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 02:46:28 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <hq4cbbM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> 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.
>  

Well, what technique of mass spectrometry are they using?  That's an
awfully small mass difference (2E-5 amu!)

--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 
------------------------------
1995.05.16 / james dolan /  Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RESULT: sci.physics.fusion reorganization fails
Date: 16 May 1995 22:04:20 -0700
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

jed rothwell writes:

-james dolan <jdolan@math.ucr.edu> 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.


what if my remark wasn't meant to be sarcastic; am i adding any
information of value to the exchange in that case?

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 17 May 1995 05:02:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: I am looking at the nice curves supplied by John Logajan of the 
: Cravens work.  

Credit for those ASCII drawings goes entirely to Bill Page.



: We can estimate the error bars from the irregularity of different
: measurements taken at the same conditions.

Ouch!  You've made a major mistake in your logic.  You cannot estimate
the "error bars" from the variations in an anomalous effect!

You can only estimate "error bars" during calibration runs.  The graph
you see variations in is during an anomalous heat run.  The system
response to calibration power variation is in a different graph and
is very flat from approx 1 to 20 watts.


Try this thought experiment -- a burning candle flickers from near
zero light output to peaks of brightness.  The average light output
falls between these "error bars" -- ergo the candle is a "null
experiment" according to Tom's logic and therefore there is no
flame.  Zowie!!  :-)


--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 08:55:13 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 10 May 1995, Mark H. North wrote:

[...]
> The formation of PdHx and presumably PdDx
> is apparently an endothermic process. I quote
> from Cam Satterthwaite in Physics Today, Nov.
> 1978. The article is entitled "Hydrogen in metals".
> 
>   "Hydrogen forms ionic hydrides by re-
> action with all of the alkali and alkaline-
> earth metals. It reacts exothermically to
> form metallic, semimetallic and semi-
> conducting hydrides with the transition
> metals in Groups III, IV and V as well as
> with the rare-earth metals and the actin-
> de metals; see the periodic table in figure
> 1. On the other hand, the transition
> metals in Groups VI, VII and VIII react
> endothermically and generally do not
> form stable hydrides. The most notable
> exception is palladium; the alloy PdHx
> probably has been studied longer and
> more extensively than any other hy-
> dride."
> 
[...]

I think you are misreading that. The formation of PdD(0.72), i.e. what you
get when you put Pd in a 1 atm pressured D2 gas, is exothermic; they like
each other. This is obvious from the enthalpy of formation of PdD(0.72),
about -30 kJ/mol. What we have occasionally argued about here is what happens
at higher loadings. It may well be that to get more D into PdD, you need to
supply more energy, i.e. that the reaction becomes endothermic. Conversely,
when you then release the pressure (e.g. cut the charging current), the stuff
will revert to the 1-atm stoichiometry by releasing some D2, and the heat it
took in previously. That 30 kJ/mol is small compared with the ca. ten times
as large heat of formation of water from its elements (this is what people
correct the input power by when doing cold fusion calorimetry, or the famous
cigarette lighter effect), and my guess is that the possible effects at 
higher loadings are similarly smallish. So there is nothing much to gain by
invoking these effects; they cannot explain purported excess heat, 
claimed to be at least some multiples of the heat of water formation. 
For much the same reason, I don't think this Joule-Thomson stuff is of great
relevance, albeit interesting.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Don't respond to nonsense please
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Don't respond to nonsense please
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 09:05:56 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Lately, this group has been heavily loaded (as I see it, anyway)
with nut fringe postings, such as Farce of Physics, Plasmoids, McElwaine
(we can look forward to more of his), and now once again "red mercury". Bryan
Wallace, the Farce bloke, tells me that many replies to his stuff come from
this group, which is why he continues to cross-post to it.

I understand that the temptation is great to reply to this stuff; I found 
myself almost starting a response to "red mercury"; and that is the way to
start an epidemic. The way to stop it is never to take notice. I don't 
suppose McElwaine or Lewis (who communicate strictly one-way) will be stopped
but Wallace at least gave me the impression that he might let us off if we
fail to show interest.

So, please, how about not responding to this stuff? This group is nut-fringy 
enough as it is.

Before you (again) lecture me about kill files, I use pine, which doesn't
have them, as far as I can see.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / 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
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 17 May 1995 11:25:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3p6hjo$j5j@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
anarch@cse.ucsc.edu (Anarch) writes:

> >  What do you mean by apocryphal. Was there some more past history to "
> >Eppur si muove " that predates Galileo? If so, cite references please.
> 
> The earliest known attributions of the phrase to Galileo are from the
> mid-18th century, long after his death.  What the scholarly consensus, if
> any, is on whether someone else said it, or he said something similar, or
> it was simply pure invention by fanciful biographers, I don't know.  A
> biography of Galileo would probably tell more.

