1995.05.09 / Edward Lewis /  Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 01:16:12 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the December,
1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion experiments,
and he suggests that people use nuclear emulsions.  He's written
manuscripts about tiny ball lightning that are produced by discharge
apparatus also.  Sufficient evidence of the production of things that
can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the many kinds of
plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the EB-filament paper
by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.  Bostick, J. Feugeas, and
W. Prior, "Internal Structure of ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical
Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).  This is substantial
proof, in my opinion.  Some of the ring traces are very similar, and
some of the other traces are similar too.  I'd also like to suggest
that people use nuclear emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion
and plasmoid experiments.  Many of the plasmoids produced by
electrolysis and discharge are the same.  And people have known for a
long time that plasmoids and discharges are associated with neutron
production.  They are the locus of neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
According to Peratt, Bostick coined the term  In this paper, he had
already began to tell others about his speculation that galaxies and
the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the shapes and
the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little about the
identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of
plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different kinds of
shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven who is a
physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed similar
astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different
kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general phenomena.
There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning are
associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements, and
excess radiation, and that they are a locus of this.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that
others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked
grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty
grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails
on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  The tunnels, round holes,
and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by ball
lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger
effects.  These tunnels, round holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December, 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.  I think
that all substance can be identified as plasmoid phenomena.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena -- the substance was converted to
light, electricity or other kinds of plasmoids, I suspect.  And I
suspect that the grain-shaped voids or pits that they produced is
evidence of the conversion of the grain to light or electricity or of
the production of other kinds of plasmoids, though there may also be
the distortion of the grains or the dislocation of grains by
separation.  Some plasmoids are apparently able to travel through
materials, even if the plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that
Matsumoto has produced does this, and this is major evidence to
support my deductions.  Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned
electrodes with what seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny
BL-like phenomena traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.  1)W. Bostick, "Plasmoids," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 197, 87
(October 1957).

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Career in nuclear physics
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Career in nuclear physics
Date: 9 May 1995 02:03:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950505211150.6670B-100000@grape.epix.net>  
jmaskaly@epix.net (Garry Maskaly) writes:
> 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.
> 

Well, not too much---fusion has much more to do with plasma physics
than nuclear physics---the latter is just encapsulated into to
a fusion reaction rate, the rest is all plasmas.

In any event, its not a particulalrly good time to get involved
in the US magnetic fusion program, as funding is dropping and there
are no new machines in sight (=> no major new experimental developments).

Have you considered biology? :-)



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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  Visor@globalco /  Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
     
Originally-From: Visor@globalcom.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found!
Date: Mon, 08 May 95 22:21:47 PDT
Organization: GlobalCom



> 	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
> plasmoids for a while now.  In a letter to the Editor in the 
December,
> 1994 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the
> observation of tiny ball lightning in several cold fusion 
experiments,

>text removed<

You may be interested in an experiment that I conducted in 1982.

While stimulating water vapor (H 2 O) with a high voltage source I 
witnessed something that may be relevant to your post. I called it 
the production of active plasma, but you may call it tiny ball 
lighting. The water vapor was in a pyrex 1000ml beaker into which  
electrodes were installed. Moments after the power was introduced a 
very bright -ball- of plasma appeared in the beaker. This ball then 
adhered to the inside wall of the beaker. Within seconds this 
-ball-melted a tiny pinhole at the point of contact. The -ball- then 
(I guess oozed is a good word) through this tiny hole. The -ball- 
followed a spiral path around the room (I dove for the floor by the 
way) and after about a 70 seconds disapeared. 



cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenVisor cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  Labrys /  Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
     
Originally-From: tuttt@cii3130-08.its.rpi.edu (Labrys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
Date: 8 May 1995 20:55:24 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

>I would fully agree data should win. However, it isn't really the data
>that is in question. Instead, it is the interpretation of the data that is
>in question. Perhaps, there is a better explaination, read theory, for
>some of the anomolous heat generation than cold fusion.

Hear hear
TET
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / 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: 9 May 1995 03:35:25 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland College Park

Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd) wrote:
: >Tim Mirabile (tim@mail.htp.com) wrote:
: >: scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
: >
: >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.
: >

: Canadian CANDU heavy water moderated reactors reactors work with natural
: Uranium.

: Martin Sevior

*sheepish grin* True. Though now one has a different enriching process
(making D2O).  ? for any CANDU people out there: How much does reactor grade
D2O cost? 
--
              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:
cuddy9 cudenjfloyd cudfnJason cudlnFloyd cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 /  FRunyan /  Time saving Modeling Software?
     
Originally-From: frunyan@aol.com (FRunyan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Time saving Modeling Software?
Date: 9 May 1995 00:07:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I recently acquired a couple of math programs I found to be helpful.  Here
is some information about the software called Macsyma and PDEase.  They
may prove a time saver to you.

Macsyma will solve algebra, calculus, ordinary differential equations and
linear algebra problems.  It also can find Lie symmetries and symbolic
solutions of partial differential equations and automates generation of
p.d.e.'s in arbitrary coordinates.  It also provides 2 and 3D scientific
graphics, including plots of point sets, functions, parametric curves and
surfaces, and vector fields.  It will also write p.d.e.'s in non-Cartesian
coordinates and pass the equations to its' companion program (PDEase) for
numerical solution.

PDEase solves p.d.e.'s numerically by finite element analysis.  It solves
a very wide range of p.d.e.'s of elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic and mixed
types.  It will solve static, time-dependent and eigenvalue problems with
two space dimensions.

