1995.05.19 / A Plutonium / Re: the standards of science Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: the standards of science Date: 19 May 1995 02:51:42 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <051795223927Rnf0.79b6@ps2.xs4all.nl> root@ps2.xs4all.nl (Chris Jacobs) writes: > 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 It is utter crap and it is nice to know that many many others know it is utter crap. The only thing keeping them from saying so in public is that they are scared their career ladder will hear repercussions. Physics is highly bandwagonish, and when a bandwagon is toppled, the rats quickly scamper to the newer and better theory. But the part that I hate is the conciliatory behavior of these rats once they jump ship. They make out or pretend that they were in favor of the better theory all along. And, while I am on the subject of Hawking, I throw-in Penrose. It has been my suspicion that the reason Dirac departed Cambridge and England was because I saw incompetents moving into the center stage in England. He saw that a man who had no feel, no intuition for QM placed in charge. And Dirac saw that a supporting stooge in Penrose was going to clinch the center stage of England. This is all my guess, supported only by what I know Dirac believed in physics. And the fact that Dirac admired Feynman, and although Feynman was a lightweight in comparison to Dirac, both had the good physics genius to know to stay away from GR and devote your whole physics effort into QM. Anyone can read Feynman and realize that he disdained GR. And that was smart because GR is not a physical law but a mere math algorithm. And if I had been Dirac in his later years with his Law of Large Numbers, I too would have distanced myself from a birdbrain physics goofballs of Hawking and Penrose. I bet, every night when Hawking and Penrose have a moment of reflection, I bet they cringe at the horrible fantasies they had foisted onto the physics plane. Their black hole chimeras will in the future be as funny and laughable as the three headed monsters of old myths. But we must read our Makers will, at least try to, at all times. And what I see it saying is that Cambridge and England will never be the focal point of great physics. It died in Cambridge and England with Hawking and Penrose's decades of sham physics. And Hawking's physical illness mirrors the sickness and illness of UK's physics. One can see that with cold fusion experimentation. Hawking is to Cambridge England what Lysenko was to Russia with biology. After Hawking and Penrose, I see Cambridge England to physics what modern day Alexandria Egypt was to math. And, usually with men in physics who have been in it for as long as Hawking and Penrose have, you can find some shreds or shards of physics truth, but not with these two. Their whole physics work was a complete fake theory that waylaid the physics community for 50 years. And it is one of the few cases where the Nobel Committee was completely correct in not giving either one of these physics goofballs a Nobel. Weinberg, on the other hand was a better physics con-artist. Anyone out there reading this should not feel sad over these two men for they have been limelighted and treated like kings for perhaps 40 years, and I am doing them a favor by telling them how it really is. And the very important lesson for us all to know as we go into the future, is that, on Earth there will be natural born leader geniuses of physics and math. And these people, in order to lead, must be physically healthy as well as mentally. In other words, reducing that thought, never should we think that a person is smart because he is unhealthy. I do not know where this psychopathic reverence came from, perhaps from Dr. Strangelove, that since someone is in a wheelchair that by magic he is twice as smart as before. No, this is a warning in the future, if a person is physically ill, he or she is no leader and should relinquish whatever role they had. This relates to another person in history, FDR. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.18 / James Beauchamp / Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Originally-From: jamesb@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu (James Beauchamp) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Date: 18 May 1995 05:22:40 GMT Organization: Engineering POW (student) In article <800559590snz@oroboros.demon.co.uk>, Chris Morriss says: > >To give a brief reply to those who asked for more information about >the 'ball lightning' effect that I have seen in RF discharges. >It's a long time ago now, but the frequency would have been in the >region of 1.5MHz to 1.6MHz. The HF end of the medium wave band. >I don't know what the RF voltage would have been but the RF arcs were only >short. I would occasionaly get arcing across the pi-network >capacitor of the antenna tuning stage. I guess that the peak RF voltage >when attempting to tune up a very short length of wire would have been >in the order of 1500V. The short wire would present an impedance of a >few k-Ohms at that frequency. >The RF power would have been about 50W. I used to use an 807 as the output >valve (sorry, tube to you Americans!). This I used to run with the anode >just glowing. For an 807 this would be an anode (plate) dissipation of >around 30W. I was running the output stage in class C so the figure of >50W of RF would seem to be about right. > >I can't remember if the glowing balls seemed to be affected by