  I should not be so hard on religion. I should be more hard on todays
physics and math and most of the science communities. They, like what
the Catholic Church was to Galileo are far worse persecutors to me than
what religion is. And some of them to be sure have combinations of
both. Academic freedom, those are fancy words to cover up how stifling
and protective and clanish science is. One only needs examine the
"journal system of any science and math". Therein you see the whole
picture. Even amongst journal insiders you see con-artistry, sham,
fleecing, all propelled by arrogance and the desire for fame, not the
desire to get things correct. Look at Wiles, rather than admit failure,
he pulls out his phony paper from a California math journal and plants
it at his home address of Princeton. 
  In physics, chemistry or you name it science, all of those journals
claim "academic freedom" but none possess it. They all go by who is an
insider and everyone else is outside. If you have a post office address
and not a Cambridge address forget it. If you at all rock the boat,
forget it, because your ideas would place doubt on the current
insiders. Why is this important to the current insiders, well of course
their fame is chipped away at, and their millions of money made easily
for stupid books which line the shelves of bookstores is called into
question.
  But true science makes it through the persecutors, the fools of
science who always hog the limelight and overstay their foolery. Ask a
big banger sometime, at which point are atoms created within his big
bang? That is, at which point were there no atoms, and then at some
point, really miraculously, atoms come into existence. Then, ask them
is this the "miraculous conception" talked about in the Bible? Ask them
if that is the miraculous conception science?
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / 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: Wed, 17 May 1995 09:17:10 -0500
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <ts_zemanian-1605951934240001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote:

> 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?)

From the fusion digest (thanks guys :-)),
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd-latest/thruFD3691,

Mark H. North reported the following features:


  - PERMANENT MAGNET INSTRUMENT (2 IN. RADIUS, 60 DEGREE
    DEFLECTION, [delta]M/M ~ 1/100) OPERATING IN STATIC MODE

  - MULTIPLE GETTERS TO REMOVE HYDROGEN ISOTOPES AND
    ACTIVE GASES

With a resolution of 100 they aren't going to resolve 3He and H3, hence
the "multiple getters" to reduce the background.

> A side note:  would the method of ionization affect the presence of H3+
> formed in the mass spectrometer?

Sure, you always choose an ionization technique to give good signals and
low background.  Since they don't say, they are probably using electron
impact, which also produces H+ and thus H3+ by reaction with H2.  The H+
can be from H2, the major background gas in a clean stainless steel vacuum
system, or from hydrocarbons (oils and gunk), so those getters must be
pretty good.
 
> 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?

With a real high resolution instrument like an FTMS, of course :-). 
(That's what I do.)  That mass difference requires a resolution of 150,000
to just separate the peaks, equal to the spec of the highest resolution
commercial sector machine (Kratos MS50).  However, at m/z 3, that is
child's play for an FTMS.  Is that what you meant by ion cyclotron
machine?  FTMS's are also long-windedly call FTICRMS's, but I "grew up"
just using FTMS.  A triple quad normally has unit resolution so it isn't
close, and ion traps have problems operating at such low m/z (and
certainly wouldn't _routinely_ give the resolution).  Well, enough
blathering for now.

Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@codon.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Alex Kasman /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Alex Kasman <famulus@acs.bu.edu>
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: 17 May 1995 13:14:46 GMT
Organization: Boston University

jalway@icsi.net (John Alway) 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.
>:

>    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.

I hate people who jump into the middle of a thread with no idea of the original 
topic being discussed, but I'm afraid I'm about to do just that!

Mathematics is certainly more than a language (although it often does play the 
role of a language in science).  It would more accurately be described as a 
MODEL.   Can a model form a "legitimate foundation of a scientific theory"?  
Well, of course, one could make up any model they want...the real test of a 
model is how well it models whatever "real" phenomenon you are looking at 
(and, in science at least, how simple it is compared to other equally valid models 
of the same phenomenon -- Ockham's Razor).  The REALLY useful part is that 
the mathematical model, if it is a good one, can tell you things about the reality 
that you would never have noticed.  There are millions of examples of this.  Take 
the "discovery" of the soliton in a mathematical model of plasma waves 30 years 
ago as a "canonical" example.   

On the other hand, I can't say I exactly agree with the opinions of the other writer 
either.  I'm probably getting too picky here.  I mean, he does seem to say that the 
math is used as a model...but it is more than just "measurement".  Modern 
physics makes use of many areas of mathematics which cannot be thought of as 
any kind of "quantity".  In fact, your last sentence says that "you must also apply 
logic" and (at least according to logicians!) logic is a subject of mathematics.

Sorry for butting in.  Get back to whatever you were talking about.

ak

Alex Kasman
Department of Mathematics
Boston University


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfamulus cudfnAlex cudlnKasman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 14:33:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think the responses to this thread have pretty well covered the
possibilities.  The pump may or may not input a significant amount
of power.  That power may or may not have been properly accounted
for.  Depending on what the pressure differential is between the
points where the temperatures are determined the water friction
in the loop may or may not be included as a heat source being
measured.