I have several demos of each program and will be happy to send them to
anyone who wants them until I run out.  Just send me your name and mailing
address.

I hope this has been useful
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenfrunyan cudlnFRunyan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / 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: 8 May 1995 01:14:42 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3ohcb6$kkv@news.htp.com>
Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com> writes:

> > Styx, Atom
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> Are you telling him to go to Hell?

  Yes, I am telling him to go to Hell, only I knew it as Hades or Dis.
Of course I in ancient Greece would not say "go to Hades" in Greek, I
would just simply say "Styx" or "Acheron". Perhaps some Greek experts
out there may offer an opinion. 
  Perhaps the same with Hypatia to Cyril. She would have said "Cyril
Styx". I said "Cyril Furies of Hades, Atom" last year.
  Before 1990, noone had any science justification of what Heaven and
Hell constituted, now we have the first glimmerings, ......
  For the first time in recorded history we have scientific hardcore
evidence of a god and the existence of gods and the existence of heaven
and hell. What did Pope John Paul II say concerning Galileo? Here it
is, from THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE (seen last Thur 4 May)

episode 4: Inertia

-----start of quote of The Mechanical Universe -----
In 1616 Galileo was summoned to Rome. He was told "to neither hold nor
defend this idea of the Earth moving around a stationary Sun."  . . .

He waited for the right moment to convince them of the error of their
Aristotlean ways . . . .

Galileo was put on trial in 1634.  . . threat of torture . .

As recently as 1983 . . . Pope John Paul II  He said " We cast our
minds back to an age when there had developed between science and faith
grave incomprehension the result of misunderstandings or errors which
only humble and patient reexamination succeeded in gradually
dispelling. The Church herself learns by experience and reflection. And
she now understands better the meaning that must be given to freedom of
research." . . .

A pour il Mondo movere  (spelling?)

Nonetheless, the Earth moves

-------end of quote of The Mech. Univ.--------

  With the Atom Totality Whole Theory, should a religious organization
put me on trial, torture me, crucify me, whatever,   ...
I would say NONETHELESS, GOD IS AN ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 01:49:49 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <conrad.799626183@skid.ps.uci.edu>,
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.   ||
> \\===============================//


I tell you what, guys. He's publishing his book in print. Why don't
you buy them all up -- AND THEN BURN THEM!?

Yeah, you could have an old fashioned BOOK BURNING. -- WOW!

Yup, -- an old fashioned  NAZI  book burning.

That suits your style.

Can't stand a new idea -- especially with one with which YOU, the
superior ones, disagree.


V.V.     The Ugly Duckling
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Date: 8 May 1995 04:53:25 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D87x7s.Ewp@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   First.  Was a reference presented?
>  I did ask for a reference to show deuterium heats on expansion.

John Logajan presented a reference, namely the CRC handbook.

>   Now like many here, have tried to focus this
>USENET group on science (fat chance given Schultz-types and certain other
>TB-idiots). 

Believe me your emphasis on science (I'm not sure how one comes up
with a scientific definition of "daffy" or "idiot", but let that pass
for the nonce) warms my heart.  As, for example, when I asked you for your
scientific publications on hemoglobin dynamics first in email (which
you ignored) and then here (which you deleted from your post responding
to mine).  Surely you don't want me to believe that your claim to have
published in that area is anything less than 100% truthful.

>It has been pointed out by several individuals that he just never reads
>references but all too frequently pontificates -- albeit wrongly.

Which several individuals are those?  Besides you, that is.  Jed Rothwell has
made random rants about me in the past.  But I note that when I posted 
quotations from the New York Times that directly contradicted his statements
about the "media" and the Wright Brothers, he acknowledged my posts --
but continues to think that no one believed the Wright brothers' claims.

>(again), the reader is invited to actually examine
>the ONLY isoenthalpic curves (a nitrogen, i.e. N2, curve) from
>Reif.

So what?  The reference I was referring to was the CRC handbook, not
Reif.

>  Doubt anyone here will "see" Mr. Schultz apologize either for
>his error re: the post, or his error re: the book.   

I never claimed that Reif had the curve in it, only that Logajan posted
a reference to D2 heating on expansion.

[Re: my being a spokesman for the ACS]

>he shows himself as an electronic speaker -- over the entire world -- an
>electronic spokesman (if he really is a man) for ACS.
>Did we say Mr. Schultz was a PAID spokesman?  No.  
>When will Mr. Schultz ever admit that.  Probably never. 
>
>  Doubt anyone here will "see" Mr. Schultz apologize for
>this either.   Instead he will probably hide, avoid science, and merely

The term "spokesman" in common parlance (I don't know what your Webster's
has to say on the matter) usually indicates some relationship between 
an organization and a person who is speaking on behalf of that organization.
There was no "inside" information in my posts about the CF papers at
the latest ACS meeting.  The only information that I presented was that
which was available to me, namely, what appeared in C&E News, which 
admittedly is published by the ACS.  What I said was that based on my
experience with scientific conferences, the version of the story given
by the symposium organizer made a lot more sense than Mr. Swartz's wild-eyed
conspiracy theory.  Now, I realize that a conspiracy theorist is unlikely
to consider that there might be people who disagree with him who are not 
part of the conspiracy.  But I was never being what a reasonable person
could consider a "spokesman" for the ACS.   I was never in contact with
them; I have never met or communicated with the symposium organizer; I
did not submit my comments for their approval.  Normally, one would have
expected a spokesman to have done all three of these things.  There is a
difference between being a spokesman for an organization and being an
individual who happens to believe that the claims of those representing
the organization are reasonable.

