500 (EST) jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes: -> Jed misses a significant point here: the helium may come from the glass, -> as opposed to "leak"ing through the glass. Helium is stored in the glass, -> following exposure of the glass to air, for example. It is well know that helium can seep through and be trapped in glass. However it seems to me that I remember hearing or reading somewhere long ago that this is not the case for Pyrex or quartz. Do you know if this is correct or not? If true, then we need to determine if windows and such are plain glass or Pyrex/quartz. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 5 May 1995 17:50:28 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <3ocdts$6mk@eccdb1.pms.ford.com> rberling@pt8105.pto.ford.com (Raffaele Berlingieri (R)) writes: > Hey Buddy, I think you posted this in the wrong area. This is the > Invest.Stocks area. I am, and will be a frequent poster to stocks, sci*hierarchy, and bicycles. I have my own newsgroups for anyone wanting to see all of my posts. I wanted to inform any of my readers they can see me in the flesh. It is nice to see the "real" person behind some posts, sometimes. And, that is what these newsgroups are about, to inform, is it not? How many times I got to tell you these things? cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 5 May 1995 17:53:25 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <3obf1o$qnr@bubba.NMSU.Edu> jsan@acca.nmsu.edu (Joe San Filippo) writes: > > By my very posting, I am violating what I am about to say, but.... > > In ham radio, it is universally agreed that when you hear a real idiot > on the air, the most effective way to make the idiot go away is to > ignore him/her, completely. > > Yours in ignorance, > > Joe San Filippo WZ5R > Las Cruces, NM Acheron, Atom cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 5 May 1995 17:54:44 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article elbert-chang@nwu.edu (Elbert I. Chang) writes: > In article <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, > Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: > > > > I especially thank this TV organization for spending over an hour > > with me 14:30-16:00 interviewing me and making a TV film of me. > > > > OH MY GOD! An hour-and-a-half with this idiot? Were these TV people > convicted felons or masochists?! Styx, Atom cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / A Plutonium / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Originally-From: dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.f sion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,misc.invest.stocks rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Date: 5 May 1995 17:57:34 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu) writes: > this is pathetic. > i wish you ran a public company, i would short the shit out of it. Path: dartvax.dartmouth.edu!news.bu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!hookup!news.mathw orks.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.new s.aol.com!uunet!uchinews!quads!dtlu38 Originally-From: dtlu38@quads.uchicago.edu (D. T.K. Lu) Styx, Atom cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Barry Merriman / Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 5 May 1995 19:28:55 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3ocd8q$mpc@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote: > : Steve Jones [jonesse@plasma.byu.edu] writes: > : -deuterium has the property that it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike > : -most gases. > : > : Do you have a reference? > > This is referred to as the "Joule-Thomson effect" or the "Joule-Kelvin > effect." When a gas expands through a nozzle, the temperature decreases > if the gas was initially below its inversion temperature, but the > temperature increases if it was initially above its inversion temperature. > > The inverstion temperature for hydrogen is approximately -183C. So > pressurized room temperature hydrogen warms up upon expanding through > a nozzle. > Could you explain the intuitive physics behind this? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Barry Merriman / Re: Nuclear Weapons Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Nuclear Weapons Date: 5 May 1995 19:36:32 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3o9bng$g3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> wthreeton@aol.com (WThreeton) writes: > Please send me any information on the construction of nuclear weapons. I > am writing a paper for my high school physics class. Your assistance is > appreciated. You wouldn't happen to be in a militia, would you? :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / 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: 5 May 1995 20:31:54 GMT Organization: fermilab In article <887864667wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, "Alan M. Dunsmuir" says: > >In article: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick) writes: >> Make that three shaved heads. I'd LOVE to see pratical fusion. >> >> Chris "will shave my head for practical REPLICATED cold fusion" Kostanick >> > >Me too. But if we have to rely on Jed as guide and teacher, my skull will >probably have lost its flesh as well as its hair before I need to shave it! Is anyone keeping a total of the potential shaved heads - I count at least 4? Perhaps if Jed is correct we can get a group rate from the Hair Club for Men. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Jim Carr / Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named? Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How was sci.physics.fusion named? Date: 5 May 1995 16:53:19 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Our newsfeed has been, shall we be charitable, unreliable for the past few weeks. Thus this may have been answered and never made it here. My apologies if it was answered already. In article <950425221616_96381729@aol.com> Tstolper@aol.com writes: > >Does anyone know how the newsgroup sci.physics.fusion received that label? Certainly. >It might have been called sci.physics.coldfusion, or sci.physics.cf, or >something else. It might even have been called sci.chem.coldfusion, given >that both Fleischmann and Pons were chemists. But Steve Jones was a physicist. Anyway, the subject was discussed on many newsgroups, but the area with the largest interest (probably because fusion is studied by physicists and some nuclear chemists) was physics. If the electrochemistry group had existed, this might have been different, but since that group came later, it explicitly *excludes* electrochemically-induced fusion from its charter. >Why was the label sci.physics.fusion chosen? Who chose it? It was chosen by Scott Hazen Mueller. More precisely, he chose the name "alt.fusion" for the first group created subsequent to the March 1989 press conference. He also started the mailing list to distribute the group to those sites not getting alt groups. Although he did not manage the CFD and CFV for sci.physics.fusion (Kevin Scott did that) due to lack of time related to an impending marriage, the name was derived from alt.fusion as the CFV makes clear: Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics. Technicly this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of wider distribution. The goal is to make fusion related articles available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics. The group is to be unmoderated. I think the CFV also makes clear why the name was chosen. At the time, there were enough reports of neutrons and the like that there was no dispute that the subject under discussion was claimed to be fusion, as all the news reports and some publications stated quite clearly. Also, since there was no fusion newsgroup and not much discussion of tokamak physics on the net, it probably seemed the natural thing to do. Usenet has a mechanism to make changes if it proved not to be workable, which is why there is a CFV currently open for votes. -- 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: cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Jim Carr / Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why Some Experiments Don't Need Error Bars Date: 5 May 1995 17:03:45 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes: > >Jed points out some experiments such as the Wright brothers flight or the >atomic bomb don't need error bars to be beleived. He goes on to point out >others such as the evicence of the top quark need error bars and >statistical analysis. I would agree with this assessment. However, I think >Jed fails to point out the key difference. > >Things like the Wright brothers first flight or the atomic bomb can be >observed without the assistance of any instrumentation. Things like the >top quark need very sophisticated instrumentation to be observed. I don't think that is the key difference, since I do not think there is a difference. Even visual observation includes some error estimation; what was unstated was what those errors actually are. Just because they go unverbalized does not mean the person you are talking to does not interpret them in the context of some implicit uncertainty. When you say you saw the plane fly, and that it flew some distance, it is implicit that you saw some space between the plane and the ground larger than the resolving power of your eyes from that distance away. When you say that you saw an explosion bigger than anything you have seen before, perhaps as bright as the sun, there are several order of magnitude estimates being expressed, each with an implicit uncertainty that might be clarified if you were to then ask "Oh come on, how could you tell it was that strong?". For example, the yield was estimated from how far the shock wave blew some pieces of paper, with an error probably in the 20% range. -- 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: cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / John Logajan / Re: Theory for H2O fusion. Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Theory for H2O fusion. Date: 5 May 1995 18:22:52 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: : ... whether deuterons are or are not involved in the reaction process? : Is Cravens (or whoever) going to market this "technology" without ever : resolving this question? My impression from talking to Cravens (who is unaffiliated with CETI, the owners of the Patterson patents, but is affiliated with ENECO as a science advisor) is that that particular question is not among the priority items in his next experiments. CETI might have their own priorities but I have not spoken to them so I cannot address that avenue of research. We can argue about priorities, but I think we can all agree that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the sequence of issues to investigate. Or as my mom would complain, "I've only got two arms." : Shouldn't we be at least curious as to what are the likely : requirements for scaling up to perhaps 10 or 100 watts? This *is* the issue Cravens is currently working on -- scaling up the Patterson device to the hundreds to thousands of watts range. He said he was hoping to have results by the end of the summer if possible. Having said that reasonable people can disagree on approaches, I do happen to disagree with Cravens on this issue. I believe the current level of devices is of significant alleged signal to full characterize all energy and power level questions. I think he runs the risk of spending time on something that may have unanticipated scaling problems and so his immediate time could best be spent characterizing that which is already in evidence. But if he can get a huge wattage device working in a few months, then he will have leap-frogged over some otherwise objection issues (such as signal noise floor) etc. So its not a question of right or wrong approach, just a question of subjective risk