Now does not this serve to illustrate that the Cravens Demo at
ICCF5 was not really such a straight forward demonstration of
cold fusion after all.  At least the reports posted here were
so lacking in detail that no firm conclusions could be reached.
As I recall the only essential information that had been reported
was that under certain conditions a temperature difference was
observed between two points in the fluid circuit.  If you believe
in the Griggs effect why  not assume that is also accounts for
the heating observed in the Cravens Demo?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / David Tyler /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: tyler@ug1.plk.af.mil (David Tyler)
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: 17 May 1995 08:10:28 -0600
Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab.

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

>Eleaticus (ThnkTank@cris.com) wrote:
>: In article <conrad.800465657@skid.ps.uci.edu>,
>: 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.

>JPL won't touch this with a 10 foot pole, that's why modern physics is a 
>farce!

isn't it a bit inconsistent that jpl would have no qualms about lying to
people concerning their method and suddenly have an attack of morality
about *denying* their lies..?

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentyler cudfnDavid cudlnTyler cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Richard Blue /  Re: Jones hypothesis for E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones hypothesis for E-Quest helium
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:03:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I fail to understand the continued quoting of the "results"
of the E-Quest experimentation with reference to some background
level for 4He and for 3He.  Such numbers are meaningless until
you define that background and demonstrate that it has been
determined in a manor which has significance for the measurements
under discussion.

How do we know that the atmospheric concencration of helium is
everywhere equal to some handbook value?  I can think of many
reasons for asserting that it most likely is not very uniform.
As far as I am concerned quoting the helium results that way
conveys almost no useful information.

Measurements of helium concentrations relative to blanks of
some sort are a different matter.  Deciding what constitutes
an appropriate blank then becomes key to the entire design
of the experiment.  If D2O is replaced by H2O that may provide
useful clues concerning the possible sources for the helium,
but there are several possibilities other than cold fusion
that may account for any observed differences.

The assertion that the helium appears only when there is
"excess heat" may correctly indicate that they share some
connection, but that does not prove that the connection is
cold fusion.  In particular if the source of helium is
in the liquid it seems quit reasonable that the amount of
helium evolved into the cover gas would be influenced by
heating.

The new information posted concerning the Rockwell mass spectrometer
leaves me even more puzzled by a key feature of the E-Quest
experimental design.  If the helium source is in the solid
or the liquid why aren't the experimental results based on
measurements of the helium in the solid or the liquid?
One might assume that the cover gas is analyzed for helium
because of some experimental constraint associated wtih the
mass spectrometer, but that does not seem to be the case.

The description of the Rockwell instrument says that it was
designed for the analysis of helium in liquid or solid
samples.  Why not make use of that fact and sample the
D2O and analyze that for helium.  That seems to be what the
Rockwell instrument was designed to do.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / 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: Wed, 17 May 1995 13:57:00 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <16MAY199519140446@vxdel1.cern.ch>,
A.LOPEZ <team6@vxdel1.cern.ch> wrote:
>In article <vergonD8oE29.33y@netcom.com>, 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?

I've made up *my* mind -- I just can't make up yours.  :-)

Seriously, it *is* a little tricky.

Let's see if I can straighten this out.

** If you consider a photon under doppler conditions, it changes frequency.

Since each element of frequency is a quantum that has mass (7 x 10^-48 gr)
the mass of the photon changes, i.e., is variable because the size of the 
aggregate changes. THE MASS OF THE QUANTUM (singular) IS INVARIANT.

Now let's say you have changed the mass of a photon several times by
varying the relative velocity of the observer, and let's say that for
the last few seconds that relative velocity has not changed. The photon
then has a certain frequency and mass -- its moving mass.

Should the photon then be absorbed, its moving mass and its rest mass
are the same.

Hope this does it.
 
------------------
:-)
You know, if you would take the time and the 'trouble' to read my thesis
ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY I wouldn't have to try to explain it
to you piecemeal.

As a bonus, you would see a new way of looking at the universe 
(new paradigm) that would blow your mind.

Of course you would have to read it (to the end) with an open mind. 
You seem to have one.

Unfortunately, what few have looked at it do not. They would read 
until they encountered the first thing that differed from the present
paradigm (or they imagined it did) and then they would quit reading
and go into spasms of criticism, insisting that it was "WRONG".

V.V.     The Ugly Duckling

in answer to


>           Alfonso Lopez
>
>[deleted]


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Joule-Thomsen PPS
Date: 17 May 1995 15:29:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: The formation of PdD(0.72), i.e. what you get when you put Pd in a 1 atm
: pressured D2 gas, is exothermic; they like each other. This is obvious from
: the enthalpy of formation of PdD(0.72), about -30 kJ/mol.

One thing I was never clear on -- what happens when you remove the D2
surrounding atmosphere and replace it with normal air or water.

Does the PdD spontaneously unload endothermically and draw heat from the
surrounding environment?  Or is the PdD stable and require heating or some
electro-chemical input to drive out the D?

Are Tom Droege's old Pd plates still PdD(0.72) or has most of the D escaped
by now?