But as Mr. Swartz talks about "hiding" and "avoiding science", there is 
another issue that perhaps is of some relevance here.  As part of the
intial discussion, I described in some detail how scientific conferences
are organized and run based on my experiences with the Program Committee
for the Pittsburgh Conference.  I explained how those experiences led 
me to the conclusion that the organizer's version of events was probably
closer to the truth than Swartz's.  And then I asked several questions of
Mr. Swartz, the primary one being:  for how many science conferences have
you been involved in the programming?  I asked this question repeatedly
and never received an answer.  Who is "running away" now?   Who is 
"hiding"?  Who is "avoiding science" in favor of (marginally amusing but
not particularly inspired) invective this time?

BTW, *are* you the M.E. Swartz who works for Millipore?  I find it 
strange that someone who claims to be of a scientific bent would refuse
to answer a question about his professional affiliation.  (And by the
way, although most of my posts originate from an account at UC Berkeley,
I have never tried to hide that I am no longer physically at UCB,
as anyone who fingers this account would know.)
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Date: 8 May 1995 05:24:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: I never claimed that Reif had the curve in it, only that Logajan posted
: a reference to D2 heating on expansion.

Actually, the CRC Handbook only mentioned hydrogen.  D2 being twice as
heavy as H2 likely has a different inversion temperature -- perhaps
similar to 4He, as they would be of similar molecular mass, but that
is a guess.

--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Dieter Britz /  Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Joule-Thomson, deuterium refs
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 10:01:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitch was asking for references to the Joule-Thomson effect pertaining
to deuterium; presumably he is implying that deuterium just might be quite
different from hydrogen - and maybe he is right. I checked with the Chem.
Abstracts data base (CAS) and got three hits for Joule-Thomson and deuterium.
Here is the dialogue:

=> s deuterium
L1       47919 DEUTERIUM

=> s l1 and joule-Thomson
          2429 JOULE
          2271 THOMSON
           513 JOULE-THOMSON
                 (JOULE(W)THOMSON)
L2           3 L1 AND JOULE-THOMSON

=> d 1-3

L2   ANSWER 1 OF 3  CA  COPYRIGHT 1995 ACS
AN   118:24180  CA
TI   Application of vanadium hydride compressors for   ***Joule***  -
OA     ***Thomson***   cryocoolers
AU   Bowman, R. C., Jr.; Freeman, B. D.; Phillips, J. R.
CS   Aerojet Electron. Syst. Div., Azusa, CA, USA
SO   Adv. Cryog. Eng. (1991), 37(Pt. B), 973-80
     CODEN: ACYEAC; ISSN: 0065-2482
DT   Journal
LA   English

L2   ANSWER 2 OF 3  CA  COPYRIGHT 1995 ACS
AN   75:123000  CA
TI   Properties of solids at low temperatures
AU   Daunt, John G.
CS   Cryog. Cent., Stevens Inst. Tech., Hoboken, N. J., USA
SO   U.S. Clearinghouse Fed. Sci. Tech. Inform., AD (1970), No. 717623,
     42 pp.  Avail.: NTIS
     From: Govt. Rep. Announce. (U. S.) 1971, 71(6), 192
     CODEN: XCCIAV
DT   Report
LA   English

L2   ANSWER 3 OF 3  CA  COPYRIGHT 1995 ACS
AN   72:127758  CA
TI   Closed-system operating liquid hydrogen and   ***deuterium***
     targets
AU   Godin, A.; Montenon, M.
CS   Serv. Phys. Nucl. Haute Energ., C.E.N. Saclay, Saclay, Fr.
SO   Nucl. Instrum. Methods (1970), 79(2), 349-52
     CODEN: NUIMAL
DT   Journal
LA   French

I was able to look up the last (French) one, as this journal is in the Physics
library here, and it doesn't tell us much, only describing an apparatus for
liquifying hydrogen and deuterium (they do seem to be different). I will leave
the other two references to you, Mitch, you asked for them.

As for the J-T effect itself, I found quite an interesting section in my copy
of Atkins "Physical Chemistry", 3rd (1986) edition, on pp. 67-68. On p.68
there is a nice picture of the inversion temperatures of N2, H2 and He as 
functions of pressure. Taking H2, there is an area bounded at p=0 by the lower
temp ca. 30K and an upper point at ca. 210 K. Between these two temps and at
zero pressure, the gas has a positive JT coeff, i.e. it cools as it expands,
while both above the upper point, and below the lower point, the coeff is
negative. These two points move closer together as pressure increases and above
about 400 atm, we have only heating upon expansion. Atkins comments that if you
tried to cool He at room temp by expansion, you would actually have an
expensive oven instead - the same applies to H2. He also comments that an ideal
gas would have a zero JT coeff, i.e. that as such a gas expands into a vacuum,
its temperature would not change. He writes that this will be taken up later in
the book, but I was not able to find this. Maybe you can, Mitch. But certainly
a non-zero coefficient must have to do with intermolecular effects. For example
if some gas'es molecules repel each other, then in order to compress that gas
you would need not only the normal PV compression work but a bit extra, to
overcome the repulsion. When you later release the gas, that extra work would
be given off again as heat. Conversely, if the molecules "like each other" and
like to clump (i.e. clumps have lower energy than the individual molecules in
the clump, when isolated), then expansion would put them into a higher
energy state and that would swallow some heat. Something like that must be at
work.