gravity or >not. The effect only happened a few times, and in typical teenage >enthusiast fashion, the equipment was strewn over the floor of my bedroom. > >I do a fair amount of MIG welding with my interests in car restoration and >kit car building. This uses a pulsating DC arc of much higher power but >I've never seen the effect with that. It may be that I wouldn't see it >through the welding mask. > >Does anybody know how AC arcs (especially RF ones) differ in characteristics >from DC arcs? >-- >Chris Morriss Chris, Tesla coils are in fact high frequency-high voltage transformers that produce RF, usually around the LF band. My experience with a home built tesla coil produced a few strange RF effects also. Within the cabnet, shielded with metal screen, a few small ball arcs like the ones you described would fly around the interior, randomly. We did have a really strange thing happen one night when I was running it in my room. (this was 7 years ago, bear with me) My mother had a TV and VCR connected with an extension cord. She yelled at me during a runup. When I got to the room, she was poking at the extension cord connector with a shoe, and told me that it began jumping around on the floor, with little glowing balls of fire flying out. There weren't any burns on the carpet. Now, I really don't know what happened and it never repeated again, but this follows many of the ball lightning accounts where RF energy is involved. In your case, I doubt if the wire presented any impedance at that frequency. Short peices in the order of a few inches give higher impedances like that around microwave frequencies. However, I produced some pretty strange arcs from the final amplifier plates on an old National NCX-3 HF rig I had as a kid. There have been some theories tossed around in the past musing that ball lightning is a self resonating RF discharge. The initial discharge is from a DC source, however as the arc progresses, it forms layers of + and - charge kind of like an onion. The frequencies of something like that are surely pretty high. We know that higher wavelengths are more sensitive of surrounding environments, but the predictability is difficult. I am curious to know of any research regarding this. Because discharges in thunderstorms involve exceptionally high potentials, I guess anything is possible. Any comments???? James cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjamesb cudfnJames cudlnBeauchamp cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / John Logajan / Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories Subject: Re: Tiny Ball Lightning have been found! Date: 19 May 1995 05:12:30 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. James Beauchamp (jamesb@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu) wrote: : There have been some theories tossed around in the past musing that ball : lightning is a self resonating RF discharge. The initial discharge is : from a DC source, however as the arc progresses, it forms layers of : + and - charge kind of like an onion. Dr. Paul Koloc has not only a theory of ball lightning, but can produce it on demand in the laboratory -- I have some pictures of his lab created ball lightnings on my www home page below (sci.physics.fusion readers already know this, but this topic has been cross-posted to areas I don't normally post to.) I also include there a short description of his concept, but I haven't added all the stuff relevent to ball lightning creation during thunderstorms. Someday when I have time I will try to summarize his ball lightning paper presented at the International Symposium on Ball Lightning (1988.) The ball lightning/PLASMAK(tm) concept is actually an attempt to create conditions for hot fusion. -- - 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: cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / John Kondis / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis) 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: 19 May 95 06:59:57 GMT Organization: University of California, Irvine srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell) writes: [...] >Of course a photon's mass depends on the observer. That is why the mass >of one photon is undefined. The mass of any TWO photons (traveling in >different directions) is invarient. That's what the standard model of >physics holds, at any rate. Steve (or Sandra), shouldn't you have said "opposite" directions? ...John [nitpicking again] _____ | | _____ "Come on! Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!!!" | O | |O O| -- God (playing dice with the Universe) | | |O O| ~~~~~ |O O| John P. Kondis UC Irvine jkondis@uci.edu ~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.17 / Graham Morse / Hiroshima A Bomb Originally-From: Graham Morse <100613.1004@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hiroshima A Bomb Date: 17 May 1995 15:53:28 GMT Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Can anyone tell me how the A Bomb that destroyed Hiroshima worked. It is for a newspaper graphic so it needs to be in a language that my gran can understand (she's not a nuclear physicist!) Thanks, Graham Morse (Cardiff, Wales, UK) cudkeys: cuddy17 cuden1004 cudfnGraham cudlnMorse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / 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: Fri, 19 May 95 08:34:45 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) MARSHALL DUDLEY writes: >How is this done? They have almost exactly the same atomic weight. Is it Honestly, I do not have the foggiest idea. They told me they can do it, and I believe 'em. I figure any lab that is good enough for John Huizenga is good enough for me. The hot fusion people also depend upon them for post experiment analysis. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Cravens pump power Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: Fri, 19 May 95 08:38:46 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Tom Droege writes: >"The curve is quite consistant with other CF results." > >You said it Jed, not me! What is the point of this comment? Logajan and I clearly showed that you are wrong, Tom. You made a logical blunder in your analysis. I think you should address the issues we raised, or admit frankly that you made a mistake. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Barry Merriman / Re: Don't respond to nonsense please Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Don't respond to nonsense please Date: 19 May 1995 01:36:40 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <110@arbroath.win-uk.net> writes: > Dieter is absolutely right in what he says about responding to > nonsense. > But would this group have any traffic at all, then? Lets see: fusion in (living, not power) plants = nonsense fusion in a blender (= Griggs device) = Breakthrough Can you tell us exactly how to discriminate between nonsense and sense? In my mind, all light water fusion claims would have to be considered nonsense if we are going to make apriori judgements. But I'm willing to suspend disbelieve long enough to listen to the proponents, for entertainment value if nothing else. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Scott Little / s.p.f. caught in cross-posting anomaly??? Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: s.p.f. caught in cross-posting anomaly??? Date: 19 May 1995 13:48:02 GMT Organization: EarthTech Int'l Look at the latest several "Farce of Physics" posts in s.p.f. Do you see s.p.f listed among the newsgroups at the top? I don't. What's going on? cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Ben Newsam / Re: the standards of science Originally-From: Ben Newsam Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: the standards of science Date: 19 May 1995 15:05:40 +0100 Organization: Micro Services Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Archimedes Plutonium" writes: > It is utter crap... > ... This relates to another > person in history, FDR. --------------------------------------------------- Ben Newsam, Micro Services, ben@microser.demon.co.uk Tel & Fax: +44 114 285 2727 Programming, Documentation, Consultancy C++, Windows, MFC, etc.. --------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / 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: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:33:44 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway John Logajan says he has enough information in hand to rule out the possibility that power from the circulating pump is significant. His estimate has dropped from 20% to 2% of excess. I find it interesting that Jed Rothwell says he witnessed a discussion between Hagelstein and Cravens in which a back-of-the envelope calculation was made. Does that indicate that Cravens had not previously done the calculation? I have a question for the electrochemists concerning the Cravens demo. When the cathode is in the form of many beads how do you know that you have a single cell as opposed to many cells in series? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Richard Blue / Re: E-Quest and the Rockwell Spectrograph Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: E-Quest and the Rockwell Spectrograph Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:43:43 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Upon learning that the Rockwell mass spectrograph is a magnetic sector instrument with a mass resolution M/delta M of 100, I stopped to think once again about the problem of resolving 4He from D2 molecules. Clearly you don't do that for singly charged ions with this instrument! There was mention of gettering to reduce interference by the hydrogen isotopes, but I suspect there are limits on what you can do in that regard. I am guessing that you can't just inject D2O into this device and hope for the best. This brings me back to a question I have asked many times, but for which I have never gotten any response. Is the sample of argon gas to be analyzed by Rockwell processed in any way before it is injected into the mass spectrometer? Is the argon saturated with D2O? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / John Logajan / Re: Cravens pump power Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: 19 May 1995 15:39:46 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: : John Logajan says he has enough information in hand to rule out : the possibility that power from the circulating pump is significant. That implication probably follows if we can't think of another avenue of mechanical heat input into the cell. I think we have nullified the effect of direct pump heating of the fluid by taking the fluid temperature just at the input of the cell and again just at the output of the cell, and then only working with delta-T. Then we only have to worry about the pressure-drop/flow-rate through the cell to come up with the "friction" heat generated. Can anyone think of anything else? : His estimate has dropped from 20% to 2% of excess. 