1995.05.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 23 May 1995 17:35:33 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <js_vetrano-2305950954110001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>, js_vetrano@
nl.gov (John Vetrano) says:

(snip)

>Jed,
>  Just curious.  Have you ever been to a national laboratory?  Ever been
>to DoE headquarters?  I know that you strongly criticize others who speak
>out about subjects they have no expertise in, so I wanted to clarify this
>point.  I assume that you realize that the DoE labs do much more than hot
>fusion and atom smashing work.  The list of positive accomplishments by
>DoE laboratories in my opinion far exceeds the inevitable cost overruns
>and bad project choices that accompany any large agency or company.  Have
>you read the lists of projects and project areas DoE runs, or just the
>ones related to hot fusion?
>
>  Also, do these feelings of privatization that you have extend to NASA as
>well?  Do you think that the space program would have accomplished all
>that it has strictly on private funding?  Since businesses are typically
>unwilling to work together, it would have been a prohibitive investment

Businesses might be quite willing to work together if not for the Sherman 
anti-trust law that makes it very difficult.  But it is a tough problem.  
If we let them work together they will get together and raise prices and
divide up the market.  So we gain a fiercely competative market that 
lowers prices for most of us.  We loose the ability of businesses to get
together and take on something big and long range.  So it is one of the 
few areas that I can see a mission for government.  

But it is not very efficient.  I have spent 40 years in government labs.
It is hard to turn off something once it is started, even though many 
recognize it is folly.  But on the whole a net plus. 

Note that a lot of what DOE does is to set standards, and measure material
properties.  Such work allows others to proceed efficiently on other 
projects.  One aspect about Tokamaks is that it is a very tough materials
problem.  So we have do develop new materials and study how to efficeintly
design with standard materials.  Much of the code used for determining
the strength of structures has been developed on DOE projects. 

Tom Droege
 

>for one company to fund all of this work that has benefitted many.
>
>  Based on this posting and others you seem to have a great contempt for
>DoE scientists in general and feel that it is an "ivory tower" situation. 
>However, there is a great deal of laboratory-business interaction that
>occurs that you seem to be unaware of.  No, these laboratories don't
>"make" things, but to think that the scientists are ignorant of the basics
>of business practice is a naive generalization.  Please find out more
>about the scope of DoE research, and try to keep your criticisms a bit
>more specific instead of downgrading thousands of people that you have
>never met.
>
>  Sorry that this is not directly about fusion, but general, non-specific
>and destructive criticism is a pet peeve of mine.
>
>John Vetrano
>
>-- 
>The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  More drivel from Mark "Clueless" North
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More drivel from Mark "Clueless" North
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 17:02:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) writes:
 
     "Rothwell, you are a truly clueless idiot. In 1907 when Rutherford and
     Royds were studying alpha particles they found they got differing
     results depending on whether the lab door was open or closed, which they
     had carefully recorded in their lab notebook."
 
On the other hand, in 1848 when J.P. Joule did calorimeter with tools very
similar to what Cravens uses (joule heaters, mercury thermometers and so on),
he experienced no problems like that. I will grant that overhead electric
light had not been invented yet, but I must point out that people have been
doing this type of calorimetry ever since then, and overhead lights have never
been observed to affect cell temperatures inside of Dewars. It is hard for me
to imagine how an overhead light could add 100 joules a minute to a small
object inside a Dewar container without cooking everyone in the room, but
maybe you have some fantasy scenario in mind. Just for laughs, why don't you
explain how that would work?
 
 
     "The fluorescent ones at least are non-linear and radiate all sorts of
     high frequency noise. If you happen to have a ground loop (read antenna)
     in your setup you're in trouble. Most of the time, if this is going on,
     it's very obvious and easily remedied. Other times it can be very subtle
     so it's always a good idea to note whether the lights are on or off."
 
How would a ground loop or high frequency noise affect a mercury thermometer?
I already stated many times that the temperature readings were verified with
non-electronic instruments. I should add that they did, in fact experience
problems with electronic gremlins because of strong fields from the cell
itself. They had to work on that for a few days. But the results were
carefully verified with a number of different techniques. Furthermore, the
experiment has been done in at least three different locations, with different
types of lighting fixtures overhead, including Dennis Craven's garage, which
is mostly lit by the sun last I checked.
 
 
     "Actually, I don't think Rothwell is clueless I think he's willfully
     ignorant which, to me, is a form of dishonesty."
 
I'm ignorant?!? At least I have read the damn paper. You do not have the
slightest idea what Cravens did, what the experiment looks like, or what types
of equipment were used, and here you are pontificating and making these idiot
pronouncements about what-might-have-been and imaginary errors. You don't have
the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have not seen so much as a
schematic. Yet you presume you know more about it that I do! Talk about
willful ignorance, you are DROWNING in it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 /  parsec@worf.ne /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.netins.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 23 May 1995 17:17:46 -0500
Organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <pmw80YA.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

<text deleted>

>thousands of room heaters have
>already been sold, primarily in Russian and Eastern Europe. They are a
>heck of a lot better than heat pumps, gas, oil or coal.

Who manufactures them, at what price, upon what principle do they
operate, and what thermodynamic efficiency is claimed?    

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparsec cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 23 May 1995 22:30:03 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <REw-EYK.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Most of the scientific talent at the DoE is applied to grand larceny in which
> "scientists" spend their time figuring out new ways to steal money from the
> taxpayers for bogus "energy research" while they spread infamous lies about
> cold fusion. It would be much better for us taxpayers if those people were
> forced to do honest work instead.
>  

Let's see, todays calendar:

1:00 PM Meeting to discuss new Bogus Reactor Concept: The Light H Tokamak
2:00 PM Make Anonymous call to Time Magazine, say ``Cold Fusion Sucks!''
3:00 PM conference call on new funding concept: fusioneer home invasion robbery
4:00 PM Send anonymous e-mail to white house, ``P&F are space aliens''
5:00 PM Check want ads for honest work: Internet mouthpiece for cold fusion


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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 23 May 1995 22:36:31 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <pmw80YA.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> The main thing that is stopping commercialization in the U.S. are the
> hysterical attacks from the DoE, the APS, and various other academics.

I thought its was that the LAPD sabataged the original
P&F work...oops, I guess I got that conspiracy mixed up with the OJ trial.

> This year or
> next will be the death of hot fusion -- just the opposite of what they
> predicted. That's capitalism for you! The good guys, with the better product,
> eventually win.
>  

Um, before you ship millions of CF reactors, don't you have
to have at least one (1)? We are still waiting for it. 2 years
ago, it was: ``Toyota will have 20kW CF water heater in a couple
months''. Now, its ``a year to ship millions of units''---Jed,
I really think your flipping out here, that article on cutting DOE
funding must have triggered a manic episode. Better double up on
that lithium ... :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
Date: 23 May 1995 22:53:53 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <D90JMB.BH5@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)  
writes:
> 
> So let's really put it to the test!
> What would be great is to run a competition.  Any one of us produces 
> or WE ALL DIE.   