OK, Mitch, now please look up the two first referencces and tell us how D2
differs from H2 in its JT coefficient.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 8 May 1995 11:28:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

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


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

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


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Dieter Britz /  Joule-Thomson PS
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Joule-Thomson PS
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 10:11:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

PS to my posting on the Joule-Thomson effect: I have another book,
"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif (1965 ed.) and
this has the same sort of diagram of inversion temperature vs  pressure, for
H2, as Atkins. In addition, it explains the effect by (as I guessed) inter-
molecular effects. That is, gas molecules have weak attraction for each other
at largeish distances and repulsion when close together. This is expressed
by the B coefficients of the virial expression for the state of a gas. In
fact, given that expression and the values of the B's as functions of
temperature, Reif shows how you can calculate the Joule-Thomson coefficient
for yourself. So go and find some old envelopes, and do it for deuterium, if
you can find its virial equation (shouldn't be too hard?).

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  agwam /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: rjk@world.std.com (agwam)
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: Mon, 8 May 1995 09:49:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


When is this crackpot going to invoke Nostradamus?


-- 
Conan the Libertarian
"Taxation is Theft. "
"The Draft and Jury Duty are Slavery"
"Those who *would* govern us are enemies"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrjk cudlnagwam cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update, paps and a peri
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update, paps and a peri
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:51:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello starry droogs,

here a couple of paps and a peri, all archived. Some of you may get excited by
the Karabut et al but not me, I am not convinced by this. I have to say,
however, that they observed radiation after the glow discharge was turned
off, so this was not self targeting. Neutron activation? I was not able to get
much out of the Miao et al, I still haven't learned Chinese. So I don't know
what Professor Quin-Quan Gou's theory is.
Then there is a peripheral, impinging on tritium separation factor, which of
course must always be eliminated as the cause of putative T-enrichment. Tritium
people will be interested to know that the factor is the same for a range of
cathode metals (and indeed why would it not be but one never knows, does one?).
What an easy life I am having with so few CNF papers coming out these days.

Papers: Current count = 976
^^^^^^
#
Karabut AB, Kucherov YaR, Savvatimova IB;  Fusion Technol. 20(1991) 924.
"The investigation of deuterium nuclei fusion at glow discharge cathode".
** Experimental, glow discharge, excess heat, neutrons, gamma, res+
The authors had at the time already published some results from their glow
discharge experiments with Pd cathodes in D2 gas, and here follow up with
further results. They monitored for neutrons, gammas and heat, and found all.
Rough neutron spectra fitted with some of the d-d fusion reaction energies
but the gamma results did not. Radiation fluxes were 7 orders of magnitude
above the background, and some persisted for 30 min after the discharge was
switched off.
#...................................................................... Apr-95
Miao B;  Xibei Shifan Daxue Xuebao, Ziran Kexueban 30 (1994) 44 (in Chinese).
"Experimental exploration on possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in
titanium lattice".
** Experimental, electrolysis, excess heat, tritium, neutrons, res+
>From the English abstract, it appears that this was an attempt at scale-up
of an electrolysis at a large Ti rod (in the text I find 86 mm, 120 mm), at
current densities 500 mA/cm^2. Excess heat was found, but little neutrons or
tritium. The results support the theory of Qing-Quan Gou. The abstract also
mentions 4He in the keyword list.
#...................................................................... Apr-95

Peri: Current count = 92
#
Boucher GR, Collins FE, Matlock RL;  Fusion Technol. 27 (1995) 183.
"Separation factors for hydrogen isotopes on nickel and platinum during
electrolysis".
** Electrolysis was carried out in heavy water (electrolyte is not stated, as
this is a follow-up paper), and tritium enrichment measured. Assuming that the
isotope separation factor (gamma) = 2, the results fit very well with theory,
and there is no difference between different cathode metals.
#...................................................................... Apr-95


How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

---  Dieter Britz   alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.06 / P Gossiaux /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: gossiaux@truck.mpi-hd.mpg.de (Pol-Bernard Gossiaux)
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: 6 May 1995 20:52:22 GMT
Organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:

: This post is in reply to the post by Derick J. R. Qua-Gonzalez
: dqua@Prometheus.EarthLink.Net who wrote in reply to my post that
: mentioned that I would no longer have the email address of
: wallace@eckerd.edu.

: Derick wrote:

: >What happened?  Did you graduate or ..., well, ...?
: >
: >Just curiously, Bryan, how much physics training have you had?
: >I am at present reading your book (interesting reading)...
: >I will reserve judgement until I am finished with my second pass
: >and commentary, but I have a very difficult time believing your
: >claims.

: In reply to Derick, on 11 April I received and email letter from
: Marisa H. Pfalzgraf pfalzgmh@eckerd.edu with the Subject: Removal
: of Your Account.  Marisa is the System Administrator of the
: Eckerd College Computer System, and she sent carbon copies of the
: letter to the Director of the Computer Center Sharon R.
: Setterling settersr@eckerd.edu and the Dean of Eckerd College
: Lloyd W. Chapin chapinlw@eckerd.edu.  The contents of the letter
: are as follows:

: >Bryan, 
: > 
: >Due to repeated incidents where you have continued to post
: >articles to a wide number of newsgroups and the complaints we
: >are receiving not only from wide-spread Internet users but also
: >from local Eckerd College employees, your privilege of access
: >is being revoked.  I will be removing your accounts on all
: >Eckerd College systems on Tuesday, April 18, 1995.  If you need
: >any assistance in removing your files, please contact me. 
: > 
: >On November 16th, you were warned of the possibility of your
: >account being removed due to your posting to 212 newsgroups on
: >the net.  Since that time, you cross-posted your article "The
: >Farce of Physics" on at least two occasions, February 10th to
: >25 newsgroups and around April 2 to 14 newsgroups.  I have
: >received complaints for both incidents.  
: > 
: >If you have any questions or comments, you may contact Sharon or
: >me. 

