1995.05.13 / 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: 13 May 1995 12:25:43 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: : In article conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad) writes: : >wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: : > : >> Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with : >>regard to light. : > : >What do you mean? Real subatomic particles have measured point-like and : >wave-like properties that are well described by quantum mechanics. This : >is often referred to as the wave/particle duality, but I do not know of : >any physicist who considers this to be a "problem". : Correct. The wave/particle duality follows from the The General : Uncertainty Principle, which is a purely mathematical lemma in : abstract algebra that requires no physical assumptions nor : observations, other than simple things like definitions of e.g. : momentum and position, to see how it relates to physics. : Less generally, it trivially follows from Fourier Analysis that : a function of e.g. position, if infinitely accurate and therefore : "bandlimited" in possible range of positions, is necessarily : unlimited -- requires an infinite number of spatial-frequency : series terms. This translates for a non-zero mass body into : requiring an infinite number of contributing phase velocities -- : there is no unambiguous momentum. : Similarly the other way around, if one assumes infinite precision : of momentum (e.g. of velocity for a non-zero mass body), then that : requires in the Fourier domain an infinite number of contributing : non-zero position terms, so the uncertainty in position is complete. : None of this requires any quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc. : It follows directly, even in classical physics, from considerations : of Fourier analysis. It is generally analysed in terms of QM : theory, where the consideration is of commuting vs. non-commuting : operators, but it holds true even without that QM background, : for purely mathematical reasons. : Phrasing this purely intuitively and tying it back to the wave/particle : duality: a wave is a body which is not very localized in space... : it has a relatively distributed position, which causes it to : do wave-like things, such as diffracting in smooth curves. A particle : is relatively localized in space, and that alone gives it the properties : we consider particle-like...both having a definite position, and : also that it doesn't tend to diffract like a wave, but instead : collides and rebounds via linear paths. : The difference, however, is purely a matter of whether the : Fourier Transform of the body is relatively bandlimited or not... : that's all. Bodies that are completely bandlimited in position : (zero outside of a single point) behave as perfect particles; bodies : that are infinite in position bandwidth (nonzero across an infinite range : of possible positions) behave as perfect waves. Bodies typically observed : in experiment may approximate either extreme, or they may fall somewhere in : between, behaving somewhat like a wave and somewhat like a particle. : There is no mystery to this, no unwarranted assumptions, and most : of all, it is *not* controversial. Any competent physicist is : aware of this; it is most certainly not some kind of hot research : issue in physics (I am not a competent physicist myself, and therefore : may have made errors in the above; but I think the general concepts : are correct.) : So in short, the wave/particle duality is here to stay for mathematical : reasons, regardless of changes in current paradigms of physics. : Doug : -- : Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com : Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow : Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III : Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs Mathematics is a language. It can't form the foundation of a legitimate scientific theory. I find your arguments a pompous pretentious array of pathological arguments. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.13 / Doug Merritt / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) 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: Sat, 13 May 1995 19:29:51 GMT Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article <3p2m2h$qr4@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: [In regard to wave-particle duality] >Feynman states we don't have a good model of this on page 37 of his 1985 >book QED. This is one example of a prominent physicist that has the >intelligence to know what we do not know! For the benefit of others, the quote in question is "Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the position of being able to calculate only the *probability* that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens." You seem to think this means Feynman didn't think that we understand wave-particle duality. I disagree, I think he means we're unsure why it is that probability currents occur, and why particles appear to be built out of wave functions, or what that might mean, etc. But it hardly matters; QED is simply a popularization, he wasn't speaking absolutely precisely. I mean, he said "light is made of particles", but obviously he doesn't mean to merely resolve the duality issue in favor of particles. Doug -- Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife HC_III Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs cudkeys: cuddy13 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.13 / 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: Sat, 13 May 1995 20:27:27 GMT Organization: Improving On 9 May 1995 21:52:57 -0400 ekennel@aol.com (EKennel) wrote: [snip] >to penetrate the lattice. However, I think you are probably correct in >your inference that high loading (say, about 0.6 or higher in bulk Pd) has >not yet been published. If I might interject here, then I would like to point out that even if this is so, it does not preclude higher loadings being achieved at small distances from the surface. From the point of view of the H or D in the lattice, a distance of 10 Pd atoms from the surface may be the same as 10^10 atoms from the surface. In other words, bulk effects may occur close to the surface in a region of high loading, while the average loading of the cathode as a whole remains low. I also have a question, how does Silicon get into the picture? (Is this presuming a glass container?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / 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: Sun, 14 May 1995 00:59:13 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article , Doug Merritt wrote: >In article <3p2m2h$qr4@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: >[In regard to wave-particle duality] >>Feynman states we don't have a good model of this on page 37 of his 1985 >>book QED. This is one example of a prominent physicist that has the >>intelligence to know what we do not know! > >For the benefit of others, the quote in question is > > "Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle > duality by saying that light is made of particles (as > Newton originally thought), but the price of this great > advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the > position of being able to calculate only the *probability* > that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good > model of how it actually happens." > >You seem to think this means Feynman didn't think that we understand >wave-particle duality. I disagree, I think he means we're unsure why >it is that probability currents occur, and why particles appear to >be built out of wave functions, or what that might mean, etc. > >But it hardly matters; QED is simply a popularization, he wasn't >speaking absolutely precisely. I mean, he said "light is made of >particles", but obviously he doesn't mean to merely resolve the duality >issue in favor of particles. > Doug >-- >Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com Let me settle once and for all this matter of the wave/particle duality. What Feynman and everyone else has been seeking is a physical explanation for that which QED supplies a mathamatical explanation. We have here a situation analogous to the blind men of Indonesia seeking to determine the physical characteristics of an elephant. One feels the trunk and declares the elephant is very much like a snake. Another feels the leg and declares the elephant very like a tree, etc. Let's take the blindfolds off: First let me describe a particle. It is a concentric set of expanding and contracting waves that have mass. The wave group is standing group wave in resonance. The speed of the waves is c. The size of the center may be considered to be the same as the wavelength. The outer limit may be considered .5 light second from the center. Commencing from the center the density falls off as the fourth power of the distance. The center acts as a particle because it is dense and has a definite location. In the outer region the density is less and therefore the wave characteristics become prominent. The photon has nearly the same construction except that it has fewer waves (In some areas, namely the electron, the number of waves are the same and the electron changes into photons and vice versa.) and the other important difference: the waves are not concentric but linear. The waves are traveling an optic ray path at c thus creating a predominently wave chrarcteristic manifestation. The true extension is still .5 LS. This configuration accounts for non-locality, wave entanglement, refraction and diffraction. See, no mystery. All this (and much much more) has been posted for months in ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY. V.V. The Ugly Duckling "Exhalted Lord of the Cosmic mind" :-) cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.13 / jedrothwell@de / More nonsense from Dick Blue Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: More nonsense from Dick Blue Date: Sat, 13 May 95 21:58:40 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: "Jed recalls that at some point the thermocouple readings were compared with other thermometers, and that was sufficient to convince him the thermocouples were reading correctly. However, we don't know that to be the case throughout the course of a series of measurements." This is INSANE. I do not "recall at some point." I stated categorically in my report that I used four types of thermometers, including non-electric ones. I stated here, time after time, that I checked the temperature of the barrel of water AFTER THE MACHINE WAS TURNED OFF, and that the thermocouple readings did not change at that time. Dick Blue refuses to acknowledge these facts because they constitute simple, obvious and irrefutable proof that his absurd make-believe "electrical interference" idea cannot be true. Dick Blue is incapable of facing facts or drawing even the most obvious conclusions. