1995.05.16 / Sheldon Smoker / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: smoke@cs.pitt.edu (Sheldon Smoker) 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,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.li ertarian,alt.neo-tech,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 16 May 1995 01:55:24 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Computer Science : 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. I agree with Conrad here. GR has already been proved. Those who say it is flawed are the ones who have to provide evidence WHY it is flawed. : -- : //===============================\\ : || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || : || You have to decide to live. || For those of you who want to live, check out the Zonpower Book, 352-pages which is full of mystic busting, hoax-collapsing, force-backed-government destroying, mystical-religion exposing stuff! The web site is in my sig. Put it in your sig too! Sheldon. -- ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Sheldon Smoker | smoke@cs.pitt.edu | http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~smoke/ Check out the Zonpower Web Site at http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/ or http://199.3.230.2/zonpower/ Zonpower Rulz Cyberspace. You heard it here 1st cudkeys: cuddy16 cudensmoke cudfnSheldon cudlnSmoker cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / R Schroeppel / Newsgroup reorganization fails Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Newsgroup reorganization fails Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 02:43:36 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Please, Scott, Dieter, let's get that moderated mailing list going? Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Barry Merriman / Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: POLL: How long till power plants? Date: 16 May 1995 02:36:22 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes: > > Ignore Engineering in the > Development of Technology > (at the Outset), then > Sooner or later Reality takes over > and PUTS YOU OUT OF BUSINESS. > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | 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 ***** | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Paul, if nothing else you are the Poet Laureate of fusion. That alone should qualify you for some form of DOE funding :-) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / alexs@seanet.c / Re: Red Mercury comes out of the cold Originally-From: alexs@seanet.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Red Mercury comes out of the cold Date: 16 May 1995 05:49:33 GMT Organization: Brown Crow > ph18@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Paul Houle) writes: snip 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." snip > > >>>> Well, at the very least you can poison 'em with all that mercury. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenalexs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / M Connolly / Job outlook for EE's in fusion? Originally-From: mconnoll@utkvx.utk.edu (Michael Patrick Connolly) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Job outlook for EE's in fusion? Date: 16 May 1995 01:36 EST Organization: University of Tennessee Greetings all, I am a senior in electrical engineering and I am trying to decide what to study in graduate school. I am planning to obtain a doctorate in electrical engineering and hope to have a career in research and teaching. I am quite interested in fusion and, more generally, plasma physics and electromagnetics. Could the practicing scientists and engineers who contribute to this group possibly e-mail me with a brief commentary on the future of the field, and about the quality of the work? I would be most appreciative. Thank you, Michael Patrick Connolly Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Tennessee, Knoxville mconnoll@utkvx.utk.edu cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmconnoll cudfnMichael cudlnConnolly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Martin Sevior / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: Martin Sevior Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: 16 May 1995 05:00:46 GMT Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne. jonesse@physc2.byu.edu wrote: >A couple of people chided me for suggesting that the tiny amount of 3He >apparently found in the E-quest experiments could be due to contamination, >since 3He is so rare and expensive etc. > >Let me remind you: 3He is the product of tritium decay, and tritium is >not so rare a contaminant of Pd. (For example, recall the retraction of >tritium-production claims by the Kevin Wolf group at Texas A&M -- who found 3H >contamination in the palladium they were using in electrolysis experiments.) > >So my hypothesis for the origin of the >3He in the E-quest experiments is that it arises from 3H decay, with >tritium being a contaminant. > Since tritium has a 12-year half life and has a much higher affinity for palldaium than Helium, wouldn't one expect to see at least as much tritium as 3He in the E-QUEST experiment? They do not say they see any tritium at all. Once presumes that if it was found it would be mentioned as it is also a candidate nuclear ash. For similar reasons I would think a seach for tritium would have been made in the mass spectrometer. (I will ask though.) As for the 4He found arising from contamination in the air... Remember the rest of the experiment. No Helium above background for blank runs, about 0.5 of atmospheric concentration for the "short" run and 100 times for long run. In all cases the content found in the high purity argon tracks the energy produced if one assumes the reaction d + d => 4He produces the energy. The helium content in the air would have flucuate widely from 1/10 normal to 100 times normal in accordance with the different