:    After I received Marisa's letter I received a free 3.5" HD
: Windows software disk and opened a 10 hour free trial
: subscription to America Online and was impressed by the fancy
: graphics and sounds on my PC home computer.  Then I found that
: the many hours I had spent for free connected to the Eckerd
: Computer would now cost $2.95 per hour which could add up to a
: large monthly bill for a retired person without much income!
:    In the past 2 years I had used the Eckerd Internet connection
: to send out over 6000 free email copies of the ASCII 311KB
: version of my book "The Farce of Physics" to people all over the
: world.  Now I find there seems to be no way to send the copies of
: the book from my new account, and if I can, it probable will cost
: a fair amount per book sent.  Next I found that there seems to be
: no way to properly crosspost to more than one newgroup on the
: Usenet so there is no more than one file per post on any Internet
: computer system.  I don't want to have people flame me again for
: spamming like they did last November, so I'll only post to
: sci.physics and put a short pointer message in the 13 other
: newsgroups I've been crossposting the "The Farce of Physics"
: thread on.  I started this thread last November and since then
: there has been 305 posts by 131 people.
:    My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be
: found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available
: from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's.  The free
: standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp
: from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by
: using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in a
: compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the
: .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text.  Unix
: computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will
: uncompress the .gz format.  The stats from EU Net show a peek of
: 2013 copies sent by ftp last November.  There are no restrictions
: on anyone making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there
: are thousands of people who have copies, so the fact that I can
: no longer send copies by email should not be much of a problem
: for those who can't get them by ftp.  A paperback version of the
: book for about $5.95 should soon be available and I will post
: information on it on this thread.  The HTML/World-Wide Web
: Hypertext version of the book is available via:

: URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

: With regard to Derick's request for my educational background, I
: made up the following bio facts for the publisher of my book:

: Name:               Bryan G. Wallace
: Marital Status:     Married 1953, 4 children
: Education:          High School G.E.D., Technical Degree in
:                     Electronics, U.S. Army 1950
: Military Service:   U.S. Army, 1948-1952
: Work Experience:    

:   1952-1957         - Minor jobs in auto mechanics, electrical
:                     work, and T.V. and radio repair
:   1957-1965         - Technical Assistant PR-25, General Electric
:                     Pinellas Peninsula Plant
:   1965-Present      - Retired and living on investment income;
:                     research and study in physics

:    Self educated in physics, retired in 1965 to live on
: investment income and devote full time to physics research,
: elected each year from 1974 to 1982 to an unpaid official
: position of Physics Research Associate at Eckerd College, have
: unofficial position of Associate from 1982 to the present time,
: was nominated and elected to membership in the American Physical
: Society in 1976, in 1992 I was elected to be a member of the
: organizing and editorial committee of the March 1994 III
: International Conference on Space and Time Problems in Natural
: Sciences to be held in St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Russia, in 1982
: I won Forth prize in Arthur Schawlow's "Instant fame and small
: fortune" contest (Physics Today April 1982 page 72), I've
: published about 14 papers, 7 letters, and been a participant in
: around 18 conferences and meetings, many with published
: abstracts, and written 1 book titled "The Farce of Physics".

: Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengossiaux cudfnPol-Bernard cudlnGossiaux cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / 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
Subject: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 8 May 1995 11:37:18 GMT
Date: 2 May 1995 22:08:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3ojra2$rb4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> 
> A pour il Mondo movere  (spelling?)
> 
> Nonetheless, the Earth moves

  Could, someone please correct me on the spelling above. What were
Galileo's exact words. Thanks

  And to a few posters objecting to my original post saying it is not
relevant to the newsgroup. I have been a frequent poster to those
newsgroups. And it is nice to see the person in the flesh behind those
posts. Besides, all it takes is a few number of radical, militant, or
as Abian might say "mother superioring" dissidents to call up that TV
station and censor me. It only takes a few to persecute me, . . so,
persecutors,   by all means,  go to it, ..

Date: 2 May 1995 22:08:13 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3o6agd$8vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Subject: me on TV in Boston WCVB
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Dieter Britz /  Joule-Thomsen PPS
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Joule-Thomsen PPS
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 13:11:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Starry droogs again,

Mitch has just pointed out to me that the piccie in Reif is not that for
H2, but for N2. Sorry about that. In any case, the one we really want is
that for D2, and certainly I don't know where to find that, except by
calculation from the virial equation (if you can find that).

Now, while I'm at it, what was all this for anyway? I've forgotten. It was
not, I trust, in line with another attempt to find a conventional
explanation for XS heat, was it? By dissociation of PdD into Pd and D2,
perhaps? We are not sure whether this would be exo- or endothermic (this
has been discussed here) but we ARE sure that the heat would be piddling
compared with XS heats claimed by the bolder CNF claimants. Lest I appear to
sound like a CNF TB, let me add that I don't think the answer lies in 27
different hitherto unknown nuclear or other exotic effects, either.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 8 May 1995 10:26:46 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3ojoih$nv1@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> I wrote:
>
>U-238 captures the neutron, making a U-239, which beta decays. 

Here is where I meant to say this happens mainly through a resonance, 
at moderately high energy (like about 20 eV) on thermal energy scale. 

>U-235 only sort-of captures the neutron, since the resonance that makes 
>for the huge slow-neutron fission cross section leads promptly to fission 
>on strong-interaction time scales. 