20% for 180 PSI and 2% for 14.7 PSI. : When the cathode is in the form of many beads how do you know that you : have a single cell as opposed to many cells in series? A single "cell" will not generally conduct electricity until the voltage exceeds 1.48 volts. And just at 1.48 volts, the reaction proceeds very slowly -- i.e. very low currents. So to conduct more meaningful currents, an over-voltage is generally applied. In the Klein/PPC tests, heat runs were done at from 5-8 volts with currents from 1.5-2.5 amps. That would equivalent 3-5 "cells" in series, max, but the current flow would not cooperate. It's unlikely, therefore, that there are "cells" in electrical series in the Patterson power cell. -- - 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: cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / mitchell swartz / Cravens pump power Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cravens pump power Subject: Re: Cravens pump power Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:57:28 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3pie42$i6p@stratus.skypoint.net> Subject: Re: Cravens pump power John Logajan jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote: : John Logajan says he has enough information in hand to rule out : the possibility that power from the circulating pump is significant. = That implication probably follows if we can't think of another avenue = of mechanical heat input into the cell. I think we have nullified = the effect of direct pump heating of the fluid by taking the fluid = temperature just at the input of the cell and again just at the output = of the cell, and then only working with delta-T. = Then we only have to worry about the pressure-drop/flow-rate through = the cell to come up with the "friction" heat generated. = Can anyone think of anything else? The motors may typically have efficiencies (for their input power) of about 93 +/- 5 % for some types. Therefore you must include at least a few % thermal inefficiency and possible input unless the heat can exit out another port, or there other than direct coupling (e.g.. magnetic stirrer). Was that the case here, John? : His estimate has dropped from 20% to 2% of excess. = 20% for 180 PSI and 2% for 14.7 PSI. Was that with the thermoneutral potential subtracted from the transsample potential? and was that in the denominator or not? Why not just post the values with and without? The difference can be significant especially -- at the lower end of the range of driving potentials. : When the cathode is in the form of many beads how do you know that you : have a single cell as opposed to many cells in series? = A single "cell" will not generally conduct electricity until the voltage = exceeds 1.48 volts. And just at 1.48 volts, the reaction proceeds very = slowly -- i.e. very low currents. So to conduct more meaningful = currents, an over-voltage is generally applied. = In the Klein/PPC tests, heat runs were done at from 5-8 volts with = currents from 1.5-2.5 amps. That would equivalent 3-5 "cells" in = series, max, but the current flow would not cooperate. It's unlikely, = therefore, that there are "cells" in electrical series in the = Patterson power cell. Could Dick have meant in parallel regarding the close-packed filling of the spheres? Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Tom Potter / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) 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: 19 May 1995 17:58:08 GMT Organization: Earth In article <3pe1lq$3pn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) says: > > 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! I think it might be profitable for you to get the hour of video from the TV station and to package it with another hour of video of your own production, talking about your theories in math, physics, science and business. I think you could sell a few hundred if the price was right. I suspect, people all over the world would like to know more about you and your theories. Who knows? Perhaps it could become a cult classic. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / M Kagalenko / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) 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: 19 May 1995 14:14:01 -0400 Organization: Division of Academic Computing, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. USA In article , John Kondis wrote: ]srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell) writes: ][...] ]>Of course a photon's mass depends on the observer. That is why the mass ]>of one photon is undefined. The mass of any TWO photons (traveling in ]>different directions) is invarient. That's what the standard model of ]>physics holds, at any rate. ] ]Steve (or Sandra), shouldn't you have said "opposite" directions? ] ]...John [nitpicking again] Well, if you must nitpick, do it right ! "Opposite" is not invariant concept, any two photons travelling along non-parallel lines can be made travelling in opposite directions by suitable boost. This is also the reason why Steve (or Sandra) is wrong; "mass" (meaning energy, of course; photons have no rest mass) of two photons is NOT invariant regaardless of the way they travel -- Save the Earth - kill a lawyer cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenmkagalen cudfnMichael cudlnKagalenko cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Barry Merriman / Spherical Tokamaks all the rage Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage Date: 19 May 1995 