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 17 May 1995 15:55:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
1)  : The pump may or may not input a significant amount of power.
2)  : That power may or may not have been properly accounted for.

I think this misstates the evidence we have amassed so far.

With Jed indicating that the demo unit ran at 14.7 PSI gauge pressure,
the total pressure-drop/flow-rate energy dissipation is on the order
of 0.016 watts -- less than 2% of the alleged anomalous effect.

: Now does not this serve to illustrate that the Cravens Demo at
: ICCF5 was not really such a straight forward demonstration of
: cold fusion after all.

I don't think we have yet found error sources of nearly sufficient
magnitude to account for the anomalous heat.

: At least the reports posted here were so lacking in detail that no
: firm conclusions could be reached.

You mean nobody is shaving their heads yet?  :-)

: As I recall the only essential information that had been reported
: was that under certain conditions a temperature difference was
: observed between two points in the fluid circuit.

We have these data sources:

1.) voltage
2.) current
3.) inlet temperature
4.) outlet temperature
5.) electrolyte flow rate
6.) gas flow rate
7.) electrolyte composition

We have calibration power versus temperature rise graphs.
Calibration power versus thermal recovery efficiency graphs.
Flow rate versus thermal recovery efficiency graphs. 
Current versus gas flow graphs.
Power in versus power out graphs.
And a schematic of the demo unit/fluid circuit -- with indicated
resolution ranges for the various data sensors.

So we do have quite a bit of info to chew on.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  charl@freenet. /  Cold Fusion: The Musical
     
Originally-From: charl@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: The Musical
Date: 17 May 1995 16:32:47 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Press Release ¥Êfor immediate release
Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie 
and 
Atomic Improv
team up to bring the world
Cold Fusion: the Musical!

May 15, 1995
Comedy titans Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie and living legends Atomic 
Improv have joined forces to bring you Cold Fusion the Musical. 
Cold Fusion the Musical chronicles the biggest scientific controversy of 
our century. In 1989 Doctors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann 
announced to the world that they had discovered a cheap, clean, and 
nearly limitless supply of energyÑcold fusion. Had they? Or had they made 
a monumental mistake?
The agony! The ecstasy! The electrochemistry!  If Arthur C. Clarke had 
written for Mad Magazine, it might have been something like this.
The show will be running every night except Monday at eight oÕclock 
starting June 1st at the Chinook Theatre. Three Dead Trolls will also be 
booking private shows, so school groups or other interested parties 
should call       (403) 497 0418 for more information.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencharl cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Louis Gascoigne /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: eapu294@aldebaran.oac.uci.edu (Louis Gascoigne)
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: 17 May 95 16:18:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Alex Kasman <famulus@acs.bu.edu> writes:

Alex, I agree entirely!

>Mathematics is certainly more than a language (although it often does play the 
>role of a language in science).  It would more accurately be described as a 
>MODEL.   Can a model form a "legitimate foundation of a scientific theory"?  
>Well, of course, one could make up any model they want...the real test of a 
>model is how well it models whatever "real" phenomenon you are looking at 
>(and, in science at least, how simple it is compared to other equally valid models 
>of the same phenomenon -- Ockham's Razor).  The REALLY useful part is that 
>the mathematical model, if it is a good one, can tell you things about the reality 
>that you would never have noticed.  There are millions of examples of this.  Take 
>the "discovery" of the soliton in a mathematical model of plasma waves 30 years 
>ago as a "canonical" example.   

I like to think of mathematics as an exercise in thought.  Of course, there
are very practical applications using this thought (real analysis and the
finite and infinite calculus, for example, are used in every physical
science).

Here is an interesting story which helps to illustrate the connection
between mathematics and physics.  My buddy James told me he did a quantum
problem in Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" using this thing called
the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.  I am still an undergraduate (in chemistry
minoring in mathematics) so I asked him to please explain what it is.
After writing it on the board, I had no idea where it came from, or what
it was doing there.  I ran downstairs and asked my numerical analysis
professor to derive it for me, and then to derive the uncertainty 
principle using it.  He did so, with a proof, in under 5 minutes and
I was happy.  He then showed a bunch of other ways to do the same thing
using different functions.  (none of which I remember).

I was very impressed that a pure mathematician with a primary interest
in algebraic geometry could whip out the uncertainty principle so quickly.
I immediately made up my mind that I should take real analysis and
algebra (group theory and rings) in order to be truly educated.

It eludes me how Bryan can argue that mathematical reasoning and insight
cannot be used to guess at physical phenomena which haven't yet been
observed or characterized.  To do so would be to deny 7000 years of mankinds
best thinking as mathematics is the oldest of the sciences.  Besides,
as a research scientist, aren't the theories we like the best the ones
which we can get from FIRST PRINCIPLES?  In my mind, anything in your
mathematical bag of tricks counts as a first principle, as it is derived
from logic and proven by logic.  Making a physical "guess" or "approximation"
is something which taints what you get from using only first principles.
If the theory you come up with from first principles describes what is
observed experimentally and provides physical insight (as it should since
it is from f. principals) then haven't you succeded in your goal as
a scientist?