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / John Logajan / Re: What's wrong with H2O usion Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O usion Date: 14 May 1995 05:44:38 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: : How much power does the circulating pump in the Cravens demo : consume and where does that power end up? As it happens, I made a calculation on this issue several days ago in a post to the ICCF5 e-mail discussion group -- but the latest digest hasn't been distributed yet, so I'll post it here as well. I should add one note not in my original ICCF5-Discussion post, the effect I discuss should equally occur in both the calibration and "anomalous" runs if the flow rate and pressure drops are similar in each case -- a self-cancelling effect under those circumstances. Anyhow, here's my ICCF5-Discussion group post: If anyone would like to verify my calculations, since I've never done this particular exercise before, but there is a possible heating in the Patterson powercell due to the work done by pushing a certain flow rate through a certain pressure drop. Unfortunately, I have only bits and pieces of data, so I am going to mix and match two values I have seen, namely: 10 ml/minute flow rate and 180 PSI gauge pressure. I believe the equation of work in joules is: joules = pascals * cubic meters So my numbers are: 0.2J = 1.24E6 Pa * 1.67E-07 Cubic Meters (moved in one second.) So since it took one second, then it is about 0.2 watts of power being developed. Did I do this right? Are there better pressure/flow rate numbers for the more recent Patterson experiments? I believe they went to larger diameter cells and so eliminated the need for the high pressure to get the flow rates to useful values. -- - 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: cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / Paul Koloc / Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Yep! and a few more (pmk) Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Yep! and a few more (pmk) Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 06:44:14 GMT Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd. In article <800135170snz@oroboros.demon.co.uk> CRSM@oroboros.demon.co.uk writes: >The recent miniature ball lightning discussion took me back to my early >teens when I was an enthusiastic but illegal pirate radio operator >together with a few of my friends. One of the things we used to try to do >was to develop antenna tuning units that would manage to get very short >lengths of wire to act as a transmitting antenna. The RF voltages on the >antenna were very high and I often got very painful RF arcs to the skin of >my hand, accompanied by the unmistakable smell of roast human! >The interesting thing is that 2 or 3 times when I got an RF arc to a piece >of surrounding metalwork I saw a miniature spherical orange/yellow ball >detach itself from the arc and travel in a zig-zag path for perhaps a >couple of seconds. >As it travelled it made a sizzling noise with small 'firework sparkler' >type bits coming out of it. The ball could only have been 1 or 2mm in >diameter. I guess these things might also have been of the same form as >ball lightning. >Has anybody else noticed anything like this? Yes, three cases that I have heard of, although one of them may have been partially, mostly, or entirely molten and rapidly oxidizing hot beads from a copper electrode strike to iron forming the edge of a water filled tank. Here 1 or 2 mm glowing balls levitated over the water surface on a shallow cushion (probably steam). Corliss reported an incident of pea size balls that came across a kitchen table and rolled around the edge of a dinner knife before extinguishing. These may have resulted from the decay of a much larger ball lightning. Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD 21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047 (oldish number and address) Steven Jones reported producing some (actually a graduate student of his?) which were generated by an ordinary hand held tesla coil of the type used to quick check vacuum in glass vacuum systems. It was produced by attaching an syringe needle to the output electrode and then tracing or lightly moving the tip of the needle of a thick glass plate (pyrex?). This was related to me a at the dawn of the CF stuff when I meet Steve at an APS meeting in Baltimore. The story is approximately true, as I didn't record things in writing, nor did I tie up loose ends. Steve is really the one to describe this last work and correct any of my faulty memory or creatively filled in gaps. When I saw Steve last fall I ask him to do a quicky recreation with a view though a diffraction grating just to see if it was still "real". I suppose he could check the magnetics using one of those "black and white Scotty" magnets. Simple experiments, sometimes can open up astounding lines of new research. Unfortunately, the man is very busy. But hey! all you chemy types with your tesla coils and needles, why not give it a try, and report back to me or the net. , >-- >Chris Morriss +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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: cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / Dave Oldridge / Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Originally-From: doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Dave Oldridge) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Date: 14 May 1995 11:58:13 -0300 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote: > robertmc5@aol.com (ROBERTMC5) writes: > Using filter paper on the sprouted sample but not on the control invalidates > the control. The minerals could be coming from the filter paper. Easy enough to control for that. Just incinerate another piece of filter paper with the unsprouted seeds. What you SHOULD see, though is an increase in the number of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms in the sprouted seeds. What I've seen claimed for this experiment, though is shifts from sodium to magnesium and from potassium to calcium (among others). I don't have the resources to try it with any exactness, but it should be trivial for someone with a decent lab. -- Dave Oldridge doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca cudkeys: cuddy14 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / gherman@delphi / Cold Fusion --- Water Properties Originally-From: gherman@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion --- Water Properties Date: Sun, 14 May 95 11:45:00 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) It seems that most excess heat measurements for cold fusion experiments use the flow rate and temperature rise of the water as measurements of excess heat. When doing this is the fact that some of the gases produced in the electrolysis of the water are absorbed by the water taken into account? What is the specific heat of water when it is saturated with hydrogen? Similarly the gas stream will be water laden. Is its temperature and mass flow monitored as well? Gerry cudkeys: cuddy14 cudengherman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / 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: 14 May 95 15:34:17 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: [snip] >: JPL does the navigation for all interplanetary spacecraft including >: Magellan. They use algorithms based on general relativity, they have >: reported no discrepancies, and they are generating beautiful maps of >: Venus with the Magellan data. How could they possibly achieve this, >: if their determination of Magellan's position was 3500 km in error?!? >As I've pointed out in my book and in posts to this thread they actually >are basing their work on "Newtonian light time" and extinction caused by >electron interaction with photons. This is not politically acceptable >at this time. What we need is a dramatic demonstation of this fact >based on an objective analysis of both the wave and particle models! Your claim is simply not true. I do not accept your conspiracy theory that implies that JPL scientists and engineers lie about their work. [snip] >As I pointed out in my book, the Council of the APS argued the >Creationism is not a scientific theory because it can not be tested. If >the people that *believe* in GR take the position that it can not be >tested by an objective comparison of alternative theories, they are no >more legitimates scientists than the Creationist! One tests a theory by comparing the predictions of the theory with observations. The ultimate question always being, "Does the theory agree with the data?" Comparisons between alternative theories are of secondary importance. If two alternatives agree with all available observations, a comparison can be used to devise a test that will distinguish the two theories. However, the observations are the ultimate arbiter. One must also consider the possibility that the two theories are isomorphic. GR is a testable theory. It makes predictions that have been tested by observations in the solar system, and most recently by observations of binary pulsars. The predictions of GR are in excellent agreement with all of the available data. -- //===============================\\ || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || || You have to decide to live. || \\===============================// cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / 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: 14 May 95 17:48:20 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: >Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: [snip] >: So in short, the wave/particle duality is here to stay for mathematical >: reasons, regardless of changes in current paradigms of physics. >: Doug >: -- >: Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com >: Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow >Mathematics is a language. It can't form the foundation of a legitimate >scientific theory. I find your arguments a pompous pretentious array of >pathological arguments. >Bryan Are you incapable of offering a polite rebuttal to Doug Merritt's thoughtful post? I think you are resorting to the same tactics you accuse others of using, albeit with your own unique definition of politically correct. -- //===============================\\ || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || || You have to decide to live. || \\===============================// cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / Paul Houle / Red Mercury comes out of the cold Originally-From: ph18@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Paul Houle) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Red Mercury comes out of the cold Date: 14 May 1995 18:16:06 GMT Organization: Cornell University For years there have been rumors, almost in the urban legend category, that the Soviet Union had developed some mysterious substance called "Red Mercury" that can be used in nuclear weapons construction, and that "Red Mercury" may be availible on the black market. An article in ~New Scientist~, 29 April 1995 doesn't have any firm information, but ~does~ lead to a great deal of interesting speculation of the kind that I think sci.physics.fusion percipients would be into. The article led on page 4 and is titled "Cherry Red and very dangerous" by Rob Edwards and excerpts of it are quoted under the fair use doctrine in light of spf's mission of research and education. NS> "I don't want to sound melodramatic," says [Sam] Cohen, who worked on NS> the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb in the 1940s and was a NS> nuclear weapons adviser to the US government with the RAND corporation NS> for 20 years. "But red mercury is real and it is terrifying. I NS> think it is part of a terrorist weapon that potentially spells the NS> end of organized soceity." He claims that it could be used to make a NS> baseball-sized neutron bomb capable of killing everyone within about NS> 600 meters of the explosion. The other people that the article quotes aren't quite as, well, enthusiastic as Cohen. Frank Barnaby, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has been investigating red mercury for six years admits that there have been many cases where offers of red mercury as astrounding prices turned out the be fraudulent. However, he states that he believed "on the balance of probabilities" that a mercury-based high explosive that could revolutionize nuclear weapons was developed within the Soviet Union. Barnaby has seen two documents leaked to Greenpeace from what appears to be a former mercury production concern in South Africa. The documents contain chemical specifications for something called "red mercury 20:20", a combination of pure mercury and mercury antimony oxide (Hg Sb O ) described as "cherry red" and "semi-liquid". The documents appear to be part of a request for "4-10 flasks per month" from an unknown buyer. (I know that a "flask" is the standard unit for large purchases of mercury and that it is pretty big, like 100 kilograms) One document was addressed on 2 April 1990 to Wolfgang Dolich who was a sales manager at the UK-owned Thor chemical company in Speyer, Germany. He claims that he cannot decypher the signature and could not identitfy the source of the document. He claims that he probably passed it on to the company's plant at Cato Ridge, Natal, South Africa. Dolich also claims that the company has never been involved in the manufacture of red mercury. To add to the mystery, the document contains a handwritten note, "Herwith all we have on red mercury" signed "Alan" -- who just might be Thor's Johannesburg sales directory who was murdered in November 1991. From what I remember, Alan Kidger was brutally dismembered mysteriously, the kind of thing that you see in a James Bond movie. Barnaby claims he has seen other specification for red mercury and believe that there is a "significant international trade in red mercury". He is currently attempting to obtain a small sample of red mercury so he can test it's alleged properties. Barnaby has talked to four unnamed scientists in Russia who provided detailed information about red mercury, it is allegedly a "polymer with a gel-like consistency in which mercury and antimony have been bound together after irridation for up to 20 days in a nuclear reactor". According to Barnaby, mercury antimony oxide is produced at a chemical factory in Yekaterinberg in large quantites, and red mercury was first made in 1965 using a cyclotron at Dubna. He claims that one russian scientist estimated that Russia produces about 60 kg per year. What Barnaby and Cohen claim, and what I think s.p.f. readers might find interesting, is that Red Mercury could play a role in a pure fusion weapon. It is thought that Red Mercury somehow stores energy in inner electron shell excitations (suggested by Ted Taylor), although ~I~ wouldn't rule out a nuclear excitation of some sort. It can be used as a "super" chemical explosive with prehaps 100 times the yield per weight of conventional explosives. The article has a picture of a possible pure fusion device using a concentric implosion -- the core of the device contains a D/T mix that is surrounded by a shell of red mercury which is in turn surrounded by a conventional explosive shell. Barnaby claims that red mercury might be a component in Soviet neutron weapons such as the M-1975 240-mm mortar. Something not mentioned in the article is the possibility of using red mercury by itself as an explosive. Prehaps the cost is prohibitive, but if red mercury had 100 times the yield/weight of conventional materials, an OKC or WTC class bomb could easily be carried in a suitcase and delivered by hand to within inches of critical structural components in a building -- in fact because you could get it so close you probably wouldn't even need a pound of it. Another possibility not mentioned in the article is that the stuff might play some role in superconcentrating the energy of the conventional explosive charge or in altering the fusion process itself. Anyway, Ted Taylor, who is well known for his work as a bombsmith and commentator about the risk of proliferation is skeptical, according to the article. He says, "I would bet that it doesn't exist", but he does believe that the red mercury could be so significant if it did exist that it should be investigated. A material that contains hundreds of times the chemical energy of conventional materials could be important for space travel and future energy technology. According to Cohen, red mercury