runs to explain the measured concentrations. This seems far fetched. Similarly questions of the gas handling by Dick Blue also have to explain the null result and the short and long run results. That's not to say that these questions should not be answered but it's hard to see them explaining the experimental results. So far it seems to me that only "conspirency" theories can explain the E-QUEST results. That said however, only a working prototype basement heater that produces 10 times more heat than electrical input will convince me of cold fusion. Until then there's only a series of (hopefully for me!) more and more intriguing experiments. Martin Sevior cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Water friction in Cravens calorimeter Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Water friction in Cravens calorimeter Date: Tue, 16 May 95 08:49:31 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John Logajan writes: >Could be. As I said, I mixed and matched the high numbers I had seen. >If they were running at 14.7 PSI (as some runs have been done) then that >would indeed work out to about 0.016 watts for a 10 ml/min flow rate. Ah, yes. They report different runs at different pressures. Patterson has a high pressure setup that allows him to operate at greater than 100 deg C without boiling. But the portable demo unit operates at one atmosphere. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / 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: Tue, 16 May 95 08:53:29 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) james dolan writes: >i'd also like to point out that votes listed as "y" indicate "yes" >votes and votes listed as "n" indicate "no" votes; this also was not >made explicit. Yes, of course Y is yes and N is no. That is obvious. A dash, on the other hand, might mean "data not recieved" or "the vote counting program screwed up." I suppose your remark was meant to be sarcastic . . . If so, you are not adding any information of value to the exchange. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.15 / 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: 15 May 1995 11:12:17 +0200 Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: >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 And what else should we use as a foundation of scientific theories? We haven't yet developed a means of communicating to each other without a language. Do you mean telepathy? Any language exact enough for describing natural pheonmena will have a corresponding mathematical formulation. 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: cuddy15 cudenkak cudfnKarl cudlnKrieger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / 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: 16 May 1995 09:53:20 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote: : wolfgang.ratzka@physik.uni-regensburg.de (Wolfgang Ratzka) writes: : >Since when has "cross cultural" become PC speak for crackpot? : >-- : Over the same time scale that opposition to the Party line has become : 'crackpot'. : dave I agree! Bryan cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / 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: 16 May 1995 10:02:21 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Eleaticus (ThnkTank@cris.com) wrote: : 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 ? : !---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---? JPL won't touch this with a 10 foot pole, that's why modern physics is a farce! Bryan cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / 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: Tue, 16 May 1995 14:39:45 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <3p75thINNfv6@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, Karl Krieger wrote: >wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: > >>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 > >And what else should we use as a foundation of scientific theories? >We haven't yet developed a means of communicating to each other without >a language. Do you mean telepathy? >Any language exact enough for describing natural pheonmena will have >a corresponding mathematical formulation. > >Karl Krieger >-- Probably true, but that does not mean that every mathematical formulation has a corresponding *exact* natural phenomena formulation. Take for instance the quark formulation. That's all it is for it does not exist -- except as a mathematical formulation. It has no reality. Its name is taken, tongue in cheek, from a piece of fiction (apropos -- fiction for fiction). The "characteristics" are *strictly* mathematical for which there is no corresponding natural phenomena -- so they are named, in language, such things as "color", "charm", "up", "down", "strange" -- maybe even "backwards". Years ago I attended some of Gell-Man's lectures - and felt I was watching a version of Alice in Wonderland. And then there is the *misuse* of a perfectly good mathematical formulation: E^2 = m^2c^4 + P^2c^2. Now the pundits have decided that this equation applies to the photon. They have also decided the photon has no mass (despite the fact it has energy and momentum -- *both* of which are *characteristics* of mass, without which neither exists.) So -- they *interpret* the equation to have m = 0 for a particle but P to have mass, *for the same particle*. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION. They thus proclaim a particle of no mass but having momentum -- momentum without mass, i.e., mv without m. Doing so in the equation yields E = Pc, which is experimentally correct. So, obtaining the corrrect results for the wrong reason does not make the wrong reason correct. Everyone is familiar with the modern agreement that mass is invariant. What the poor souls cannot see is that the photon has mass -- and *that* mass is also invariant. The rest mass equals the moving mass. (The only thing is that "at rest" means absorbed.) Einstein has shown that a photon absorbed adds mass to the absorbing bodies. He has shown this with perfectly good correlation between mathematical formulation and natural phenomenon formulation. I stress this -- yet the pundits accuse ME of denying SR! :-! Their escape hatch is to say -- "Oh no, we don't use mass, we use energy." They cannot see the futility of a conceptual euphamism. Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. When asked to decribe energy WITHOUT REFERRING TO MASS, there is no answer. Regards, V.V. The Ugly Duckling cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: 16 May 1995 15:29:12 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article <3p9bhu$13l5@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Martin Sevior wrote: [Steve Jones postulates He3 from tritium decay] > > Since tritium has a 12-year half life and has a much higher affinity for > palldaium than Helium, wouldn't one expect to see at least as much tritium > as 3He in the E-QUEST experiment? They do not say they see any tritium at all. > Once presumes that if it was found it would be mentioned as it is also a > candidate nuclear ash. For similar reasons I would think a seach for tritium > would have been made in the mass spectrometer. (I will ask though.) By all means, report what answer you get. Remember, tritium will look _a_lot_ like He3 to a mass spectrometer; it's eminently possible that some of the reported He3 was actually T. > > As for the 4He found arising from contamination in the air... Remember the > rest of the experiment. No Helium above background for blank runs, about > 0.5 of atmospheric concentration for the "short" run and 100 times for long > run. In all cases the content found in the high purity argon tracks the > energy produced if one assumes the reaction > > d + d => 4He > > produces the energy. This still suffers from the inability to satisfy conservation of energy and a conservation of momentum simultaneously, without the emission of a high energy neutron or other particle. Of course, that the He3 tracks the output power is rather compelling... > > The helium content in the air would have flucuate widely from 1/10 normal to > 100 times normal in accordance with the different runs to explain the > measured concentrations. This seems far fetched. Not necessarily. Helium is a very common laboratory gas, used as a carrier gas for GC's, present as boiloff from liquid He systems, _etc._ --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / 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: 16 May 1995 11:41:09 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. 15 May, 1995 REGIONAL AAAS SESSIONS IN NORMAN, OK, AND VANCOUVER, B.C., ON "CHALLENGES TO CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY" A series of 6 symposia with 34 papers will be presented in Norman, OK from 5/22 to 5/24/95, at the annual meeting of the Southwestern and Rocky Mtn division of AAAS (Amer. Assoc. for Advancemt of Sci.). These are aimed mainly at criticizing and replacing two popular theories: the special theory of relativity and the Big Bang (BB) theory (in the so-called origin of the universe). All alleged evidence for the BB, and its concepts of an expanding universe and explanations of the variable red shift from distant galaxies, can also be explained in terms of a steady state universe. Among papers at Norman advocating the steady-state alternative to BB is one by Grote Reber, the chief founder of radio astronomy. (In 1937, Grote built the world's first radio telescope, and then prepared the first map of cosmic radio sources.) A native of US, Reber will journey to Norman from his present home in Tasmania, Australia. Although weaknesses in BB theory have been discussed in various books and journals (e.g., "Discover",Mar,'95), special relativity has been much more protected by editors and others from fundamental criticism. Several speakers at Norman will present arguments of its logical flaws and against claims of empirical support for it which involve faulty reasoning from the raw data to announced results. For example, a common 'proof' of time dilation (involving lifetimes of mesons and pions) depends on the relativistic formula for mass variation, which in turn has never been unequivocally proven. Two other speakers will show why atomic energy does not necessarily depend on special relativity. Still others will discuss experimental evidence AGAINST the theory, or present alternative theories and concepts. The newly formed Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), which organized the Norman sessions, has also put together a similar but smaller series of papers for the Pacific division of the AAAS mtg in Vancouver, B.C., June 19 to 21, 1995. Reber and a few other Norman authors will speak also in Vancouver. Only very recently have AAAS regional mtgs been open to this degree of dissident from current doctrines of physics and cosmology. The NPA is now attempting to have similar sessions approved for the program of a future NATIONAL AAAS mtg. For more information about the meetings, including plans to publish a volume of proceedings, or the NPA (an organization of dissident scientists), contact Neil Munch at 70047.2123@Compuserve.com or write to John Chappell, Jr., 1212 Drake Cir., San Luis Opispo, CA 93405. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / John Alway / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: jalway@icsi.net (John Alway) 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: Tue, 16 May 95 14:48:39 GMT Organization: Internet Connect Services, Inc. kak@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Karl Krieger) wrote: :wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: : :>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 : :And what else should we use as a foundation of scientific theories? :We haven't yet developed a means of communicating to each other without :a language. Do you mean telepathy? :Any language exact enough for describing natural pheonmena will have :a corresponding mathematical formulation. : :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 What you need for science is a method of conceptualizing the physical phenomenon of study. Math is an integral part of that method, but it most certainly isn't the only part. The purpose of math is to give measurement to phenomenon. Math isn't the primary here (building mathematical castles in the sky isn't science), just a necessary component. You also must apply logic to the case at hand. _________________________________________________________________ | The strongest of all our convictions is that two contradictory | | statements are not both true at the same time... ...//\\RISTOTLE| |______________________John Alway__jalway@icsi.net________________| cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjalway cudfnJohn cudlnAlway cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / HMICRO / Re: patterson and griggs patents? Originally-From: hmicro@aol.com (HMICRO) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: patterson and griggs patents? Date: 16 May 1995 12:28:49 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Please furnish the patent number for the "Griggs patent". HMICRO@aol.com cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenhmicro cudlnHMICRO cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / HMICRO / Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Originally-From: hmicro@aol.com (HMICRO) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Part 1 of review of the 5th International Cold Fusion Conference. Date: 16 May 1995 12:45:20 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Thanks! At last I see an objective report of the 5th ICFC. Looking forward to Part 2. HMICRO@aol.com Bart Howell cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenhmicro cudlnHMICRO cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / A LOPEZ / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: team6@vxdel1.cern.ch (A.LOPEZ) 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: Tue, 16 May 1995 18:14:00 GMT Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN In article , vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes... [deleted] > >Everyone is familiar with the modern agreement that mass is invariant. > >What the poor souls cannot see is that the photon has mass -- and *that* >mass is also invariant. The rest mass equals the moving mass. > Mr Vergon, in answer to one of my posts in alt.sci.physics.new-theories concerning the Doppler effect, you have claimed that the photon mass is NOT invariant. Could you please make up your mind on the subject? Does a photon's mass depend on the observer, or not? Regards, Alfonso Lopez [deleted] >Regards, > > >V.V. The Ugly Duckling cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenteam6 cudfnA cudlnLOPEZ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Alan M / Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails Date: 16 May 1995 18:51:43 +0100 Organization: Home In article: jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > I suppose your remark was meant to be sarcastic . . . If so, you are not > adding any information of value to the exchange. Then he joins you in a long tradition, Jed. -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Tom Droege / Re: Cravens pump power Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: 16 May 1995 18:00:15 GMT Organization: fermilab I am looking at the nice curves supplied by John Logajan of the Cravens work. In particular I wish to draw attention to the curve titled "Power Run" "excess power vs current" Here it is: -------------------------------- Power Run excess power vs current ratio Ph out / P in 5 ** 4 * * * 3 *** * * * * * * 2 * * * * * * * * 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Input Current Amps flow 10 ml/min, Inlet 25 +/- 2 C. ---------------------------- We immediately notice that the largest power ratios are at zero input current. Power out/power in is approaching unity as the current is increased. As usual, we are not troubled by error bars, etc.. This curve is quite consistent with zero excess heat. We can estimate the error bars from the irregularity of different measurements taken at the same conditions. This is not a 6x excess heat experiment, by the data presented it is a null experiment! Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / J_FARRELL@acad / EUV Spectrometer Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: EUV Spectrometer Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 18:33:39 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Does anyone have, or know of someone who has, an EUV Spectrometer. Interested in getting the emission spectrum of a solid sample in the 40 eV to 200 eV range. Thank you. ************************************************************************** John J. Farrell email J_FARRELL@ACAD.FANDM.EDU Chemistry Department Phone 717-291-3803 Franklin & Marshall College FAX 717-291-4343 Lancaster, PA 17604 USA ************************************************************************** cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Jim Carr / Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Date: 16 May 1995 15:43:09 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article <3os93k$7d0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> robertmc5@aol.com (ROBERTMC5) writes: > > BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY > > ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION ) The return of Robert McElwaine ! Glad to see this was not duplicatively posted, even tho I have a vague feeling I have seen this before ... and will wait to see if Robert will just post the file repeatedly or participate in an actual discussion... -- James A. Carr | "My pet light bulb is a year old http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | today. That is 5.9 trillion miles Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | in light years. Your mileage may Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | vary." -- Heywood Banks cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Blue's imaginary problems. Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Blue's imaginary problems. Date: Tue, 16 May 95 16:40:44 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard A Blue writes: "It has become clear that Jed Rothwell and I are talking about two different matters. I am more concerned about the quality of ongoing measurements being made by Griggs and coworkers and have questioned the assertion that these measurements are sufficiently robust that error estimates are not needed. Jed is refering to the "barrel calorimetry" that he did." It has become clear that Dick Blue has never read any of the papers from Griggs or from me, and that he does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about. He thinks that Griggs is describing one experiment, and I am describing another. Anyone who has bothered to glance at the papers will know that we are describing exactly the same set of experiments performed at the same time, with both Griggs and me standing in the room. Blue has also never bothered to look at a schematic or a photograph of the machine. If he had, he would have seen that it is equipped with old- fashioned bimetalic dial thermometers, which are not electronic. It is not surprising that Blue failed to notice this fact, but it *is* surprising that Tom Droege failed to see those thermometers, since he actually went to the site and stood next to the machine. Evidently, he did not bother to look, or else he does not know what a thermometer is. If he had looked, he would have realized instantly that his "electronic noise" idea is bunk. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: patterson and griggs patents? Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: patterson and griggs patents? Date: Tue, 16 May 95 16:41:27 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) U.S. 5,188,090 2/1993 Griggs, Apparatus for heating fluids U.S. 4,943,355 7/1990 Patterson U.S. 5,036,031 7/1991 Patterson U.S. 5,318,675 6/1994 Patterson - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / CF output not proportional to input Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: CF output not proportional to input Date: Tue, 16 May 95 16:42:12 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: "We immediately notice that the largest power ratios are at zero input current. Power out/power in is approaching unity as the current is increased. . . . This curve is quite consistent with zero excess heat." That is incorrect. The curve shows that CF output is not proportional to input. This fact is well known. A quarter-watt input might produce the same output as one watt, in which case three-fourths of the input energy is wasted. If you were to boost the input to two watts, then one and three fourths would be wasted. "This is not a 6x excess heat experiment." There is no such thing as a "6x" CF experiment. CF devices are not amplifiers. Input has no simple, linear relationship with output. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Paul Hanchett / Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Originally-From: paulha@teleport.com (Paul Hanchett) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION Date: Tue, 16 May 95 19:53:38 GMT Organization: Computer Network Services In article <3p0372$l7m@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) wrote: >It is not a pretty picture... the nuclear physics profession being >outsmarted by a kernal of corn. I suspect that what's happening is that the growth process takes CO2 from the air, binds the carbon to materials already in the (sprouting) seed, and releases the O2. Sort of Nature's slight of hand, ya know. paulha@teleport.com cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenpaulha cudfnPaul cudlnHanchett cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Carl Ijames / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: ijames@codon.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 21:18:31 -0500 Organization: National Institutes of Health In article , ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote: > In article <3p9bhu$13l5@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Martin Sevior > wrote: > > [Steve Jones postulates He3 from tritium decay] > > > > > Since tritium has a 12-year half life and has a much higher affinity for > > palldaium than Helium, wouldn't one expect to see at least as much tritium > > as 3He in the E-QUEST experiment? They do not say they see any tritium at all. > > Once presumes that if it was found it would be mentioned as it is also a > > candidate nuclear ash. For similar reasons I would think a seach for tritium > > would have been made in the mass spectrometer. (I will ask though.) > > By all means, report what answer you get. Remember, tritium will look > _a_lot_ like He3 to a mass spectrometer; it's eminently possible that some > of the reported He3 was actually T. Based on a description of the mass spectrometer someone else posted a few days ago, they specifically filter out hydrogen (and thus tritium). Even normal H2 gives a small peak with m/z 3 from formation of H3+, so if they are analyzing for 3He they have to eliminate this background. Regards, Carl Ijames ijames@codon.nih.gov cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cravens pump power Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: Tue, 16 May 95 21:24:03 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Richard A Blue writes: >Many thanks to John Logajan for supplying a calculation of the power >delivered to the Cravens demo setup by the circulating pump. So >does this tell us that of the 1 watt of "excess heat" we have 0.2 watts >supplied by the pump that was not included in previous accountings? No it does not, for two reasons: 1. Logajan was off by an order of magnitude. 