>On the other hand, I can't say I exactly agree with the opinions of the other writer 
>either.  I'm probably getting too picky here.  I mean, he does seem to say that the 
>math is used as a model...but it is more than just "measurement".  Modern 
>physics makes use of many areas of mathematics which cannot be thought of as 
>any kind of "quantity".  In fact, your last sentence says that "you must also apply 
>logic" and (at least according to logicians!) logic is a subject of mathematics.

Exactly.  How about group theory!  Or number theory?  Or topology?
Algebraic geometry?  All of these areas in pure mathematics can be applied
to physics.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneapu294 cudfnLouis cudlnGascoigne cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 17 May 1995 16:47:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <pE0er5N.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> 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


"The curve is quite consistant with other CF results."

You said it Jed, not me!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: EUV Spectrometer
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EUV Spectrometer
Date: 17 May 1995 16:56:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <01HQKODXZQ2A050BPC@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu says:
>
>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
>**************************************************************************
>

Glad to see you are visiting us, Dr. Farrell.  Does this mean that 
Mills is seeing something?  I am very interested.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
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: 17 May 1995 17:26:44 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote:
> In article <conrad.800297338@skid.ps.uci.edu> 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. 

> 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.

It's fine to explain the "wave-particle duality" as a "trivial" 
consequence of Fourier analysis.

However, this is only a superficial mathematical 
transliteration: an illusion of an explanation.

The real strangeness is that:  the physics of even elementary
particles is apparently based on wave functions and evolution rules which
have all those odd consequences implied by Fourier analysis.


cheers
Matt

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
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: 17 May 1995 17:34:02 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

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

> 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!

People who *believe* in GR take the position that it can be tested
experimentally, and it has been, and it has passed the tests.

The fact that it was the first Lorentz invariant gravitation theory with
a totally unexpected  beautiful mathematical structure, developed by one 
person before any experimental evidence was in makes it an exceedingly 
rare and astonishing accomplishment.  

Experimental evidence for GR:

	1) Anomalous precession of Mercury
	2) Anomalous aberration of starlight during that famous eclipse
	3) Expanding universe
	4) Gravitational redshift detected by Mossbauer experiments (on
	   Earth!) 
	5) Observation of astronomical gravitational lensing
	6) Prediction and observation of pulsar spindown due to 
	   graviational radiation.  (A recent Nobel, btw).
	7) Commercial success of GPS system which uses GR corrections.

If you ask people who really do know something about gravitation I'm
sure you'd get a whole lot more.
	
> Bryan

cheers
matt
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  Kennel /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
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: 17 May 1995 17:40:05 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Vertner Vergon (vergon@netcom.com) wrote:


> 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.

This is perfectly reasonable, because photons *do* have momentum.

They can scatter off massive particles and cause rebounds and all the
normal things consistent with finite momentum.  This has many observable
and well confirmed experimental consequences---experiments done since
the beginning of the century. 

Even in classical Maxwellian electrodynamics, travelling EM waves
carry energy and momentum.  Really.  

Albert Einstein got a Nobel for this whole deal, because he was right.

> 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.

What does that mean?

> (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.

Right.

> When asked to decribe energy WITHOUT REFERRING TO MASS, there is no answer.


> Regards,


> V.V.     The Ugly Duckling
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 11:44 -0500 (EST)

paulha@teleport.com (Paul Hanchett) writes:
 
-> I suspect that what's happening is that the growth process takes CO2 from th
-> 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
 
This is known fact.  But how does it relate to claims that the seed somehow
becomes enriched with other minerals.  I don't see the connection.
 
                                                                  Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 11:47 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> Rockwell detected 3He thousands of times above background. Also, their
-> mass spec machine can easily distinguish 3He and T; you are wrong about that
 
How is this done?  They have almost exactly the same atomic weight.  Is it
because when stripped of electrons the 3He will have a charge of 2 and the T
will only have a charge of 1?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  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: 17 May 95 18:00:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Eleaticus (ThnkTank@cris.com) wrote:
[snip]
> 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?
[snip]
wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote:
>JPL won't touch this with a 10 foot pole, that's why modern physics is a 
>farce!

I am not affiliated with JPL, and I do not act as their intermediary.
I base my statements on articles written by JPL scientists and
engineers available in the literature.  I consider the following
reference proof that they make appropriate use of general relativity in
their calculation of orbits.

In the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac" edited by
P. K. Seidelmann, chapter 5 is entitled "Orbital Ephemerides of the
Sun, Moon, and Planets".  The authors are E. M. Standish, X. X. Newhall, 
J. G. Williams, and D. K Yeomans from JPL.  The first paragraph
includes the following sentence.  "The fundamental planetary and lunar
ephemerides of `The Astronomical Almanac' are DE200/LE200, constructed
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1980."  Paragraph 2 of section 5.11
states, "Included in the equations of motion were the following 
(1) point-mass interactions among the Moon, planets, and Sun; 
(2) GENERAL RELATIVITY (isotropic, parametrized post-Newtonian),
    complete to order 1/c^2; 
..."