18:33:41 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE We had two talks this week (Ono from Princeton, Stambaugh from GA), both basically advocating spherical tokamak (i.e. low aspect ratio, near 1.25) experiments as the foundation for possible advanced tokamak designs that would undercut the trend set by ITER towards enormous machines. However, on the other hand, our local reactor experts suggest such devices would not have a future as a power reactor, since they lose too much energy to resistive heating of the copper in the thin center post (they use copper magnets, since they do not have room in the center for the shielding needed for superconducting magnets---the centerpost must be kept small in order to get the low aspect ratio). (They could, perhaps, be used for a compact neutron source,if they were succesful...) Does our resident tokamak critic (Koloc) have any comments on the pluses/minuses of Sperical Tokamaks vs Tokamaks vs Spheromaks vs Plasmaks? Ono's group at Princeton, using salvaged parts from other devices, says they could build their design in 2 years for 18 million dollars, yielding a device sufficient for experimental exploration of the performance in low aspect ratio regime. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / jedrothwell@de / How to discriminate between nonsense and sense Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: How to discriminate between nonsense and sense Date: Fri, 19 May 95 15:17:02 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) asks: "Can you tell us exactly how to discriminate between nonsense and sense?" Yes, I can. There is only one method: you must perform an experiment. In the case of cold fusion, you must compare input electricity to the output enthalpy. The power meters and thermometers tell you what is nonsense and what is sense. If you do not believe the instruments, you abandon science, rationality, objectivity, and common sense. "In my mind, all light water fusion claims would have to be considered nonsense if we are going to make apriori judgements." If we are going to do science, we must never make a priori judgements. *Nothing* is more antithetical to the scientific method than a priori judgement. It is, in effect, deciding the outcome of the experiment before you do it. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Sergio Pomante / FIELDS THEORY - lettera.txt [0/1] Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: FIELDS THEORY - lettera.txt [0/1] Date: 19 May 1995 22:04:16 GMT Organization: none Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Boundary="*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-*" --*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-* -- **************************************************************************** ** Pomante Sergio ___________________ E-mail : pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it ** ** Studente di Fisica ______________ indirizzo:C.A.P. 40139 Bologna ** ** Universit ** c/o Stefani ** **************************************************************************** --*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Sergio Pomante / FIELDS THEORY - lettera.txt [1/1] Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: FIELDS THEORY - lettera.txt [1/1] Date: 19 May 1995 22:07:18 GMT Organization: none **************************************************************************** In Internet a new, CASUAL, WAVE UNITARY THEORY called: The WAVE THEORY OF THE FIELD. (WTF) === We make the hypothesis that the subatomic particles are the elementary sources of spherical waves that, in complex, constitute all fields ascribing to the particles. === From this work's hypothesis we can get out a new unitary theory that will becomes a new paradigm that will replace Quantum Mechanics. In this theory, purely causal, the same indetermination principle becomes determinate. The duality's paradoxes becomes understandable with this wave models. The photon becomes understandable like a wave variation. The electron assumes a dimensional structure, so that all particles lose the puntual nature, and can be described with the same structurate wave model. This wave models reveal the existence of a simple symmetry's principle that explains the four interactions, and discover (1984) the existence of a fifth antigravitational repulsive interaction. (Latest experimentally discovered from E. Fischbach et al. at Purdue University and publied in 1986 on Physical Review.) Changing the actual starting hypothesis on the continuous space-time nature, we can imagine a discontinuous space-time, (described with mathematical evidence from Albert Schild in 1947 on Phy.Rev.), that may becomes the agent and, at same time, the background of physical phenomena. In this modular space-time, lacks from anisotropical contra-indications, organized like a discrete lattice, can occur states of geometric perturbations of the structure of this discrete lattice, derived from variations of time quanta, that move like waves along the relativistic geodetics, identified by integral Lorentz transformations. These perturbations can become spherical waves surfaces that move its own discrete spherical surface's parts, in the discrete lattice, like bidimensional planes. On these bases, we make a new physics that, starting from existence of a discrete space-time, obeys to laws of a discrete space-time geometry, that connect microphysics to macrophysics. With it we can comprehend and connect Quantum Mechanics at General