assessment. -- - 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: cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / John Logajan / Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: 5 May 1995 20:05:45 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: : > When a gas expands through a nozzle, the temperature decreases : > if the gas was initially below its inversion temperature, but the : > temperature increases if it was initially above its inversion temperature. : Could you explain the intuitive physics behind this? Me? No. :-) I was just paraphrasing what I was reading out of the definitions section of the CRC Handbook. -- - 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: cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / John Cobb / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Date: 5 May 1995 17:20:03 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas In article , mitchell swartz wrote: > In Message-ID: <3ocd8q$mpc@stratus.skypoint.net> >Subject: Re: Jones' Hypothesis about E-Quest Helium >jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > >-This is referred to as the "Joule-Thomson effect" or the "Joule-Kelvin >-effect." When a gas expands through a nozzle, the temperature decreases >-if the gas was initially below its inversion temperature, but the >-temperature increases if it was initially above its inversion temperature. > > The Joule-thompson effect is that a highly compressed gas, >when allowed to expand without external work, cools --- and >the cooling is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature >squared. >We have discussed throttling, and this previously. > >The question remains. Steve says: >" deuterium has the property that >it heats rapidly on *expansion*, unlike most gases." > >Is there a reference? For a good elementary ref. try Reif's (McGraw-Hill, 1965) pp. 175-184, the sections on free expansion and Throttling (Joule-Thomson) Processes. The point is that ideal gases neither heat nor cool on expansion, but that real gases can heat or cool depending on the sign of: \mu = \partial T / \partial p, keeping H (enthalpy) constant. For most gases near STP values, \mu > 0 and throttling cools a gas. However, this is not universal. I am not familiar enough with H_2 to verify John or Steve's remarks. However, I do remember very clearly being told that this was the reason that liquid helium cyrogenic systems must be two stage. Liquid air (nitrogen) refrigeration systems must be used to cool gaseous helium down to 70 K. At that temperature, \mu > 0 for Helium. However, for room temperatures, \mu < 0. This explains why liquid Helium is so expensive. Two stages cyrogenics are more difficult to deal with. I always thought this result was so neat because it was so counter-intuitive. I mean almost everyone has experienced the cooling from spraying and aerosol paint, or some other everyday example, but the effect is not universal and depends on the compressed gas. > This would seem to be >dynamically unstable according to the gas laws, since >heating would cause more expansion .... and so on. Well, it might if \mu < 0 for all values of T and p, but usually it varies. I have never seen a gas where \mu < 0 for arbitrarily low pressures. just my 2 cents. Check out Reif and other textbooks if you really want authoritative info. -john .w cobb -- John W. Cobb Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys -Jimmy Buffett cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Barry Merriman / Re: Nothing is wrong with H2O cold fusion Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Nothing is wrong with H2O cold fusion Date: 5 May 1995 22:56:56 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) and others have commented on the > light water CF results: > > "I think both the above are ruled out, and barring a miracle I think the > success of light water CF spells big trouble for CF." > > Cold fusion has been proved by experiment, not theory. It has been proved in > thousands of experiments. Barring a miracle, nobody can show any significant > errors Just a hypothetical question, JR: is there _any_ cell configuration that you would ever be suspicious of on theoretical grounds? Suppose someone showed they could get excess heat simply by boiling tap water in a palladium pan on the stove, and they had detailed calorimetry and so forth, and had also tested for nuclear ash and found He---would you remain skeptical of such an experiment, or would you endorse it? If you would consider such and experiment with skepticism, then perhaps you can understand why those of us in the fusion biz are so skeptical, a priori, of lightwater based experiments, even if they _seem_ succesful. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / mitchell swartz / Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 23:12:14 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3oe8aj$jqe@curly.cc.utexas.edu> Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes: >Is there a reference? -For a good elementary ref. try Reif's -(McGraw-Hill, 1965) pp. 175-184, the sections on free expansion and Throttling -(Joule-Thomson) Processes. - -The point is that ideal gases neither heat nor cool on expansion, but that -real gases can heat or cool depending on the sign of: - Thanks John. Reif is always my first choice, but attention is directed to the fact that, first, the isoenthalpic curves are only for N2 therein (and hence the question of the reference) and second, the key word is: INITIALLY that ideal gases neither heat nor cool on expansion. However, follow the isoenthalpic curves the entire way down (figure 5-10-3) to atmospheric pressure. Third the inversion curve details are much more complicated than that discussed here. So, in any case, Reif is one of the better starting places. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / Thomas Kunich / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest Helium Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 23:10:34 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote: >It is well know that helium can seep through and be trapped in glass. However >it seems to me that I remember hearing or reading somewhere long ago that this >is not the case for Pyrex or quartz. Do you know if this is correct or not? Yes, that is the case. What difference does it make. There was _glass_ in the Yamaguchi system. There seems to be some incredulity that there might be higher local concentrations of helium in the room that these experiments are conducted in. Apparently it isn't common knowledge that if you want to assure yourself that you are using liquids that are free of dissolved gases, you bubble helium through them. So in many laboratories, the local concentrations can be orders of magnitude above normal background levels of helium. cudkeys: cuddy5 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / 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: 5 May 1995 20:27:20 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote: : wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: : >: BW> now my use of a commercial Internet provider : >: will allow me to be much more open in my crusade to reform modern physics. : >: : >You have a very narrow minded view of what constitutes spamming and : >using the Internet for communication on the most important topic of our : >time. : Mr. Wallace, you have a very narrow minded view of what constitutes : "the most important topic of our time". Your crusade does not exempt : you from the rule of netiquette that most users of netnews voluntarily : follow. From my perspective, you are espousing a new theory of physics. : Therefore, I suggest you limit your posts to alt.sci.physics.new-theories. : I've the set the follow-ups to that group. : If you don't understand the rules of netiquette, please go read : news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions. If you don't : accept the rules of netiquette, you should not be using netnews. : -- : //===============================\\ : || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || : || You have to decide to live. || : \\===============================// You have a very distorted view of netiquette and physics. I really am espousing a return to legitimate scientific principles based on the objective search for knowledge as opposed to the current trend toward bizarre pathological mystic untested theories that argue that empty space is a solid of infinite mass/energy that can create the universe in a Big Bang. The conformist bigots and politicians that have made modern physics a farce ignore the fact that an objective comparative analysis of the wave and particle models of light in the solar system would be a definitive test of their stationary ether/space/vacuum theoretical arguments because they it know it gives a politically incorrect answer! Bryan cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.05 / ElliotKenl / Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion? Date: 5 May 1995 19:27:43 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) It seems that even within the cold fusion community, there is a great deal of skepticism about results with light water. If you approach the experimental results with the idea that there a single fusion reaction, perhaps with different branching ratios, then you are in trouble, no question. On the other hand, if the cold fusion reaction is a different class of reactions, then that is a different story. You know what I am going to say next--a well respected (before cold fusion, anyway) physicist has put forward a theory of lattice-nuclei interactions which indicates via an extension application of quantum electrodynamics that unexpected neutron exchange is possible between heavy and light elements when a deuterided OR hydrided metal undergoes exothermic outgassing. For Pd-D, the needed deuterium ratio is about 0.85. For Pd-H the ratio is higher, but still physically attainable. Depending on the loading ratio (which may also vary locally as has been experimentally verified), the following reactions can occur: neutron transfer to deuterium from Pd or other lattice atom, creating tritium; alpha emission creating helium; or neutron shifting on a surface silicide layer (created by leaching silicon from glass containment due to LiOD or LiOH transport) creating excess heat. It is not trivial to create a highly loading Pd cathode as is well known. However, the Patterson approach of using a very thin Pd layer with a high surface area to volume ratio appears to be a very sound approach to simplifying that problem. It may very well be that he can achieve Faradaic loading efficiencies up beyond the 0.90 range, which would be high enough to achieve Hagelstein-predicted cold fusion effects. Incidentally, nickel-light water and titanium-light water effects are also predicted. Don't ask me to defend zero-point energy or other fringe theories. In addition, deuterium-fusion theories are also in serious trouble (but you and I have both been skeptical of these from the beginning). But as far as lattice-moderated nuclear reactions is concerned, the data accumulated by Patterson and Cravens (not to mention the Japanese groups) tends to greatly support and strengthen the theory. In any case, at least some cold fusion theorists are attempting to model the data within the confines of quantum electrodynamics and solid state--why is this heresy even before the model is fully and finally validated (or invalidated if you prefer). At this point, the debate should still be open. Note also that ultrasonic techniques such as Stringhams have been shown to load deuterium and hydrogen very effectively. It is conceivable that these systems work. I would go so far as to say that if other observables predicted by Hagelstein can be confirmed--such as phonon gain and isotope shifting in certain silicon systems, then his theory of cold fusion would largely be confirmed, and CF would be given a theoretical basis in quantum mechanics and solid state physics. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Yellow Springs OH cudkeys: cuddy5 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.06 / Garry Maskaly / Career in nuclear physics Originally-From: jmaskaly@epix.net (Garry Maskaly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Career in nuclear physics Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 03:38:45 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I have always been interested in researching nuclear fusion. I am planning on majoring in nuclear physics at MIT. What kind of job opportunities are there for one with a degree in nuclear physics? I was also wondering how well this major would go with fusion research. Thank you for help. =========================================================================== Garry Maskaly jmaskaly@epix.net "When you strive to be the best, you push yourself to the limit because that's a good place to START." "The only thing one regrets in life are the risks not taken." =========================================================================== cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenjmaskaly cudfnGarry cudlnMaskaly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.06 / jedrothwell@de / H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science Date: Sat, 6 May 95 01:07:59 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) asks: "Just a hypothetical question, JR: is there _any_ cell configuration that you would ever be suspicious of on theoretical grounds?" Sure! I disbelieve tons of cell configurations! Most of them, even. I have often described what I think is a lousy experiment. The worst problems are: * Power levels too low (anything below a half watt thermal is suspicious); * Insufficient calibration; * Over complicated, over precise "white elephant" calorimeters; * Unusual, exotic, non-standard calorimeters; * Anything that depends upon a computer "Suppose someone showed they could get excess heat simply by boiling tap water in a palladium pan on the stove, and they had detailed calorimetry . . ." That's a meaningless hypothetical question. How could they do that? What kind of calorimetry could that be? I have never heard of any calorimeter configured like that. Even if there could be such a calorimeter, it would not be not strictly by-the-book, so I would not understand it. If it not a calorimeter design that has been in use for hundred years then I don't want to hear about it. I am so boring and conventional, I like programs written in COBOL. ". . .would you remain skeptical of such an experiment, or would you endorse it?" I think you are confusing the cell with the calorimeter. You are asking if I would accept results from a cell with light water in palladium, as long as it exceeded the limits of chemistry. Well, of course I would! Heck, I would accept light water in limburger cheese, or Drano with cat hair. I don't care what is inside the cell. It is a black box that generates heat. If it outputs a hundred megajoules per mole, I am delighted. When the Drano formula is sufficiently replicated I accept it. I check the *calorimeter* carefully, I don't care what's in the black box. I don't care if theories get overthrown either. So what if the branching ratios don't work? Who cares about the coulomb barrier? In the church of physics, I am an atheist. Why should I care if some dead professor's pet theory turns out to be wrong? The rule is simple: data always wins, theory always loses, no exceptions granted. I will believe *absolutely anything* that gets replicated. Show me anti-gravity, ESP, a time machine . . . If I test it, and I see it works, I believe it. If you don't accept the data, then you have no standards, no way of judging anything, no way of proving anything. That way lies madness. When people stop believing the data, then anyone can believe any damn thing. You open the door to lunatics who claim that nickel is the same as palladium; or 0.004 moles of hydrogen can burn for an hour at 150 watts; or an electric motor can affect a bimetallic thermometer. Impossible, crazy, imaginary nonsense! How can you tell it is nonsense? The only way to separate such illusion from reality is to *perform an experiment*. "If you would consider such and experiment with skepticism, then perhaps you can understand why those of us in the fusion biz are so skeptical, a priori, of lightwater based experiments, even if they _seem_ successful." There is your mistake!!! If they _seem_ successful (experimentally) then they *are successful*! They have to be; there is no other standard. Logic has nothing to do with it. Expectations are no guide. "A priori" ideas have no role in science. The term "a priori" has three definitions. All are the extreme opposite of the scientific method: 1. "Proceeding from known or assumed causes to a necessarily related effect." There can be no such thing as a "known or assumed" cause in science. Everything is provisional; we guess, we do not know, and we can always be shown wrong -- by experiment, of course. Causality can never be proven. Strictly speaking, causes are merely statistically likely outcomes. 2. "Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment." Chaos! 3. "Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study." Back to the dark ages! When you start believing things a priori, you stop being a scientist. You become a philosopher or a religious fanatic. The scientific method begins when you purge all expectations, all preconceptions, all a priori ideas. Then you do the experiment. Then you accept the results. There can be only one standard: the experiment. Everything else is bunk. Nature dictates what is real, and you must accept it humbly, tossing away a priori expectations, false ideas, illusions, and broken theories. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May 6 04:37:06 EDT 1995 ------------------------------