is one of a class of "ballotechnic" materials under investigation by nuclear weapons experts in the US. According to a leaked memo from Sandia National Labs, "under cetain conditions the chemical energy obtained can be greater than with high explosives." Bob Graham, a scientist as SNL says that he coined the word "ballotechnics" to describe devices that produce heat following exposure to shock, and that this has no connection to red mercury which he believes does not exist. Cohen says, "Graham is not free to speak openly about this, I am." cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenph18 cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.13 / Eleaticus / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus) 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: Sat, 13 May 1995 15:35:44 -0400 Organization: Think Tank Eleatic In article <3p2mi7$qso@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote: > Mathematics is a language. It can't form the foundation of a legitimate > scientific theory. I find your arguments a pompous pretentious array of > pathological arguments. > Bryan I wonder if you'll find this new freedom from-Clark/of-expression a long term benefit?! Eleaticus !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---? ! Eleaticus Think Tank Eleatic ? ! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of ? ! premises, logic, and conclusions" ftp.infohaus.fv.com:/infohaus ? ! ThnkTank@cris.com http://www.infohaus.fv.com/access/by-topic ? !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---? cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenThnkTank cudlnEleaticus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / Eleaticus / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus) 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: Sun, 14 May 1995 11:50:34 -0400 Organization: Think Tank Eleatic In article , conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad) wrote: > wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: > >As I've pointed out in my book and in posts to this thread they actually > >are basing their work on "Newtonian light time" and extinction caused by > >electron interaction with photons. > Your claim is simply not true. I do not accept your conspiracy theory > that implies that JPL scientists and engineers lie about their work. Please elaborate. One would rather not be subject to outright lies by anyone, especially someone like Bryan Wallace, so - for the benefit of all of us who have been subject to that disinformation - how was it you have proved his claim is not true? I assume that either JPL personnel told you so, or maybe God told you so. Whichever, if it wasn't God - who isn't saying much these days to individuals or particular newsgroups - please give us at least a good paraphrase of the communication(s) and the source. And tell us their excuse^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasons for not taking the 30 seconds required to tell us differently, here on the net. We are all fortunate to have you on the net as an intermediary for the JPL. Thanking you in advance, I am yours as least as truly as you were ours when posting your resounding rebuttal of Wallace's lies. Eleaticus !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---? ! Eleaticus Think Tank Eleatic ? ! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of ? ! premises, logic, and conclusions" ftp.infohaus.fv.com:/infohaus ? ! ThnkTank@cris.com http://www.infohaus.fv.com/access/by-topic ? !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---? cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenThnkTank cudlnEleaticus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / Karl Krieger / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: kak@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Karl Krieger) 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: 14 May 1995 20:08:57 +0200 Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: >: >To date my 1969 Venus radar paper is the only published >: >objective comparative analysis of the data regarding both models. I was Where was it published? >As I've pointed out in my book and in posts to this thread they actually >are basing their work on "Newtonian light time" and extinction caused by >electron interaction with photons. This is not politically acceptable >at this time. What we need is a dramatic demonstation of this fact >based on an objective analysis of both the wave and particle models! Do you have any proof for your statement above? Say a carbon copy of respective internal JPL reports or respective segements of their computer codes? If so, please publish it for the people in this newsgroup! Karl Krieger -- IPP, PO Box 1533 | Phone: +49-89-3299-1655 | E-Mail: D-85740 Garching | FAX : +49-89-3299-2591 | kak@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenkak cudfnKarl cudlnKrieger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.14 / jedrothwell@de / Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails Date: Sun, 14 May 95 19:53:40 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) I would like to point out that votes listed with dashes in them indicate abstentions. For example, a vote listed at "-N" means the person casting it abstained on the first question and voted no on the second question. I do not think this was made explicit in the description here. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May 15 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------