Bad choice of words here.  This is not a resonance.  It does not lead 
to a state that decays via fission, since U-236 is significantly 
unbound to fission for even zero energy neutrons.  Unbound, so "prompt" 
was the correct word to use. 

Also, I think the Bohr-Wheeler papers were all in the Physical Review 
(1939?) and will be included in the centenary reprint book. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "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:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 11:13:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

David Wyland <dcwyland@ix.netcom.com> writes:
 
>You cannot have an experiment without a working hypothesis to be
>tested: At the minimum, you have to have some idea of what you are
>looking for, or you won't see it.  The hypothesis may be quite basic:
>"I expect to see unusual results in the form of excess heat or
>particles (or something else specific enough to instrument for) when I
>do an experiment of this type."  
 
Well, I suppose so, but a working hypothesis is nothing like a theory.
In any case, all CF experiments that I know of all have working
hypotheses, and most are far more complex and detailed than
"I expect to see . . ." Read Cravens, Storms, McKubre or anyone else
and you will see detailed working hypothesis about loading, temperatures,
triggering mechanisms, and -- most important -- metal condition and other
material sciences considerations. People who do not pay close attention
to the materials never get significant CF results. Look at the Patterson
patent for an example of in-depth, sophisticated, working hypotheses that
work. There is no theory in the patents or in the papers from Storms.
Neither Storms nor Patterson has any theory at the atomic level. They do
not need any theories, the problem is surface chemistry, not atomic theory.
It is not even clear whether a theory would help improve the experiments.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue's imaginary solutions to pretend problems
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 11:15:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) yammers on endlessly about imaginary
problems:
 
     "Maybe its time to review the basic signals involved in some the
     experiments currently being discussed. . . .  Next let's consider some
     special features of the Griggs set up. Here we have some thermocouples
     sensing temperature while a 20 KW motor is churning the bejabbers out of
     some water.  Review for me some basic electric circuit theory that may
     be involved here.  When you wire up a three phase motor there are 5
     wires: phases A, B, and C; AC power common; and "Green Wire" safety
     ground. . . .
 
     How are the thermocouple signals isolated electrically from the motor
     and the pump?"
 
Well, for one thing the motor is on three phase electricity and the
instruments are on ordinary AC, so they are isolated back at the Georgia Power
plant. For another, who knows? Who cares? Blue is describing an imaginary
analysis of imaginary solutions to pretend problems. He is pretending that the
thermocouples may have a problem, but of course they do not. Maybe it is time
to review the basic scientific method, instead of drifting off into
cloud-cuckoo-land speculation about non-existent effects from non-existent
electrical noise.
 
Before solving a problem, it is standard operating scientific procedure to do
a quick check to see if the problem exists. A quick check shows that the
Griggs thermocouples are bang on, right within a degree Fahrenheit of where
they should be. If there was a problem, it would dead simple to spot. All you
have to do is:
 
1. Compare the thermocouple readings to readings from mercury thermometers,
bimetallic dial thermometers and other devices. There are dial thermometers
sticking out of every strategic location in the machine. They agree with the
thermocouples. You would have make a deliberate effort to miss seeing that.
You would have to wear blinders; or take off your glasses; or look for lab
notebooks instead of glancing at the machine. . .
 
2. Calibrate the thermocouple with ice water and boiling water. How else does
anyone calibrate a thermocouple?!?
 
3. Turn on the machine, turn if off again, watch to see if it has any effect
on the thermocouple readings. Scoop out a bucket of water from the barrel with
thermocouples, take it outside, and measure the temperature *far away from the
electric motor*. Use a little common sense!
 
4. Run a blank test.
 
We checked. I checked, Griggs checked, anyone with an ounce of sense would
perform test # 1 fifteen seconds after arriving at the factory. Since we did
not observe any problem, obviously that means the thermocouples are installed
and grounded correctly, so this idle speculation about problems that might
exist if the thermocouples were not working is a waste of time. If my car had
a flat tire I might not have driven to work on time this morning, but I did
drive to work on time so there is no point in playing imaginary games about
imaginary problems with my car. Right?
 
As for Cravens, he described the experiment during his lecture in boring
detail, including electrical grounds, specific heat of the electrolyte, and
much else. People like, say, Morrison, heard all about it and raised no
objection. So I guess they buy the whole thing. I suppose Morrison has no
technical objections to the Amoco work or the KEK work, or SRI or any of the
others who reported at ICCF5. In fact, he made no technical comments at all
about calorimetry in his report, except when he said that the NEDO 16% excess
might not be statistically significant. This is wrong, as I am sure he
realizes. Their calorimeter is as good as SRI's. It can measure to a fraction
of one percent, so 16% is a very high signal to noise ratio; quite
significant.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 11:16:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
 
     "I would fully agree data should win. However, it isn't really the data
     that is in question. Instead, it is the interpretation of the data that
     is in question. Perhaps, there is a better explanation, read theory, for
     some of the anomalous heat generation than cold fusion."
 
Oh, any theory is fine with me. I don't care if it is fusion or not. What I
object to are people like Dick Blue and Barry Merriman. Merriman says he is in
the fusion biz and therefore he is suspicious of light water results a priori.
He says his theory shows the results must be wrong, and therefore he rejects
them. That's backwards. The results show his theory must be wrong, assuming
this is fusion. And if this is not fusion then his theory is irrelevant.
 