Hmm...now that is a novel approach to concept selection. I like it!
However, I'm not going to line up on the tokamak side :-)


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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 23 May 1995 23:03:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3pto1f$lqn@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:


> Jed,
> I really think your flipping out here, that article on cutting DOE
> funding must have triggered a manic episode. Better double up on
> that lithium ... :-)
> 

No need for lithium.  No neutrons, remember?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.24 / 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: 24 May 1995 00:54:44 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3pogsg$c97@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    See me, Archimedes Plutonium potwashing, riding a bicycle, and
> explaining the Plutonium Atom Totality Whole Theory on TV
>    Tune in  Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE
>  "Slice of Life in Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 at night.
>  
>         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 saw it today at 20:30. It was done very well, I certainly have no
complaints. For my theory, that the night sky is the space of the last
electron the 94th of 231PU was told. It was done "artfully". Although I
wish I could have seen apple trees in bloom and forget-me-nots and my
favorite of all peonies. 
  I never did like my voice and it is certainly not as good as what I
hear my voice as. In fact I can hardly believe that that is my voice.
Certainly, I cannot change my voice as I can change my name.
  Anyway, bravo, excellent news coverage and artful filming. To the
cameraman Mr. Art ---- and the interviewer Ms. Lyn ---- and to the
person most responsible for producing this film, to you three.  Pu,
Pluto Bless these three newsfilm artists to The Fields of Elysium. Atom
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.24 / Doug Merritt /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
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: Wed, 24 May 1995 02:31:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3pu04k$jme@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>  I saw it today at 20:30. It was done very well, I certainly have no
>complaints. For my theory, that the night sky is the space of the last
>electron the 94th of 231PU was told. It was done "artfully". Although I
>wish I could have seen apple trees in bloom and forget-me-nots and my
>favorite of all peonies. 


Ah! Viewing you as an artist/poet puts a different light on things.

After all, poetic license is not to be argued with, eh?

You might consider leaning in that direction of self-portrayal in
general.
	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:
cuddy24 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.24 / Alan M /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 24 May 1995 07:38:21 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <3ptmua$9o3@worf.netins.net>  parsec@worf.netins.net writes:

> Who manufactures them, at what price, upon what principle do they
> operate, and what thermodynamic efficiency is claimed?    
>

Expect reply b(3) from Jed here. "I'm not going to do your damned research
for you. Ask them yourself. It's all confidential information". (Perm any
two from three.) 

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / 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: 21 May 1995 06:00:10 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <BU0eLTt.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>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.

I note an interesting correlation here:  when the "experts" say something
that matches Rothwell's preconceived notions, he accepts their word even
though he has no way of judging it.  When the "experts" say something that 
goes against his preconceived notions, suddenly being an expert is 
insufficient for being trustworthy, even though he has no way of judging
their trustworthiness.  E.g. when Huizenga concludes that Rockwell is
competent, he knows what he's talking about, but when he concludes that there 
is no evidence for electrochemically induced nuclear fusion, he doesn't.
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 /  sjg7821@ocvaxa /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: sjg7821@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.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: 21 May 1995 05:57:23 GMT
Organization: Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio


In article <3p987r$dp3@fu-berlin.de>, mtoivane@cc.joensuu.fi (Marko Toivanen) writes:
>In a previous article (<3n1q40$q7k@vent.pipex.net>) of 19 Apr 1995 01:47:44
>GMT, JohnatAcadInt (ah63@solo.pipex.com) wrote to sci.physics:
>
>* I don't object at all to the "best-fit" argument, and I think, as has
>* always been the case, present theories will prove pragmatic and 
>* votive and be judged on their results. I follow Lakatos
>* here in assimiliating mathematics to empirical science, though I 
>* object when Popper and Feyerabend are seen as conformist, on the one
>* hand, and anarchist, on the other. 
>
>I came to this thread quite late - too late, apparently - to understand
>these references to Lakatos, and then Feyerabend and Popper. Who sees/saw
>Popper as conformist and Feyerabend as anarchist? Though I don't get the
>context, I, too, would object to those characterizations as ridiculous -
>anarchism hasn't got anything to do with Feyerabend, and conformism would
>too have to be stretched rather roughly to fit Popper.
>
>* * * * * * * * *                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>Marko Toivanen * * * * * *             * * * *  co-moderator in FEYERABEND of
>mtoivane@cc.joensuu.fi  * * * * * * * *  majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu
>http://www.joensuu.fi/~mtoivane/ * http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensjg7821 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.20 / William Beaty /  Searching the SPF archive
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Searching the SPF archive
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 23:05:05 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

At last I managed to get a WAIS search of the SPF archive to work off of 
a web page.  Without a WAIS client, browsers won't accept the web address 
of the archive.  But success can be had via gopher, like this:

<a href="gopher://sunSITE.unc.edu/7waissrc%3a/ref.d/indexes.d/fusion-dig
st.src">CF Newsgroup</a> searchable archive
<a href="gopher://sunSITE.unc.edu/7waissrc%3a/ref.d/indexes.d/cold-fusio
.src">CF Bibliography</a> (keyword searchable)

Pretty neat to type in your login name, and see all the messages you;ve put
into SPF!


-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 21 May 1995 14:56:45 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Sandra Russell (srussell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Sorry, but I could not find much in your letter which was relevent to 
: the question we were discussion, except that you said you had no problem 
: with E = mc^2 (which is nice).  You also reject the idea that the speed 
: of light is constant, but don't offer any reason for why we always 
: measure it to be the the same value.  Do you think that light from a 
: moving flashlight goes faster than light from a stopped one?  So how do 
: you tell which is the moving one?  Do you think that particles 
: accelerated to nearly lightspeed should behave differently in an 
: accelerator which is moving in one direction (along the ring orthogonal 
: axis) vs moving another direction (along a line in the ring plane)?  And 
: so on?  How do you explain the Michaelson-Morely results?

:                                                   Steve Harris

The simple explanation of the M M experiment has always been the particle 
model of light.  The Fox extinction length to speed c by interaction of 
photons with electrons is 2 mm in air at sea level and one light year in 
space.  Read my free electronic book, its all in there, including 
arguments by Einstein and other prominent physicists.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 /  GuidingLt /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: guidinglt@aol.com (GuidingLt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: 21 May 1995 18:02:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I find all of the debate about the mechanisms of cold fusion very
interesting but does it work, what will it cost, and when can we expect to
see electricity available from it on a commercial basis?
                              John W. Malenda  E-mail GuidingLy@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenguidinglt cudlnGuidingLt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.19 / 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: Fri, 19 May 1995 23:22:20 GMT

 
In article <3pgsn8$nvh@soenews.ucsd.edu>, Barry Merriman (barry@starfire
ucsd.edu) writes:
   >In article <110@arbroath.win-uk.net>  writes:
   >   > Dieter is absolutely right in what he says about responding
   >   > to nonsense. 
   
   ... Cut ...

   >Can you tell us exactly how to discriminate between
   >nonsense and sense?


If only a general method existed!  All that I can suggest is that
most of us probably make a three way discrimination - "sense",
"nonsense", and "could be either" - depending on what we already
know.  We may be wrong in our categorisation but that's life.  The
only things we can try to do to prevent mistakes are to make sure
that we're not too quick to recategorise from "could be either" to
"sense"/"nonsense" and to be willing to change in the face of new
evidence should it prove necessary. 

   >
   >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.
   >
   ... Cut ...

Point taken,  it's just that I have to pay long distance phone
rates to download this entertainment and when it concerns
reports on American television appearances by people promulgating
their private scientific theories (highly entertaining I grant
you), I begin to wonder what it's got to do with fusion - am I in
the right newsgroup ?  It's not just apparent "nonsense" that's the
problem.  Irrelevant "sensible" statements are just as bad.  That is
why I agree with Dieter.