Relativity, and Mechanics at Cosmology in one global design. On the same base, we can understand: gravitational interactions, electromagnetic interactions, and a new model for nuclear interactions. We discover a wave resonance mechanism of autocreation that conduces to giustify a structurate model of elementary particles, adapts to describe all microphysics' phenomena. This wave resonance mechanism, obeying to one symmetry principle, leaves out the nightmare of the singularity, allowing an understandable, mere causal explanation, able to justify all passages and phenomena, apparently indeterministic, inherited from Quantum Mechanics. This model, showing that the electrical interactions are absent in the space of nuclear interactions (at distance of 1 Fermi), describes (1984) a new feebler nuclear force, that it is coherent with theoretical justification for experimental phenomena of the Cold Fusion, describing, at the same time, the composition of a structurate wave-model of the particles' family and all its decays. The new wave-model of interactions produces a wave-explication for the bodies' inertia, conducing the Clein-Gordon formula to a complete physical comprehension that, freeing Relativity from the assumption of identity between inertial forces and gravitational forces, derives a causal explication of a new WAVE QUANTUM GRAVITY. Follows a generalization that conduces to a combination from gravity and an antigravitational Fifth Interaction, derived by model, coherently from the relativistic limitation of the light velocity, that regulates the composition and behavior of macrobodies in the Universe. We can draw a new way for the rationalization of the controversial astronomical observations that interest the actions and existence of many cosmological phenomena. Moreover, we announce to Stephen Hawking that he has won the bet, made against bad luck with Kip Thorne, on the possibility that black holes were a complete failure. You will never find a black hole in ''Cygnus X 1'', because black holes can't exist. We are doubly sorry for him but, for the same reason, also big bang can't exist. The entire WAVE THEORY of the FIELD explains it consequently, showing many causal and rational consequences that bring to a new Wave Steady State, for a much more comprehensible cosmology . A new vision of the Compton effect carries a wave explication, derived from an extending of General Relativity, that interests the Quantum Mechanics and permits, to come to a description of all interactions of particles and fields. A natural extension of the same Compton effect drives to electron's wave model, and to all subatomic particles, placing a valid causal base for the wave explications of the Lorentz force, derived from the space-time quantization, that produces a causal model of electromagnetic interactions, that brings to a consequent perception of meaning of the electric charge's nature. We rediscover a coherent atom's model in which a causality chain, purely wave, permits to follow the development, step by step, of the wave action on the photoelectric phenomena, revealing the really wave nature of the fine structure constant, connected to a light emission's mechanism, merely causal. WHAT IS HAPPENED ? Is happened that the denied crisis of Quantum Mechanics have produced what had to become sooner or later. We see to appear a new paradigma. As it was inevitable, the crisis has been solved from the external. So try to formalize yourself not too much, and try to find some linking points with the previous paradigma. In spite of the elaboration of the Theory elapsed thirty years, it is still very young, it needs criticism to get sharp, but it is yet strong enough to support many experimental possibilities of falsification. The WAVE THEORY of the FIELDS has been already publied in Italy, from author Walter E. R. Cassani, in October 1984 on the book entitled: Il Campo Unificato (The Unified Field), and distributed from author to the IV National Congress of the General Relativity and Physics of the Gravitation, in Florence (Italy). No reaction from the physicists and astrophysicists. A next evolution has been publied from the same way in 1989 with title: La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo. (The Wave Theory of the Field). (This is actually translated and showed in Internet) No reaction from the official universitary circuit. A third book entitled: Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI, ( Albert Was Right - GOD DOESN'T PLAY DICE) is publied in Milan at January 1994, and distributed in 300, universitary et non, book-shops. The firth edition (5.000 copies) shortly sold. Many hentusiastic letters from students, chemists, engineers, etc. A first conference in the Aula Magna of the Physical Dept. of Bologna University. 