The only way to show the results are wrong is to find an error in the
instruments or protocol.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / John Logajan /  SBSL vs MBSL
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SBSL vs MBSL
Date: 8 May 1995 15:41:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I seem to recall that Dr. Steve Jones would periodically list the different
properties of single bubble sonoluminescence versus multiple bubble
sonoluminescence -- and if I'm not putting words in Dr. Jones' mouth,
I seem to recall that he said that while fusion conditions might be
reached in SBSL, that those conditions were "not possible" using MBSL.

In the April 29 issue of Science News, however, it mentions that Dr.
Larry Crum is investigating whether MBSL can get as hot as SBSL.  So
apparently there is as yet no basis to conclude that the conditions
in MBSL cannot reach those of SBSL.

--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / mitchell swartz /  Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt. 1
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 16:54:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3ok845$cbk@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium (and D2) - pt.1
Richard Schultz [ schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] posts:

  >   First.  Was a reference presented?
  >  I did ask for a reference to show deuterium heats on expansion.
rs="John Logajan presented a reference, namely the CRC handbook."

  John -- who has done quite a bit in terms of both science here
      and providing useful info --
did not provide the requested reference (vide infra and posts
by others including John Cobb and Dieter Britz -- who have also
contributed to the science content here).

                              ----------------------
 rs= " ...  Jed Rothwell has made random rants about me in the past.  "

They are not random, but time-correlated comments in response to
your far-less-than-optimally-intelligent comments, sir.
Furthermore, many of Jed's comments in reply to you appear to
have been on-target, as is noted by those that attempt to thoroughly
read the literature and attend the meetings and conferences on this subject.

                              ----------------------
 rs=" I never claimed that Reif had the curve in it, only that Logajan posted
 rs= a reference to D2 heating on expansion."


   BS.    As John Logajan has posted 
in Message-ID: <3ok9tq$e48@stratus.skypoint.net>
 jl=Actually, the CRC Handbook only mentioned hydrogen.  D2 being twice as
 jl=heavy as H2 likely has a different inversion temperature -- perhaps
 jl=similar to 4He, as they would be of similar molecular mass, but that
 jl=is a guess."

   Also, the inversion curve is quite complicated as shown in
Reif, and to list a single inversion temperature ignores the complex
isoenthalpic behavior in p-T space.

  Doubt anyone here will "see" Mr. Schultz note 
either his error of this matter, his error regarding the differences 
between the CRC Table and the isoenthalpic curves,
or his previous regarding the post to John Cobb, or his 
previous error regarding the text by Reif.      ;-)X

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


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / John Kondis /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
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: 8 May 95 17:18:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
[...]
>  And to a few posters objecting to my original post saying it is not
>relevant to the newsgroup. I have been a frequent poster to those
>newsgroups. And it is nice to see the person in the flesh behind those
>posts. Besides, all it takes is a few number of radical, militant, or
>as Abian might say "mother superioring" dissidents to call up that TV
>station and censor me. It only takes a few to persecute me, . . so,
>persecutors,   by all means,  go to it, ..

Archimedes, don't take other's rantings too seriously.  They are blowing 
steam for no reason.  *I* like your stuff.  You're hilarious.  But 
PUH-LEEZE don't defer to Abian.  Him I can't stand.  His garbage isn't 
even funny!

I especially like this one:

>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
[...]

Fuh-nny!