Cheers

Derek Ross




cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrossd cudfnDerek cudlnRoss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / Sandra Russell /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: srussell@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell)
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: 21 May 1995 23:11:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3po2dd$efc@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan 
Wallace) writes: 

>
>Sandra Russell (srussell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Sorry, but I could not find much in your letter which was relevent to 
>: the question we were discussion, except that you said you had no 
problem 
>: with E = mc^2 (which is nice).  You also reject the idea that the 
speed 
>: of light is constant, but don't offer any reason for why we always 
>: measure it to be the the same value.  Do you think that light from a 
>: moving flashlight goes faster than light from a stopped one?  So how 
do 
>: you tell which is the moving one?  Do you think that particles 
>: accelerated to nearly lightspeed should behave differently in an 
>: accelerator which is moving in one direction (along the ring 
orthogonal 
>: axis) vs moving another direction (along a line in the ring plane)?  
And 
>: so on?  How do you explain the Michaelson-Morely results?
>
>:                                                   Steve Harris
>
>The simple explanation of the M M experiment has always been the 
particle 
>model of light.  The Fox extinction length to speed c by interaction of 
>photons with electrons is 2 mm in air at sea level and one light year 
in 
>space.  Read my free electronic book, its all in there, including 
>arguments by Einstein and other prominent physicists.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>

Sorry, but I'm not going to read your book until you give some evidence 
of beginning to grasp questions and arguments in person.  So far you 
haven't.  What the devil does the Fox extinction have to do with 
anything.  MM experiments can be run in vacuum.  You didn't answer the 
questions about the flashlights or the accelerator, either.

                                                   Steve

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensrussell cudfnSandra cudlnRussell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / PAIN DOC /  Re: Time saving Modeling Software?
     
Originally-From: PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Time saving Modeling Software?
Date: Sun, 21 May 95 19:50:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MOst interested in your program.  Would you send demo if you still
have one.  Thanx in advance...  RE. Moore, 3550 Nicole Ln, Jackson, MO
63755
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / 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: 21 May 1995 23:03:44 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

   See me, Archimedes Plutonium potwashing, riding a bicycle, and
explaining the Plutonium Atom Totality Whole Theory on TV
   Tune in  Tues 23 May 1995 to a program called CHRONICLE
 "Slice of Life in Hanover" shown in Boston 7:30 at night.
 
        In Boston  7:30 PM on Channel 5   WCVB
 
        In Hanover carried on New England Cable News Channel, channel
34
          at  8:30 PM
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / PAIN DOC /  Re: Hiroshima A Bomb
     
Originally-From: PAIN DOC <moore121@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hiroshima A Bomb
Date: Sun, 21 May 95 20:47:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Simplistically it was made from a gun barrel; one piece of fissionable material
(in this case U-235) which was of subcritical mass wasfixed to one end
 of the barrel.  A second subcritical mass was movable in the bore of
the gun.  It was in the opposite end of the barrel with a propellant
charge behind it.  At detonation time the charge was fired and the
movable mass was fired down the barrel into the fixed mass;  the combined
mass being supercritical.  This is my understanding of the Hiroshima
bomb;  this was in contrast to the Nagasaki bomb with utilized a
spherical geometry of shaped explosive lenses arranged around a
fissionable material (in this case plutonium) containing a neutron
generation source (this may have ben present in the Hiroshima bomb
also, I don't know for sure) , this source probably being beryllium
and polonium.  For details on this consult the book, U.S. Nuclear
Weapons, by Chuck Hansen.  If interested in this source, let me
know and I'll try to find it for you.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmoore121 cudfnPAIN cudlnDOC cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / 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: 22 May 1995 01:26:31 GMT
Organization: Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Fl.

In article <dougD8I1CK.25C@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes:

> 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.

I'm not familiar with the "General Uncertainty Principle".
Can you provide me with a reference?

<Good discussion of uncertainty principle in Fourier context deleted>

>None of this requires any quantum mechanics, special relativity, etc.
  .......
>Phrasing this purely intuitively and tying it back to the wave/particle
>duality: a wave is a body which is not very localized in space...
> A particle
>is relatively localized in space, and that alone gives it the properties
>we consider particle-like...
  .......
>The difference, however, is purely a matter of whether the
>Fourier Transform of the body is relatively bandlimited or not...
>that's all. Bodies that are completely bandlimited in position
>(zero outside of a single point) behave as perfect particles; bodies
>that are infinite in position bandwidth (nonzero across an infinite range
>of possible positions) behave as perfect waves. Bodies typically observed
>in experiment may approximate either extreme, or they may fall somewhere in
>between, behaving somewhat like a wave and somewhat like a particle.

>There is no mystery to this, no unwarranted assumptions, and most
>of all, it is *not* controversial. 

What you have described is the linear wave theory of the evolution
of the Schrodinger wave function or the Heisenberg operator 
(depending on which you prefer).
As yet nothing has been observed.  Observation is a non-linear
operation, square and sum the wave function, take the trace of the
operator - that sort of thing.
The consequence is that an observative gives not a smeared out
version of the particle as the linear theory seems to imply, but
a particle with a very definite postion if that is what you
are measuring or a very defininte momentum if that is what you
are measuring.

>Any competent physicist is
>aware of this; it is most certainly not some kind of hot research
>issue in physics (I am not a competent physicist myself, and therefore
>may have made errors in the above; but I think the general concepts
>are correct.)

The mathematics is not controversial.  It's interpretation in terms
of an objective reality certainly is.  If you assume objectively
existent particles you get results according to Bell's inequality
when you reason about how such existent particles with definite
properties should behave.  Quantum mechanics predicts effects
that violate these inequalities, and these effects have been observed.
So what is wrong?  Objective existence of particles?  ???

>So in short, the wave/particle duality is here to stay for mathematical
>reasons, regardless of changes in current paradigms of physics.

Some would like to get rid of it though, because it provides such
heartburn for objectively existant interpretations of QM math.

Tom Clarke


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / 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: 22 May 1995 01:32:45 GMT
Organization: Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Fl.

In article <vergonD8F2Gu.C2J@netcom.com> vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
>In article <3or974$8so@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
>Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3oefp8$fml@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan  
>>Wallace) writes:
>>

>>> The conformist bigots and politicians that have made modern 
>>> physics a farce ignore the fact that an objective comparative analysis of 
>>> the wave and particle models of light in the solar system would be a 
>>> definitive test of their stationary ether/space/vacuum theoretical 
>>> arguments because they it know it gives a politically incorrect answer! 

>>What do you mean?  The Aspect experiment which confirms bizarre pathological
>>mystic quantum mechanical predictions was carried out in the solar system.

<Detailed allusion to the Aspect experiment deleted>

>>Nothing politically correct or incorrect about the outcomes of experiment
>>or of reasoning based on elementary set theory.

>Now there's a bunch of gobble-de-gook. 

>Merely confirms Bryan's position.

Pray, do elaborate on your judgement?

Is it the logic your object to?  The experimental observations?

I personally see in this "gobble-de-gook" a serious chink in the
armor of "conformist" physics.  The reason I carry on so is 
because I think people like Bryan are trying to go backward to
an old physical paradigm, and are missing the opportunity to 
use their energy to advance forward to the next new paradigm.

Tom Clarke


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenclarke cudfnThomas cudlnClarke cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 /   /  Zero Equals Infinity
     
Originally-From: ronaldb312@aol.com (RonaldB312)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero Equals Infinity
Date: 21 May 1995 23:36:50 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

BERTONIAN MECHANICS: The Beginning

Forgive me if this is improper presentation, I am new and inexperienced.
Please allow me to explain.  If you see ASCII garbage around the
formula's,
these are ASCII border lines.  It should print OK in ASCII.

Theory:  Light's Point Separation Theory
	    
	 Zero Equals The Absolute Value of Plus or Minus Infinity.

      ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
      ³                               ³
      ³    Zero = |+ or - Infinity    ³
      ³                               ³
      ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
	Quantum Mathematics Foundation 

   ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
   ³                                    ³
   ³   Absolute Space = Absolute Time   ³
   ³                                    ³
   ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
	 Quantum Physics Foundation
	 in the Open Infinity System 


Derived from the following observations:

The current cosmological model, if I am correct, is the Big Bang, with
questions of it's origin.  Would you agree that it started as a flash of
Light, with no particles?   Then could one conclude that this original
flash
is the smallest point?  Is the wake of this initial blast the largest
point
known?  Is the largest point merely a reflection of the smallest point?  
I say yes.

     
     ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿     ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
     ³    Largest Point     ³     ³    The Beginning     ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³          .           ³     ³          .           ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³                      ³     ³                      ³
     ³    Smallest Point    ³     ³       The End        ³
     ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ     ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
	   "Black Box"                   "Black Box"       


If the smallest point is the beginning, is the largest point the end? 


The Universe in which we live began as a flash of light.  Ultimately, the
Universe of light is a perfect sphere of light expanding at light speed.
That is why spheres are natural occurring fundamental phenomena.  In
reality,
the Universe in which we live is like a straight line, one beginning, one
end.    Zero, or the origin placed simultaneously at all points known to
the
Cartesian Coordinate, (x,y,z), system gives rise to Instantaneous Time
Zero
to infinity; Linear Time being the constant web of timespace.  All real
points are at relative zero centers, or say all real points could be zero.
Fact: The Universe began.


I will try to suggest leading questions as best as possible for you that
are
skeptical conventional scientists.

Can instantaneous time zero (NOW) be observed?  To infinity?

Do we observe the past when we look in to the sky?

Is the Orion Nebula's time the same as ours?  

Can Zero be placed at all real locations?

Is Zero negative infinity?

Is The beginning of the Universe Negative Infinity?

Is The Edge of the Universe Positive Infinity?

Have we discovered the foundation of physical science?


As I see it, all I'm trying to do is draw the defining picture of our
Universe.  It makes total sense to me that our Universe exists in a state
called NOW, from negative infinity to positive infinity.   


Experimental Observation Expected:

A Crystal emitting an unending beam of electrons without any apparent or
observable external stimulus.

As one science project after another is being  canceled and the  National
debt is going up, I suggest that we are missing one of nature's most
abundant
gifts; "Universal Infinite Pressure".  This source of infinite energy will
be
extracted or utilized through energy crystals (Photon Reactors).  Absolute
light is the fuel for these inverted mirrors of the  Universe.  The first
one
we produce will be the result of The Crystal Backfire Experiment.   I
envision the Crystal Backfire Experiment ideally taking place in the umbra
of
the Earth during a solar eclipse.  The Photon Reactor has a solidified
surface with a differential rotation down to the core.  We should tap this
infinite energy source of light without delay while our culture is still
intact.  

This science will open avenues for centuries of projects. Which ones we
pursue first I hope that common sense will guide those of us that will
decide
the times, with benefits for the people and the planet, and not the
individual.  The first and second projects I believe to be undertaken are
straight forward and easy to understand.  A revolutionary new type of
Memory
Storage, Crystal Computer (One Piece) and Power Generation Crystals.  I
call
for this order because I believe it is easier to absorb than desorb the
edge
of the universe. 

True Science once unleashed can not be stopped by anyone, only refined.
One day will come, it will be tomorrow.

I am not trying to convince anyone what I know to be true.  At the age of
16
I was given a frightful vision .  I was consciously taken beyond the
limits
of our known Universe, and then, I was turned back to look upon it.  I was
able to witness it's existence by beings which I knew not, but they loved
me.
I saw more than words could describe.  This was the beginning of a
craziness
that has blessed and cursed me for over 20 years.  I could not forget this
timeless moment; the psychic visitations and dreams that followed.  Yes, I
believe that I have been handed, or given, this mission to describe the
universe so that we can elevate to a higher technological level; in my
life
time or not, that's irrelevant.  I do not see myself as that different
than
the normal person.  I have just been touched, willing or not, to know this
burden called Universal Knowledge.  Knowing that on the other side of
every
matter particle is an angle laughing keeps me sane.  In every birth, there
is
a factor called pain.  What I write or create is meant to incite
discussion
and controversy in relation to our current cosmological model.  Please do
not
condemn me for being different and making up new and sometimes outlandish
ideas and concepts be they scientific, political or philosophical.  I wish
to
offend no one.  I am playing after the fact and am searching for clarity
of
thought just as most of us are.  I make up new words, and always will,
because I like to.  Fantasy and reality are folds in the same garment;
call
me a poet.  The truth cannot kill me.  Love is Bliss.

Wisdom holds no anger and we need to unite as one people, one planet, to
try
and salvage what we can while we can.  We need to bond, the projects which
I
have seen and speak of are no less monumental than previous Great Wonders
of
the World.  We all know that this World is in a lot of trouble because of
technology.  In view of the dangerous radioactive wastes that our nuclear
age
produces, I am concerned as many others.  The bottom line is that we need
clean, cheap energy, flowing electrons.  I do not see conventional science
explaining what I saw in relation to a total realistic cosmological model.
The current model has no foundation.  I ask, what is the cosmological
model
we have today going to do for us?  Will it answer the questions that will
give us technological advancements using energy, motions, that are all
around
us, simply?  If we are to create the machines that I've seen in my future
dreams, we must first master the motions of energy in time.  We need more
than ENERGY equal to MASS multiplied by THE SPEED OF LIGHT.  We need a
new science.  We need the bottom line fundamentals to proceed.
The Bertonian Revolution.

If you are a scientist, this has been a good beginning if it has made you
question new paths, ponder new lights.  Follow your dreams and confront
the
horizon.  Let's make a better future.  I invite any and all to help
construct
this technology for humanities sake.   

This base science is being developed in order to focus the edge of the
universe through absorbing or desorbing crystals.  There is more. I am
alone.


Internet #  Ronaldb312@aol.com
			   
Voice  0 - 700 - RON - BERT 
      (0 - 700 - 766 - 2378) 

Ronald Arthur Bert
Planet Earth 
UNITED STATES of AMERICA 
20th century 

wavicle.ron
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenronaldb312 cudln cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Alan M /  Re: Zero Equals Infinity
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Zero Equals Infinity
Date: 22 May 1995 06:44:08 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <3pp0si$2vh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  ronaldb312@aol.com (RonaldB312) writes:
> If you are a scientist, this has been a good beginning if it has made you
> question new paths, ponder new lights.  Follow your dreams and confront
> the
> horizon.

The only qusetion is of your sanity. Please restrict your postings to aol
geek-groups in future.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 09:29:16 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Fri, 19 May 1995, Richard A Blue wrote:

[...] 
> 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?