The follow papers are are other examples of JPL scientist work
with general relativity.

Dickey, J.O.; Newhall, X.X.; Williams, J.G.
     Investigating relativity using lunar laser ranging: geodetic precession
     and the Nordtvedt effect. (Relativistic Gravitation. Symposium 15 of the
     COSPAR 27th Plenary Meeting, Espoo, Finland, 18-29 July 1988).
     Advances in Space Research, 1989, vol.9, (no.9):75-8.

Reasenberg, R.D.; Shapiro, I.I.; MacNeil, P.E.; Goldstein, R.B. (MIT)
Breidenthal, J.C.; Brenkle, J.P.; Cain, D.L.; Kaufman, T.M.;
Komarek, T.A.; and Zygielbaum, A.I. (JPL)
     Viking relativity experiment: verification of signal retardation by solar
     gravity.
     Astrophysical Journal. Letters to the Editor, 15 Dec. 1979, vol.234,
     (no.3, pt.2):L219-21.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / David Lovering /  H20 Fusion
     
Originally-From: lovering@bldrdoc.gov (David Lovering 303-497-5662)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H20 Fusion
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 20:26:34 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology


I've been following some of the recent discussions dealing with both
neutron transfer/release and heating and the various mechanisms which are
being given credence in these areas -- including "neutron-in phonons-out"
(vis-a-vis Scott Chubb, Hagelstein, et. al.).  Simultaneously I've been
reading with some interest the recent work done with acoustic pumping of
captive bubbles in solution.  Although there is some considerable disagree-
ment as to the temperatures thought to result from such purely mechanical
means, the consensus of opinion is that it is many thousands of degrees.
This achieves with a fairly low budget hardware complement some of the
same environmental factors contemplated by the pressure-anvil people with
palladium.  

I was curious as to whether anyone has done much in the way of ascertaining
whether such "phonon-in" type systems were capable of generating sufficient
temperatures to disturb the nuclear bonds (however infrequently) to produce
neutron release -- particularly if the the bubbles were to be "enriched"
with deuterium, etc.  Admittedly, the bubbles involved are miniscule, the
neutron release would probably only involve a minor percentage of all the
atoms contained within the bubbles, and the mechanism would probably be
only at work within a window of microseconds (if not less).  

Apologies in advance if this is a "stupid" question, particularly if it is
implicit in the theoretical underpinnings of Hagelstein, etc. in their work
with the Patterson cell.

[I vaguely recall a note in either Science News or Physical Review Letters
which touched upon this subject, but hinted that there was some problem in
getting deuterium-enriched bubbles to "pump" in this manner].

  -- Dave Lovering

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlovering cudfnDavid cudlnLovering cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / 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: Wed, 17 May 1995 20:47:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3pdbkk$3nh@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:
>It's fine to explain the "wave-particle duality" as a "trivial" 
>consequence of Fourier analysis.
>
>However, this is only a superficial mathematical 
>transliteration: an illusion of an explanation.

That's perhaps phrased too strongly. It is a first level of
explanation of something that can be viewed in many different
ways, and which really is pretty remarkable, despite the
ho-hum nature of the explanation.

>The real strangeness is that:  the physics of even elementary
>particles is apparently based on wave functions and evolution rules which
>have all those odd consequences implied by Fourier analysis.

Agreed. We don't know why the universe exists at all, let alone
why it follows all the particular rules that it does.

But there's a fine line here, because this Fourier issue goes
very, very deep in constraining the set of possible physics; it
would be a mistake to think that there is an accidental coincidence
going on here.
	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:
cuddy17 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Soren Floderus /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Soren Floderus <floderus@comserv.io-warnemuende.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 17 May 1995 21:43:41 GMT
Organization: Baltic Sea Research Institute

In article <3p194l$728_003@ip-pdx6-08.teleport.com> Paul Hanchett,
paulha@teleport.com writes:

>>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.

This was my immediate thought too, but figuring it was just too trivial,
wouldn't CO2 assimilation require green chlorophyll, not found in sprouts?

Soren
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfloderus cudfnSoren cudlnFloderus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Derek Ross /  Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
     
Originally-From: rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net (Derek Ross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:56:13 GMT

Dieter is absolutely right in what he says about responding to
nonsense. 

In fact I think it would be worth reposting his article once a day
for the next week.

I don't mind reading nonsense or personal invective as long as it
has some relevance to hot or cold fusion but some of the unrelated
stuff lately ...  Words fail me.