250 students, 1 Relativity Prof. 1 Dept. Chief. full hentusiasm from the students. No reaction from the physicists. No reaction from the scientific journalists, in many ways requested. It's here and now possible to begin in Internet a new international scientific revolution, that involves physics foundations and assists the appearing of a new paradigm ? Perhaps that Internet just not for this it's born ? From you, must come the stimulation to falsify it in the Popper's spirit or, eventually, promote it. But not you content of this initial provoking summary, examine in detail the brief , but sufficient, exposition of The WAVE THEORY of the FIELD, with geometric models and simple mathematical proofs. ( In Microsoft Word 6.0 ). To whom it may immediately concern, this brief exposition, of the new wave theory (1,500 K), is located in: ************************************************************************* ftp://linux.infosquare.it/pub/theory or ftp://ftp.infosquare.it/pub/theory ************************************************************************* If you have problems, contact the author : e-mail << cassani@linux.infosquare.it >> --*-*-*- Next Section -*-*-*-- cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Gregory Hansen / Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB Originally-From: ghansen@isc.sjsu.edu (Gregory L Hansen) 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: 19 May 1995 23:32:07 GMT Organization: San Jose State University, San Jose, California In article <3pe1lq$3pn@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 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. Had an article rejected, did we? cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenghansen cudfnGregory cudlnHansen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / jedrothwell@de / More stupid comments from Dick Blue Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: More stupid comments from Dick Blue Date: Fri, 19 May 95 21:10:22 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) has some really stupid comments and questions, even for him: "John Logajan says he has enough information in hand to rule out the possibility that power from the circulating pump is significant. His estimate has dropped from 20% to 2% of excess." Wrong again! His estimate is: 0%. Got that? Zero percent. He says that the water friction is there during calibration, so it is part of the baseline of always-present background noise. That's what he says, but you forgot to read it, no doubt. He is quite right about that. Also, it is not even 2%. As I pointed out, it is a tiny fraction of 2%, because the only friction that could possibly count would be in the beads themselves, and it would be at the milliwatt level. There is no way these instruments could detect it. Face it Dick: your "water friction" idea is at least 5 orders of magnitude off, and friction is part of the unvarying background noise. That dog just won't hunt. You will have to come up with some other preposterous pretend mistake. I suggest the "cigarette lighter effect." That hasn't been used for several months. It will be hilarious to see you try that one with thin film. I wish Morrison had tried it, but in his "report" he does not have the guts to mention any calorimetry. He knows that he cannot possibly win against the likes of Cravens, Amoco, KEK or SRI, so he runs away. "I find it interesting that Jed Rothwell says he witnessed a discussion between Hagelstein and Cravens in which a back-of-the envelope calculation was made. Does that indicate that Cravens had not previously done the calculation?" Hell no! Why would it indicate that? No doubt it was the first time Hagelstein computed the answer, but Cravens fired off the parmeters and numbers like a top gun grad student in an oral exam. He had every factor covered and calibration tests to back it up. As I said, he showed that most of the friction was in the filter. Nope, that dog won't hunt either. That is nice example of the oblique Dick Blue attack though. Dick knows absolutely nothing about Cravens and nothing about the experiment. Instead of reading about it and offering actual scientific comments, he roots around for way to make an absurd personal attack on Cravens and he comes up with nonsense science fiction about "water friction." Hilarious! It would be infuriating if it was not such mindless stupidity. "I have a question for the electrochemists concerning the Cravens demo. When the cathode is in the form of many beads how do you know that you have a single cell as opposed to many cells in series?" How would that work? Beads which are not firmly touching one-another are not in electrical contact with anything. They cannot conduct electricity. What black magic would allow an isolated bead to act as a cathode? Also, how do you make many cells with only one anode? - Jed cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.20 / charl@freenet. / Cold Fusion: The Musical Originally-From: charl@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Cold Fusion: The Musical Date: 20 May 1995 01:36:14 GMT Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Ah yes... the chinook theatre is in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, at 83 avenue and 103 street. Call (403) 497-0418 for details. p.s. half price for anyone who flies to Edmonton to see it. wes cudkeys: cuddy20 cudencharl cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.05.19 / Andrew Sherman / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: asherman@sybase.com (Andrew Sherman) Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis ,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics, ci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.resear h,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 21:19:40 GMT Organization: Sybase, Inc. In article <3pah2l$cgg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: |> [deleted] Bryan (and others), Please stop cross-posting this thread to misc.books.technical. Thanks -Andrew cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenasherman cudfnAndrew cudlnSherman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May 20 04:37:03 EDT 1995 ------------------------------