Two kinds of cells (or "reactors") use beads covered with metal film: the
packed bed cell, and the fluidized bed cell. I don't know what Cravens uses
but in the packed bed, the beads are touching each other all the time, and
you have a situation somewhere between your two alternatives. The films are
good electrical conductors, compared to the film/electrolyte interface, 
so you might conclude that they act as one big surface with the same 
potential and a large surface area. However, the conductance path can be 
quite long, and some voltage drop might take place, thus giving you some 
dispersion of potential. In a fluidised bed, the dispersion is greater; each
bead gets charged to the potential of a central cathode rod whenever it 
touches it, and beads can also equalise charges when they bump into each 
other. All the time, they lose their charge to the electrochemical 
reaction taking place on their surface. The advantage is that you get 
good mixing and high rates of transport of the stuff to be electrolysed 
to the electrode(s).
In a system as simple as 'cold fusion' electrolysis, where you have 
electrolysis of water at Pd or Ni, this potential dispersion would not 
matter; there is only one electrochemical reaction, and it would proceed 
at the various beads at different rates (currents). The total power would 
simply be the total voltage supplied times the total current, both easily 
measured.
Why do you ask?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 09:51:38 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


For the record, the worst nonsense I am referring to, posted to this group,
I consider to be that by Archimedes Plutonium, and Bryan Wallace. Well, I
actually have no idea of how nonsensical the latter's stuff is, I don't 
read it, but I do know it's nothing to do with fusion, the subject (I 
thought) of this group. We have this stuff here, apparently (says Wallace)
because some from this group respond to it. So let's not.
I can add to these two anything about the mysterious form of mercury (I avoid
the magic key word, so as to avoid responses), the arisen-from-the-ashes 
McElwaine and Edward Lewis. The latter does barely touch on fusion; and 
in any case, neither of these two gentlemen ever replies to any 
responses, they are one-way communicants.
Postings about fusion, even those I am getting tired of, such as Griggs and
now Cravens machines, I do not lump with "nonsense", though they may well be.
I am not trying to suppress discussion of fusion, just non-fusion pap.
The same would have been the case with the moderated group that didn't 
succeed. Its most important function would have been to exclude these two
kinds of postings, as well as the "You are an idiot" type of postings.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 09:42:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>Two kinds of cells (or "reactors") use beads covered with metal film: the
>packed bed cell, and the fluidized bed cell. I don't know what Cravens uses
>but in the packed bed, the beads are touching each other all the time, and
 
Cravens uses a packed bed. In some configurations, there is a thumbscrew
which you tighten up to push the beads together. When they get loose, the
cell does not work. If you tighten them too much though, they fracture and
bits of metal float out and up against the mesh. Getting just the right
pressure is a little tricky.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Richard Blue /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:23:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I nominate as the prize remark of the day the following quote from
Jed Rothwell:

<Beads which are not firmly touching one-another are not in electrical
contact with anything.  Then 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?>

May I suggest, Jed, that you have overlooked one of the essential parts
of an electrolytic cell - the electrolyte - you know the stuff that
conducts electicity between an anode and a cathode.  When you keep that
in mind you will see that your questions almost answer themselves.  If
a bead (or a cluster of beads) is not making solid electrical contact
with the cathode it is not part of that cathode, but it can still be
in the electrical circuit because the electrolyte is present to complete
the connection.

So what black magic keeps all the beads in solid, metal-to-metal electrical
contact?  Perhaps in some places the path of least resistance is through
the electrolyte.  We know there must be at least one gap between electrodes
where that is the case, but how do we know there is only one such gap.
It seems to me the higher the cell overvoltage goes the less we know in
that regard.

I would also ask how those of you who believe that the current density is
an essential paramater need to address the question of what keeps the
current density uniform on all cathode surfaces?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 22 May 1995 16:15:47 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Ja7-jFx.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
> 
>>  The motors may typically have efficiencies (for their input power) of 
>>about 93 +/- 5 % for some types.
> 
(snip)
 
>There can be no possible input from the pump or pump motor that could affect

This is not a scientific argument.  It is something else.  A scientific 
argument would say something like "A test was made to determine the possible
heat input to the calorimetry from the pump motor.  This was found to be 
-0.003 watts +/- 0.05 watts."

>the flow calorimetry. The motor and pump are well outside the cell section
>of the loop. Any heat they add to the flow will be downstream, and constant.
>That will be no different than the heat added by the overhead lights. There

"Tests were made with and without the overhead light on.  Variation was within
the error limits"

>was no magnetic stirrer or any other significant source of energy anywhere
>near the cell. That was easily confirmed in the calibrations and start-up
>procedures. The heat would not have turned on gradually if it was being
>added by some other device like a stirrer. It would have been there the whole
>time.

See Jed, how it is done.  But you can't make this kind of argument because the
requisite data does not appear to have been taken.  That I how we tell good 
science from bad science.  The "Devil is in the Detail" as Ross Perrot would
say.

Tom Droege
> 
>- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: More stupid comments from Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More stupid comments from Dick Blue
Date: 22 May 1995 16:22:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <pC0fLdu.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>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.

(snip)

I am reminded that Jed used to make the same kind of arguments about the
Takahashi experiment.  Then he tried to do it.  Still running the 
Takahashi experiment Jed?  What are the results now?  Seems like you 
used to say that it was easy and all that excess power could not be wrong?

How is it going?  Or are you keeping the results secret since they are 
so spectacular?  BTW, are you still using the DD differential flow
temperature measuring device?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Richard Schultz does not understand politics
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 13:25:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I mentioned that I do not have any idea how Rockwell measures their tritium,
but I am sure they do. I should have added that it is not difficult to tell
tritium from helium because, after all, tritium is radioactive; it has a
distinct half life, and you can detect it in much smaller amounts than helium.
In any case, after I wrote that  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
made an astoundingly naive comment
 
     "I note an interesting correlation here:  when the "experts" say
     something that matches Rothwell's preconceived notions, he accepts their
     word even though he has no way of judging it.  When the "experts" say
     something that goes against his preconceived notions, suddenly being an
     expert is insufficient for being trustworthy, even though he has no way
     of judging their trustworthiness.  E.g. when Huizenga concludes that
     Rockwell is competent, he knows what he's talking about, but when he
     concludes that there is no evidence for electrochemically induced
     nuclear fusion, he doesn't."
 
This is preposterous! Schultz apparently believes that all statements made by
all experts are equally believable without any reference to politics, money,
or any other human context. Let us go over this step by step, shall we?
 
Situation 1: Rockwell, Huizenga, E-Quest and everyone else claims that
Rockwell can easily detect and distinguish between different isotopes of
helium and hydrogen. This is not a controversial claim. It is mundane. Under
the circumstances, anyone would expect it to be true. There is no disagreement
between the experts, and no reason to suppose Rockwell cannot measure tritium.
Everyone says the Rockwell equipment is the best on earth. The machinery costs
a fortune. It was built for the hot fusion program. Everyone knows that the
hot fusion people need to distinguish between isotopes, so it stands to reason
that Rockwell will have built in the very best machinery for doing that. Why
wouldn't they? They have carte blanche funding from Uncle Sam.
 
Under these circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to trust Huizenga. He
is, after all, an expert in this sort of thing, and his claims about Rockwell
are not a bit controversial. They do not enhance his funding or prestige, and
they do not hurt anyone else's. He is simply stating a well known matter of
fact: Rockwell is best. I have not seen anyone here or anywhere else dispute
that.
 
 
Situation 2: Huizenga makes extremely controversial, inflammatory claims about
cold fusion experiments. This is a political hot potato. If CF is real, his
funding and the funding of his cronies will be gutted, and his reputation will
be destroyed. These are not some matter-of-fact claims about a machine that
anyone can call Rockwell to verify; these are claims that have led to the
biggest scientific mud fight in history. Other people make claims which are
diametrically opposed to his. These other people are experts in CF who have
performed experiments, whereas Huizenga knows little about the field. His
statements about CF are not particularly profound or technical. I understand
calorimetry well enough to easily check his statements against the published
data. When I do that, I see instantly that he is full of shit and his
statements are completely wrong.
 