Hoping for a higher signal to noise ratio

Derek Ross

 -------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950517085521.607C-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
>
>Lately, this group has been heavily loaded (as I see it, anyway)
>with nut fringe postings, such as Farce of Physics, Plasmoids, McElwaine
>(we can look forward to more of his), and now once again "red mercury". Bryan
>Wallace, the Farce bloke, tells me that many replies to his stuff come from
>this group, which is why he continues to cross-post to it.
>
>I understand that the temptation is great to reply to this stuff; I found 
>myself almost starting a response to "red mercury"; and that is the way to
>start an epidemic. The way to stop it is never to take notice. I don't 
>suppose McElwaine or Lewis (who communicate strictly one-way) will be stopped
>but Wallace at least gave me the impression that he might let us off if we
>fail to show interest.
>
>So, please, how about not responding to this stuff? This group is nut-fringy 
>enough as it is.
>
>Before you (again) lecture me about kill files, I use pine, which doesn't
>have them, as far as I can see.
>
>-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk
>
>



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrossd cudfnDerek cudlnRoss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / 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
Subject: Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
Date: 17 May 1995 23:42:50 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3pcmg2$t94@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   In physics, chemistry or you name it science, all of those journals
> claim "academic freedom" but none possess it. They all go by who is an

  Ironic, the freest form of world communication is the fastest. It is
the Internet. Journals were not established to communicate the new
ideas of a subject. They were established in order to promote
professors from associate to full-time professors and if anything,
journals have the tendency of keeping out geniuses of the subject
because journal editors who are professors are besides themselves in
envy and hatred of the genius. See Galois history.
  Anyone know the etymology of irony? Does it have anything to do with
iron?
  So it does not surprize me either that TV medium would have more
brains in how to treat new ideas, far, far over journal editors such as
Nature, or New Scientist or Science. Only when these type of journals
can no longer withhold a new theory since the general public all are
aware of it, or, more importantly for Nature, when they stand to lose
money because of their obvious "open bias by not printing it". Notice
how Nature in the past several months continues with a baffling
silliness. Nature when confronted with dilemma such as 16 bill yr old
stars in a 8 bill yr old universe. What does Nature do? They try to
resuscitate old and bad theories, theories already dead, kaput, but
Nature seems to love to try to beat a dead horse back to life. And,
whenever the Big Bang is in trouble, Nature has this unnatural shifting
back to old and stupid worn out ideas, e.g. Einstein's cosmological
constant, Lovelock's Gaia (Nature is increasing publication of this
Gaia speak), and most alarming is the re-lime-lighting of the Steady
State whitewash. How many times? I ask, how many times must Nature
revive these old, ugly, clumsy theories as if they can be brought back
to life. And, as if any real scientist cares, for it is usually the
science nerds that cling to these old dead theories. This is what is
bizarre about science journals. They will rehash old garbage over and
over and over again. And only belatedly print and cover a new idea
which explains the horns of the dilemma. I predict that Nature will be
the very last magazine on Earth that will print on its cover "Is The
Universe An Atom?"

  Ask anyone, anyone at all who has a working logic. Ask them-- since
everything is made of atoms. Ask them if it is logical to go another
step, might not the whole be an atom? The congruity, not irony, but
rather the natural flow of idea of--- everything is made of atoms, then
all the atoms are a structure itself. The only logical and reasonable
thing that that structure could be is another atom itself. Conclusion:
the whole, the totality is a single atom. A single atom with many atoms
inside it. The space of atoms is the space of electrons. Our night sky
is merely the space of the 93rd and 94th electrons. The mass of
everything we see is just the mass of the 93rd and 94th electron. The
missing mass of the universe is the nucleus, but we will never see it
for it is in a atom node. 

  It is fun for me to watch how the world's greatest science idea, the
Plutonium Atom Totality Whole is received by the world itself. And as
something said in the Bible. The last persons to recognize someone or
something important, are his own kind. That saying may have been
prophetically made for my situation begun in 1990's. It may be argued
later when this is past history, that scientists can only see
incremental new and good science, and that scientists as a community
are too dumb to see any new big and important science which is above
and beyond the average day incremental stuff. And that people in other
walks of life such as artists or TV people or those in business have a
keener eye and sense of "science plausibility and importance". A keener
mind way over the scientist who is a cog in a science community, or
grist in the mill as a science journal editor.


  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!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 / Chris Jacobs /  the standards of science
     
Originally-From: root@ps2.xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
Subject: the standards of science
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:39:00 GMT
Organization: 

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  In physics, chemistry or you name it science, all of those journals
>claim "academic freedom" but none possess it. They all go by who is an
>insider and everyone else is outside. If you have a post office address
>and not a Cambridge address forget it. If you at all rock the boat,
>forget it, because your ideas would place doubt on the current
>insiders. Why is this important to the current insiders, well of course
>their fame is chipped away at, and their millions of money made easily
>for stupid books which line the shelves of bookstores is called into
>question.

I think an important part of the problem is that the current insiders only
care for the value of the peer-reviewed scientific publications.

If you have written some peer-reviewed scientific publications and you have
a big mouth you can write popular 'science' books for the masses and the
people who have the capacities of checking if they are correct will just
not bother to do so.