2. Even if 2 watts or 10 watts of heat was added by water friction, it would not affect the calorimetry unless it was added at some location in the cell between the input thermocouple and the output thermocouple. I explained this in another thread about "water friction." - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cravens pump power Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: Tue, 16 May 95 21:27:17 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Tom Droege writes: >This curve is quite consistent with zero excess heat. We can estimate This analysis is completely wrong. The curve is quite consistant with other CF results. We know it is real precisely because it does fit the usual profile of non-proportional response. For more information, please see my thread: "CF output not proportional." - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / Marko Toivanen / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: mtoivane@cc.joensuu.fi (Marko Toivanen) 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: 16 May 1995 04:04:11 GMT In a previous article (<3n1q40$q7k@vent.pipex.net>) of 19 Apr 1995 01:47:44 GMT, JohnatAcadInt (ah63@solo.pipex.com) wrote to sci.physics: * I don't object at all to the "best-fit" argument, and I think, as has * always been the case, present theories will prove pragmatic and * votive and be judged on their results. I follow Lakatos * here in assimiliating mathematics to empirical science, though I * object when Popper and Feyerabend are seen as conformist, on the one * hand, and anarchist, on the other. I came to this thread quite late - too late, apparently - to understand these references to Lakatos, and then Feyerabend and Popper. Who sees/saw Popper as conformist and Feyerabend as anarchist? Though I don't get the context, I, too, would object to those characterizations as ridiculous - anarchism hasn't got anything to do with Feyerabend, and conformism would too have to be stretched rather roughly to fit Popper. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Marko Toivanen * * * * * * * * * * co-moderator in FEYERABEND of mtoivane@cc.joensuu.fi * * * * * * * * majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu http://www.joensuu.fi/~mtoivane/ * http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/ cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmtoivane cudfnMarko cudlnToivanen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: Tue, 16 May 95 22:00:20 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Thomas S. Zemanian writes: >Not necessarily. Helium is a very common laboratory gas, used as a >carrier gas for GC's, present as boiloff from liquid He systems, _etc._ Not 3He. It would thousands of dollars to use 3He as a carrier gas for GC's. I recommend the use of ordinary helium-4 for this purpose. Please note that Rockwell detected 3He thousands of times above background. Also, their mass spec machine can easily distinguish 3He and T; you are wrong about that. Also, as several people at LANL pointed out to Jones, their labs are designed for reseach with tritium. They have extremely powerful fans in each room, carefully designed to sweep out all gases. These are some of the best hi-tech labs on earth. It is highly unlikely that massive concentrations of helium are just "hanging around" waiting to get into the cell. And, as I pointed out, nobody is following them from lab to lab with a bottle of helium, turning it on whenever they get heat and never at other times. There is no little man lurking in the corner, wearing a trenchcoat. They have done this at other labs too, of course, where there was no helium canister anywhere in sight. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.17 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium Date: 17 May 1995 02:42:19 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , ijames@codon.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) wrote: > In article , > ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote: > [deletia] > > By all means, report what answer you get. Remember, tritium will look > > _a_lot_ like He3 to a mass spectrometer; it's eminently possible that some > > of the reported He3 was actually T. > > Based on a description of the mass spectrometer someone else posted a few > days ago, they specifically filter out hydrogen (and thus tritium). Even > normal H2 gives a small peak with m/z 3 from formation of H3+, so if they > are analyzing for 3He they have to eliminate this background. > Thanks, Carl. I am certainly no mass spectrometrist, and I appreciate the correction. That being said, I must conclude I missed the description of the spectrometer. The only description I recall of filtering out hydrogen was Steve Jones describing using Pd diffusers to filter out hydrogen from the muon-catalyzed fusion work, postulating that this could account for heightened presence of tritium in the palladium supply. (Steve, have I gotten this right, or am I thoroughly off base?) A side note: would the method of ionization affect the presence of H3+ formed in the mass spectrometer? What was the spectrometer used? An ion cyclotron machine should be able to distinguish the mass difference between T (3.01605 amu) and that of 3He (3.01603 amu) (if one could cool ions of such small mass), but could a triple quad do so? An ion trap would seem inappropriate, due to similar problems in cooling such small analytes. In short, how _does_ one distinguish 3He and T mass spectrometrically? --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy17 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May 17 04:37:05 EDT 1995 ------------------------------