There is a gigantic difference between situation #1 and #2. Number 1 does not
require in-depth checking on my part. There is no controversy and no reason to
think it might be wrong. Number 2 is political sewage. It has nothing to do
with science, and everything to do with funding wars in Washington DC. Anyone
who bothers to check the scientific literature can see that.
 
 
I note that Schultz also quotes me in his sign-off string here: "The palladium
based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?" He says I wrote
that in December 1992. I don't recall, but I am pleased with my track record
of predicting the future. So far, events have proved my point many times over:
Pd systems do not work. They are a technological dead end, like the Tokamak
reactor. Things like thin film Pd, Ni, proton conductors, or the Griggs
machine show *far more promise* for commercial applications. The palladium
stuff may have scientific value but I do not care about that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 13:27:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The New York Times, May 22, 1995, has a front page story about science
funding: "G.O.P. Budget Cuts Would Fall Hard On Civilian Science." It is about
how Federal Science establishment will be gutted under the proposed Republican
budget. This is good news. I think most government R&D is a subsidy to big
industry, so it should be privatized. For example, agribusiness can pay for
R&D done by the Agriculture Dept. If the Ag. Dept. programs are shut down,
agribusiness will hire the talented Government scientists. The untalented ones
should find some other line of work. I am glad to see these cutbacks, and I am
delighted to see this news:
 
     "More esoteric is the work of the Energy Department, which studies new
     kinds of solar and geothermal energy production, struggles to harness
     the nearly limitless power of nuclear fusion, and probes the atom with
     big particle accelerators.  It also is conducting a costly cleanup of
     sites contaminated by decades of nuclear weapons production.
 
          Its current budget is $17.5 billion.  The Republicans would cut
     that by a total of $7 billion over five years.
 
          The department says the cuts would trim 2,000 university science
     jobs and 3,500 jobs from its sprawling system of laboratories, would end
     the large fusion experiment at Princeton University and would force the
     cancellation of one of its atom-smasher projects.  In addition, hundreds
     of companies, universities and Federal laboratories that are trying to
     improve energy efficiency would lose funds."
 
It is a shame the Congress does not plan to abolish the DoE altogether. If
they got rid of all this so-called energy research, private industry would
take over, hire the real DoE scientists (if there are any), and do a far
better job. Naturally, nobody will ever pay a dime for any of the hot fusion
tokamak stuff. The hot fusion scientists will be reduced to flipping burgers
at Mac Donalds. Far better they should be doing that than stealing money from
me for their pie-in-the-sky ripoff "tokamak" machines. Some people say it is
shame that scientific talent goes to waste in the U.S. but I don't think so.
Most of the scientific talent at the DoE is applied to grand larceny in which
"scientists" spend their time figuring out new ways to steal money from the
taxpayers for bogus "energy research" while they spread infamous lies about
cold fusion. It would be much better for us taxpayers if those people were
forced to do honest work instead.
 
It is a shame for some of the other scientists in the Government, but it is
their fault too, in a way. The whole scientific establishment stood by for
years defending this kind of grand larceny. Projects like the SSC, the Hubble
telescope, and hot fusion have been overrun with corruption, rotten planning,
inept engineering, outrageous sloppy accounting, and gutter politics. The
scientific establishment refused to clean house. Now the Congress will do it
instead, and it will toss out the good with the bad.
 
Let us hope that ITER also gets the ax soon.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / 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: Mon, 22 May 1995 18:17:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <3pop87$im1@news.cc.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>I'm not familiar with the "General Uncertainty Principle".
>Can you provide me with a reference?

E.g. "Introduction to Hilbert Spaces with Applications",
Lokenath Debnath & Piotr Mikusinski, c. 1990 Academic Press.

Similarly interesting (although not identical) inequalities should exist
in any orthonomal basis, since this is all a generalization of the
notion of the triangle inequality, in a sense.

>existent particles you get results according to Bell's inequality
>when you reason about how such existent particles with definite
>properties should behave.  Quantum mechanics predicts effects
>that violate these inequalities, and these effects have been observed.
>So what is wrong?  Objective existence of particles?  ???

I'm fond of "spooky action at a distance". :-)

Objective existence suits me just fine.
	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:
cuddy22 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 15:47:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) does not understand the difference between
electrochemistry, which is difficult and problematic, and calorimetry, which
is easy and always works. In this sentence he confuses them:
 
     "I am reminded that Jed used to make the same kind of arguments about
     the Takahashi experiment.  Then he tried to do it.  Still running the
     Takahashi experiment Jed?  What are the results now?  Seems like you
     used to say that it was easy and all that excess power could not be
     wrong?"
 
Answers: No, I am not running the Takahashi style pure-Pd cell. I concluded
years ago that it does not work in a predictable fashion and that better
methods are needed. That was the theme of my ICCF5 review, you should read it
someday. My results were null, and so were most of Takahashi's own subsequent
results. However, I am sure that some of his results were good, because the
thing was boiling with only a fraction of the input required to sustain
boiling. KEK's also boiled. It is impossible to argue with that, which is why
people like Morrison and Droege prefer to attack me with stupid comments
instead of talking about experiments.
 
Also, by the way, I never said it was easy. All CF experiments are hard to do.
But when the experiments are done right (or when you get lucky) the results
are easy to verify. Any fool can spot the difference between warm water and
boiling water.
 
 
In other stupid comments, Droege says:
 
     "This is not a scientific argument.  It is something else.  A scientific
     argument would say something like "A test was made to determine the
     possible heat input to the calorimetry from the pump motor.  This was
     found to be -0.003 watts +/- 0.05 watts."
 
Okay. I'll say it: A test was made to determine if the heat input could be
measured with pump motor running and the cell turned off. The temperature
elevation was found to be less than 0.1 degrees, which is the smallest
temperature the thermistor display will show. At 10 ml/min that's less than 1
calorie per minute, or less than 0.07 watts.
 
Actually, what I said before is that the friction heat is too small to
register. I just said it again here, all gussied in the kind of technical
sounding fol-de-rol that Droege loves. It means the same thing, as anyone with
a 10th grade education would know. Anyone who understands the demo setup would
know what "it does not register" means without all this this verbiage and
claptrap that Droege demands.
 
Droege also wants me to parrot this nonsense:
 
     "Tests were made with and without the overhead light on.  Variation was
     within the error limits"
 
Oh, come on now!!! How the heck could overhead lights affect an experiment
like this? Puu-leezze let us have some common sense. Should I list all the
other factors that could not possibly affect an experiment of this nature?
Here:
 
     Phase of the moon!
     Heat from burning cookstoves in Zanzibar!
     A laser beam from Mars focussed on the cell!
     Embarrassed flush on Morrison's face when he looked at the thing and saw
     it makes a monkey out of him!
 
Hey, the list goes on and on. Overhead lights?!? How about the HVAC? That must
have a thousand times more impact. If you want you can inventing millions of
imaginary stray factors like that. People who have done experiments of this
nature know that they are all in the noise level, miles below one watt. For
one thing, if there was some heat source big enough to hit the cell in the
Dewar with a watt, it would fry the people in the room. We are still here, so
I guess there was no laser beam shot from Mars.
 
 
     "See Jed, how it is done."
 
Oh, right. Sure. That's "how it is done" is it? Give me a break! Yes, that is
how it is done by time-wasting, nit-picking scientists at the DOE who have
never made a commercial product in their lives. But if you tried to pull that
kind of nitpicking stunt in private industry with engineers they would set you
straight in two seconds flat. If you stood up at a meeting of real developers
doing real work, and you started pontificating about the effect of overhead
lights or water friction on watt level flow calorimetry, they would bite your
head off for making idiot remarks and wasting everyone's time.
 