In particular I think 'A brief history of time' is utter crap.

--
Chris Jacobs <cjacobs@xs4all.nl>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenroot cudfnChris cudlnJacobs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Thomas Clarke /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
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: 18 May 1995 02:31:29 GMT
Organization: Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Fl.

In article <vergonD8JMqp.8EH@netcom.com> vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:

>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.

Very good so far.

>We have here a situation analogous to the blind men of Indonesia seeking
>to determine the physical characteristics of an elephant.

Except that if stop feeling the trunk and go around to the leg the
elephant changes into a hippo :-)

>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.

Isn't this the advanced and retarded wave theory?

>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.

Are these arbitrary cut offs?

... ... ...

>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.

How does relativity fit into your theory?

.... .... 
>This configuration accounts for non-locality, wave entanglement, 
>refraction and diffraction.

I need much more detail.

>See, no mystery.

Frankly, no.

>All this (and much much more) has been posted for months in
>ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY.

Where do I find this?  I haven't run across it before.
Have you published other than on the net?

Tom Clarke


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Wed, 17 May 95 23:55:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>Try this thought experiment -- a burning candle flickers from near
>zero light output to peaks of brightness.  The average light output
>falls between these "error bars" -- ergo the candle is a "null
>experiment" according to Tom's logic and therefore there is no
>flame.  Zowie!!  :-)
 
Exactly right. This is a good analogy, especially because all CF reactions
have a delayed start up, so if you were to plot all of the points for
the entire run, they would always fall between the peak and zero. There
will always be points at zero for the first 10 minutes or so with the
Patterson device. Obviously, the Cravens graph you posted shows only
points taken after the warm-up period.
 
You are expressing the same idea I did in the thread "CF reactions are not
proportional to input." Let me explain a little more about that. You can
think of the electrical power input into a CF cell as being analogous to
a hot electric element used to light a wood or coal burning fire. When
you first turn on the heater, the wood does not burn, so the energy out
equals the energy you put into the heater. After a while, the wood burns
at a low power level; this is like the warmup period with the Patterson cell.
Then, when the wook catches and flares up, the ratio between input and
output changes radically. The point is, in a CF cell the electric power
input acts as a triggering mechanism. The electricity is not amplified in
any sense. In a fully ignited cathode that undergoes heat after death, the
electric power is off but the reaction continues by itself. This is analogous
to the fire burning in the fireplace after the electric starter has been
turned off.
 
By the way, I think those electric fireplace starters are cheating. People
should only use primative, back to nature methods: newspaper. (What else?)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' hypothesis about E-Quest helium
Date: 18 May 1995 04:40:32 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <ijames-1705950917100001@156.40.188.208>,
Carl F. Ijames <ijames@codon.nih.gov> wrote:

>> A side note:  would the method of ionization affect the presence of H3+
>> formed in the mass spectrometer?

>Sure, you always choose an ionization technique to give good signals and
>low background.  Since they don't say, they are probably using electron
>impact, which also produces H+ and thus H3+ by reaction with H2.  

As far as I recall, H+ + H2 + M -> H3+ + M is exothermic, so if you make
any H+ in the presence of H2, you'll get H3+.  BTW, that was the first
ion-molecule reaction ever observed in a mass spectrometer, back before
1920.  The original experimenter (whose name escapes me) went to a lot
of trouble to show that the "mass 3" signal was really due to something
of mass 3 and not (e.g.) multiply ionized C-12.
 
>FTMS's are also long-windedly call FTICRMS's, but I "grew up" just using FTMS.

That's because you don't date from the "olden days" when they didn't use
Fourier Transforms but measured the induced current directly.

>A triple quad normally has unit resolution so it isn't
>close, and ion traps have problems operating at such low m/z (and
>certainly wouldn't _routinely_ give the resolution).  Well, enough
>blathering for now.

One problem that quadrupole mass spectrometers have in general is that when
you set them to "mass = 0" you are really setting them to "pass all ions
regardless of mass".  This means that you'll get a huge "peak" at zero
that trails off for quite a ways (depending on the resolution you set).
I speak from personal experience that it can be tough to pick out a D2+
(that's di-deuterium monopositive) signal from that background.  As for
T+ vs. 3He+, if you believe that they can do it in a quadrupole MS, I
have this bridge in Brooklyn for which I have been searching for a buyer. . .
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:06:08 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 16 May 1995, Richard Schroeppel wrote:

> Please, Scott, Dieter, let's get that moderated mailing list going?
> 
> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
> 

Well, Bill Page already has something like it. All he really has to do is to
get hold of some decent software (listserv or majordomo) to make it easier
for him (I think he does it by hand at the moment, must waste a bit of his
time). How about it, Bill?
Alternatively, does anyone know whether you can have a moderated alt. group?
I believe anyone can start one of these, but whether moderation is possible,
I don't know. If it is, that might be a way out. Anything to get away 
from this nuthouse and still have a place for discussing fusion, hot & cold. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu May 18 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