...John
  _____    
 |     |    _____    "Come on!  Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!!!"
 |  O  |   |O   O|                  -- God (playing dice with the Universe)
 |     |   |O   O|   
  ~~~~~    |O   O|   John P. Kondis        UC Irvine        jkondis@uci.edu
            ~~~~~

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: Error bars, signals, and noise
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Error bars, signals, and noise
Date: 8 May 1995 19:49:06 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9505071713.AA170395@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:

(snip)

>What would you see if you formed a loop of wire a foot in diameter
>connected at the ends to the scope input and the scope signal ground?
>Might I suggest that signals of a few volts would not be difficult
>to find around the Griggs device.  Oh, by the way, what is the
>rough magnitude of the signals generated by the thermocouples?  How
>are the thermocouple signals isolated electrically from the motor and
>the pump?
>
>Dick Blue
>

This is why I asked about the RMS values (sigma) of the signals.  They 
were not measuring them.  Griggs seemed to be unaware of what this might
mean, though his electronics guy (Dave?) knew what I was talking about.

The means of (I remember) 100 or so readings were jumping around quite
a bit.  I think I gave the number I observed in my report so those of 
you that were inclined could figure it out.  The thermocouple technique
was pretty conventional.  So my guess is that the measurements are 
more or less OK.  But it is only a guess, and a guess is not science.
Science is looking in the log book where they set up the thermocuples 
and calibrated them and looking to see that they measured the common
mode signal and the common mode rejection, and thus were able to put
error bars on their measurements.  

I went to Griggs prepared to look for subtle effects.  What I found was
that their measurement technique lacked even the most basic of checks,
balances, and controls.  And not even a log book to show what little
they had measured.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patterson Power Cell Commercialisation
Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 12:52:52 +0900
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <Zy+9a3d.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> DaveNugent <davenugent@aol.com> writes:
>  
> >Are there any plans to make the Patterson Power Cell available
> >commercially to other labs can duplicate their results?
>  
> Yes. CETI is working with a select group of industrial, commercial labs.
> They are doing intensive training with qualified people only, so that no
> mistakes are made and the effect is replicated 100% of the time. One of
> the biggest problems in this field has been that people have tried to
> replicate by guess and by golly, with insufficient knowledge of the target
> cell. People *think* they are replicating, but I have seen countless examples
> where they are actually making elementary mistakes and their cells look
> nothing like the target. CETI is determined to prevent that, by careful,
> hands-on, step-by-step guidance. That's how it *should* be done! This field
> would have jumped ahead years ago if other people had done that.
>  
> - Jed

Yes, it's too bad that those who have claimed to have reproducible cells
for the last 6 years have been unwilling to share their knowledge. 
Instead, they give little tidbits of information to try and keep their work
funded, but not enough for any outside lab to reproduce the effect and
verify their claims.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 / 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: 8 May 1995 16:17:48 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

agwam (rjk@world.std.com) wrote:

: When is this crackpot going to invoke Nostradamus?


: -- 
: Conan the Libertarian
: "Taxation is Theft. "
: "The Draft and Jury Duty are Slavery"
: "Those who *would* govern us are enemies"

You are the only crackpot on the thread to invoke Nostradamus!  Is he a 
role model for you?  What mental institution did you graduate from?

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.08 /  Kennel /  Re: Reg Mercuri: How might it work ?
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Reg Mercuri: How might it work ?
Date: 8 May 1995 18:50:01 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

an137375@anon.penet.fi wrote:

> New Scientist carried a report a couple of weeks ago about new evidence that
> "Reg Mercuri" might exist, and be useful in constructing baseball sized
> fusion or fission bombs.

I have no idea what this "red mercury" might be, except to point out that
'conventional technology' fission explosives have fissionable
cores the size of baseballs already.

Or was this to imply that the whole thing would be 10cm sized?

> Has anybody any references to the physics of how it might work, either as a
> neutron mirror, or as an ultra high explosive ?


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
> If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
> and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
> Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / William Rowe /  Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 00:30:43 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <5++dqXj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
> 
>     "I would fully agree data should win. However, it isn't really the data
>     that is in question. Instead, it is the interpretation of the data that
>     is in question. Perhaps, there is a better explanation, read theory, for
>     some of the anomalous heat generation than cold fusion."
> 
>Oh, any theory is fine with me. I don't care if it is fusion or not. What I
>object to are people like Dick Blue and Barry Merriman. Merriman says he is in
>the fusion biz and therefore he is suspicious of light water results a priori.
>He says his theory shows the results must be wrong, and therefore he rejects

I don't remember either Dick Blue and Barry Merriman saying they were
supicious of "results". Instead, I believe both said they are supicious, a
priori, of light water fusion. Again, the problem isn't the data (results)
but the interpretation of the data (results) as light water fusion.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.07 /  BILLC /  Re: What's wrong with H2O
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O
Date: Sun, 07 May 95 10:41:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

MD>However for what it is worth, in the specific case of nickel and hydrogen,
MD>no isotope of copper can be created which is an alpha emitter.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pls!  How do you know that?  Do you mean rather that none has be4en
found to date?  Or, is there a more fundemental reason?
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.


cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O is a-okay; a priori is NOT science
Date: 9 May 1995 00:57:51 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

 
> Neither Storms nor Patterson has any theory at the atomic level. They do
> not need any theories, the problem is surface chemistry, not atomic theory.
> It is not even clear whether a theory would help improve the experiments.
>  
> - Jed

I think every scientist agrees with you that _experiment_ is the 
bottom line as far as what really goes on in the world.

HOWEVER, when those of us skeptical of CF cite accepted theory,
of, say, nuclear reactions, as a reason to doubt the CF experimental
results, you need to bear in mind that:

(1) ``theory'' here includes that these theories are
well tested by experiments, and thus are a reasonable surrogate for
experiments in all previously investigated regimes. Thus, we
are not saying someones mathematical equations cast doubt on
CF---rather we are saying many previosu experiments in nuclear
physics, and the understanding that has developed along with them,
cast doubt on CF (esp. light water).

(2) ``CF experimental results'' here does not really mean the
dial readings, tempererature readings, etc that come out
on the sensors. No one doubts that the experiments exist and produce
data. What we are really doubting is the interpretation of
the data made by said experimenters. In particular, we may suspect that
they are perhaps misinterpreting some not-so-peculiar process,
by way of poorly chosen/executed measurements, lack of knowledge
of the processes involved, etc.

So, the battle beteween standard theory and CF experiments is
more properly phrased as a battle between the great bulk of
previous experiments in nuclear physics and chemistry, versus
the inerpretation of some new experimental results in this area.

While there is some marginal room for new physics from lattice
effects, you should not forget that H-Pd systems have been studied
classically for ~ 100 years. Maybe they weree not looking for
the right thing, but ...







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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rowe's comments about a priori NOT science
Date: 9 May 1995 01:02:29 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <5++dqXj.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
>  
> Oh, any theory is fine with me. I don't care if it is fusion or not. What I
> object to are people like Dick Blue and Barry Merriman. Merriman says he is i
> ...  he is suspicious of light water results a priori.
> He says his theory shows the results must be wrong, and therefore he rejects
> them. That's backwards. 

I reject them to the extent that I advocate doing the experiment with an
eye towards careful diagnosis rather than commercialization. So, you
see, the effect of our different biases. You want to charge ahead with
commercialization, because you have no concern for the enormous
discord with past results. I want to fixate on a well diagnosed
experiment and find out what is going on (and I expect, what
is going wrong), because I doubt there will be any effect to commericalize
anyway. 


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


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.09 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Uranium / Fission question
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Uranium / Fission question
Date: 9 May 1995 00:38:31 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

jfloyd@wam.umd.edu (Jason Edward Floyd) wrote:
>Tim Mirabile (tim@mail.htp.com) wrote:
>: scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>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.
>

Canadian CANDU heavy water moderated reactors reactors work with natural
Uranium.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May  9 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