 
     "But you can't make this kind of argument because the requisite data
     does not appear to have been taken."
 
How would you know? Have you talked to Cravens? You are guessing! You don't
know a thing about it. I don't make that kind of argument because I know that
the overhead lights and the phase of the moon have nothing to do with it, and
I know that kind of stuff is not science, it is nitpicking hairsplitting
psuedo-scietific claptrap. I would call it "science fiction" but that would be
an insult to the genre. Any issue of "Amazing Stories" has more science in it
than all your skeptical objections combined.
 
 
     "How is it going?  Or are you keeping the results secret since they are
     so spectacular?  BTW, are you still using the DD differential flow
     temperature measuring device?"
 
It is going fine. Everything I do is secret. I do not need the DD differential
device because I only deal with large, commercial grade CF reactors, 10
kilowatts and above. They do not call for subtle, itty bitty measurements. A
$12 thermometer works fine. I can measure a 20 deg F temperature difference in
50 gallons of water, so I am sure the excess is real.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
Date: 22 May 1995 20:52:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <RO5eEIN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
(snip)

>     "Tests were made with and without the overhead light on.  Variation was
>     within the error limits"
> 
>Oh, come on now!!! How the heck could overhead lights affect an experiment
>like this? Puu-leezze let us have some common sense. Should I list all the

In case you don't remember, you brought up the overhead lights.  I took 
you seriously.  I could and did measure the effect of the overhead lights
in my work.  I could also measure the effect of a person entering the
room.  Only by some very hard work did I reduce these effects so that
they contirbuted a negligible amount to the total error calculation. 

>other factors that could not possibly affect an experiment of this nature?
>Here:
> 
>     Phase of the moon!

I took a lot of data on this.  Very interesting.  But I did not follow
up as it was not in the main line of research.  When you take careful
measurements a lot of things are seen. 

>     Heat from burning cookstoves in Zanzibar!

The problem here is measuring the cookstoves.  Certainly they have an
effect.  There is always a background noise that contributes to the 
uncertainty.  When one does an experiment one does the best one can to
reduce all such effects.  You hope that you can explain all the effects 
that are seen and that the sum of all others is less than the error in
the smallest effect that you understand.

>     A laser beam from Mars focussed on the cell!

There are enough reflective layers in the calorimeter that this effect 
is negligible (<100 uw), at least up to the point that it burns a hole in
the roof.  No hole was observed.

>     Embarrassed flush on Morrison's face when he looked at the thing and saw
>     it makes a monkey out of him!

On last observation, Morrison was still a distinguished person.  No 
resemblence to a monkey.  


>Hey, the list goes on and on. Overhead lights?!? How about the HVAC? That must
>have a thousand times more impact. 

Sure.  I measured the effect.  There was an elaborate system that 
compensated for variations in room temperature.  Read my paper.

>If you want you can inventing millions of
>imaginary stray factors like that. People who have done experiments of this
>nature know that they are all in the noise level, miles below one watt. For

Uhhh!  Miles is not the appropriate measurement here.  These measurements (except
the blush on Morrison's face) tend to be significant.  In fact, I think all the 
positive calorimetry experiments are explainable by just such "systematic"
error.  

>one thing, if there was some heat source big enough to hit the cell in the
>Dewar with a watt, it would fry the people in the room. We are still here, so
>I guess there was no laser beam shot from Mars.

A one watt laser shot from Mars is hard (but not impossible) while a one watt
error is commonplace.  I think I could remind you of a similar error you made
in the early days doing Takahashi.  Have the message here some place.  A large
enough provocation and I will dig it up.  I remember a long conversation on 
the phone with Mallove.  After that he changed his measurement technique and
the big power went awey.  

As long as measurements are made, the measurers will make errors.  It is only
by constant questioning and re-measurement that we can come even close to 
truth.  But you know that Jed, as you have made a few mistakes.  Time to 
learn from them.

Tom Droege

(snip)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 21:03:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>in mind you will see that your questions almost answer themselves.  If
>a bead (or a cluster of beads) is not making solid electrical contact
>with the cathode it is not part of that cathode, but it can still be
>in the electrical circuit because the electrolyte is present to complete
>the connection.
 
That does not amount to a hill of beans. You have to have solid electrical
contact between them or it is no go.
 
>So what black magic keeps all the beads in solid, metal-to-metal electrical
>contact?  Perhaps in some places the path of least resistance is through
 
A thumbscrew.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 21:19:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Derek Ross <rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net> writes:
 
>If only a general method existed!  All that I can suggest is that
>most of us probably make a three way discrimination - "sense",
>"nonsense", and "could be either" - depending on what we already
>know.  We may be wrong in our categorisation but that's life.  The
 
Goodness gracious!!! Of course a general method exists. You do an experiment!
How else? Science is not an intellectual process. Physics must always be
based upon experiments. All this talk about "discrimination" and
"categorization" and bla, bla, bla means nothing. Experiments are all. Look,
it is VERY simple:
 
1. You assert "X may be true."
 
2. You think up an experiment to test X. (If you cannot think up an experiment,
   that means X is nonsense, or it is not part of science, or you are not good
   at doing science.)
 
3. You do the experiment. If it works X is true; if it fails X is not true; and
   if the results are not clear then you still don't know.
 
That is all there is to it! There is no other way. No other standards are
possible. Lots of things that people formerly assumed were nonsense or
impossible turned out to be true after all. Some things everyone assumed
had to be true turned out to be nonsense. You can never tell with mama nature.
The only way to find out is to ask. You can never know in advance. Anything
might be possible, the only way to know is to test.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Don't respond to nonsense please
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 22:11:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>The same would have been the case with the moderated group that didn't
>succeed. Its most important function would have been to exclude these two
>kinds of postings, as well as the "You are an idiot" type of postings.
 
Well, e-mail technology has changed. If that is a "most important function"
as you say, then I urge you to take steps and set up your very own moderated
group. Seriously, if you honestly feel there is an important purpose to
be served with this moderated group thing, go right ahead and form it. Perhaps
because of this vote it would not be a "newsgroup" with a name beginning "sci."
something-something, but these mailing lists and WWW home page things are
functionally equivalent to newsgroups. People who learn about Internet in a
few months may not even realize there is a difference. It is a new world now;
Internet technology has changed. Since you are the one who feels strongly that
important functions will be served with a moderated group, you should form one.
All the Big Guns are forming WWW home pages. I just attended a formal seminar
at CNN where their top telecommunications wizards described the explosive
growth of the new media and demonstrated the WWW on line on a big screen. Very
impressive.
 
I myself abstained on that vote. I have no opinion. I sense that other people
do not care much either. Please note that the person you people nominated to
moderate this new group voted against forming it.
 
My point is, why bitch and moan? If you don't like this publication, go start
your own. It is a new world out there -- every man his own publisher.
 
As for Mr. Plutonium's postings, I cannot make head or tail of them, so I skip
them, so they never bother me. I do not understand why they bother you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: More stupid comments from Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More stupid comments from Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 22:19:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This is completely wrong. You have mixed up electrochemistry and
calorimetry. They are not the same thing. I suggest you review my message
in the thread "Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with H2O cold fusion?
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 22:32:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

GuidingLt <guidinglt@aol.com> writes:
 
>I find all of the debate about the mechanisms of cold fusion very
>interesting but does it work, what will it cost, and when can we expect to
>see electricity available from it on a commercial basis?
 
Answers: Yes, it does work. It will be dirt cheap. I don't know when
electrical generators will be available but thousands of room heaters have
already been sold, primarily in Russian and Eastern Europe. They are a
heck of a lot better than heat pumps, gas, oil or coal.
 
The main thing that is stopping commercialization in the U.S. are the
hysterical attacks from the DoE, the APS, and various other academics.
The big corporations listen to them too much. Someday soon they will be
confronted with working space heaters and power reactors, and then they
will shut up once and for all, and the business will boom in the U.S. as
much as it has in Eastern Europe and China. Another big problem here is
Patent Office. Anyway, these problems will take care of themselves.
Fortunately, the hot fusion rip-off is about to be axed by Congress, so
our most noisy, slimy, corrupt opposition will be out pounding the streets,
looking for work. For years they have been saying that we would go under,
but they are getting axed instead, and we starting large scale commercial
shipments, with several million units planned for the next few years. It
will be a pleasure to see those S.O.B.s join the unemployment lines! MIT
held a party a few weeks after cold fusion was announced, celebrating
"the death of cold fusion." I will hold a much larger, much more gala event
when we install a few thousand CF reactors here, and the PPPL, MIT, and
the other sleezbag rip-off artists are closed down forever. This year or
next will be the death of hot fusion -- just the opposite of what they
predicted. That's capitalism for you! The good guys, with the better product,
eventually win.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Steven Piet /  Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
     
Originally-From: RXFN56A@prodigy.com (Steven Piet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newsgroup reorganization fails
Date: 23 May 1995 02:55:13 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

>You must not know about these experiments. You have wildly 
mischaractorized
>them by saying they are "easy" and "magical." They are anything but 
easy!
>They are terribly difficult. They do work, however. Your "judgement" as 
you
>call it cannot change facts. People who measure 200 megajoules from 16 
grams
>of matter and helium-4 generation thousands of times above background 
know
>for certain that they are seeing a nuclear effect (perhpas combined 
with
>something even more exotic). Those are facts, your judgements and 
opinions
>cannot alter them one iota.

I'd welcome well written technical papers with data.  If they exist, I 
would enjoy reading them and updating my judgements. It is certainly 
correct that opinions must eventually change to match facts and evidence. 
 My point is that I've yet to see any hard evidence, but I confess not to 
have read everything published on the cold fusion front.


-
  STEVEN PIET  RXFN56A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenRXFN56A cudfnSteven cudlnPiet cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / William Rowe /  Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:12:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <REwc8OH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>I mentioned that I do not have any idea how Rockwell measures their tritium,
>but I am sure they do. I should have added that it is not difficult to tell
>tritium from helium because, after all, tritium is radioactive; it has a
>distinct half life, and you can detect it in much smaller amounts than helium.
>In any case, after I wrote that  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
>made an astoundingly naive comment

Is this an attempt to duck the issue which is the difficulty in determinig
tritium from helium using a mass spectrometer?

As far as detecting tritium using its radioactive signature, this may or
may not be easy depending on the amount of tritium and the background
level of radiation.

Did Rockwell measure a sample for tritium content? Were they even asked
to? Your statement above i.e., "... I am sure they do." makes a lot of
assumptions.

> 
>     "I note an interesting correlation here:  when the "experts" say
>     something that matches Rothwell's preconceived notions, he accepts their
>     word even though he has no way of judging it.  When the "experts" say
>     something that goes against his preconceived notions, suddenly being an
>     expert is insufficient for being trustworthy, even though he has no way
>     of judging their trustworthiness.  E.g. when Huizenga concludes that
>     Rockwell is competent, he knows what he's talking about, but when he
>     concludes that there is no evidence for electrochemically induced
>     nuclear fusion, he doesn't."
> 
>This is preposterous! Schultz apparently believes that all statements made by
>all experts are equally believable without any reference to politics, money,
>or any other human context. Let us go over this step by step, shall we?
> 

Schultz's comments are not about "all experts" nor are they about the
credibility of any expert. Instead, they address your apparent williness
to believe experts at some times but not others when in each case you have
indicated not having a full understanding of the subject at hand.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.22 / James Danielson /  operating spheromaks
     
Originally-From: James Danielson <eapu523@rigel.oac.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: operating spheromaks
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 22:55:39 -0700
Organization: University of California, Irvine

Hello,

I am looking for information on the spheromaks in the world that are
currently in operation.  Is a spheromak the same as a low-aspect ratio
tokamak?  I know of only two so-called low-aspect ratio tokamaks: START in
the UK (at JET I believe), and MEDUSA at the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 
Does anyone know of any others?  Or of any distinguishing characteristics 
that would make a spheromak different from a low-aspect ratio tokamak?

Thanks, and I look forward to any information you can pass on.

James Danielson
Dept. of Physics
Univ. Calif. Irvine

email: eapu523@ea.oac.uci.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneapu523 cudfnJames cudlnDanielson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spherical Tokamaks all the rage
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 04:10:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3pioa5$9tp@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>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.

Is this the same Y. Ono, that same chap that gave the paper DC-C11, at the
6th Int. Toki Conference, Toki, Japan in 1994?? 

>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?

Your understanding of the effects of improving plasma, current, and field 
topology through engineering modeling are pretty much on the money.  
Unfortunately, such a concept is way to modernistic for the DoE now or 
in the next century and so it will have to wait for a couple of 
generations before the DoE could bring itself to grow into the idea.  
Their evolutionary track is on course and should arrive at a PLASMAK(TM) 
topology within only another millineum or two.  

Notice that the resistive nature of the current down the central 
combined bundled column of the toroidal field coils (poloidal for current) 
-- IF taken to the extreme would overheat that region and convert the 
copper bus from solid to liquid state, and at still higher levels could 
run as a plasma arc discharge.   Of course the plasma to eletrode 
interface for these currents at the broader cross-sections of the toroidal 
field coils (remaining solid bus) would be a problem.  Still one isn't 
that far from considering the case of having the toroidal field currents 
run through an all plasma toroidal field coil.  

Once this is done, it's only a matter of time (a few short eons perhaps) 
where one might consider combining these currents within the central 
toroidal plasma and then creating a really high current density mixed
current plasma toroid (with current and magnetic helicity) or what we 
would recognize as a large spheromak.  

Ah! but then the problem is that damn first wall.. still in the primitive
solid state.  Well another eon or two and Voila!!.. we have a resistive 
PLASMAK(tm) embodiment with it's all plasma shell or Mantle.  So what's 
beyond??  simply getting the energetic right 
             and the conductivity up, 
                 the diffusivity down, and
                 the field and plasma density much higher 

... and we well have the ultimate tokamak.   I. E., the PLASMAK(tm) 
magnetoplasmoid!, which is compressible to the size of a hard ball and 
capable of producing 10 gigwatts AC 3phase electric out with nary a tad 
of environmental pollution.  

>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.

We should be able to reg a burn D-^3He in 2.5 years using less money 
and getting an engineering break even yield. (using PMKs,.. .of course).

But that won't likely happen seeing as how there are several eons of 
handholding that must preceed any actual hard go-ahead-decision-making 
before the money would ever be put on the line.  

So let's really put it to the test!
What would be great is to run a competition.  Any one of us produces 
or WE ALL DIE.   One last cigarette and a blindfold at dawn the day 
after the deadline, if it doesn't work.. say after FIVE YEARS of full 
support.   That makes for quite an adequate saftey factor.  

We could have the mafiosa hold the markers, or be tied up in a dry 
wooden 40year old farm house that the FBI is using for sniper practice 
at the end of a bone dry week a hot sunny day with 40 knot winds. :-)  

Now that's what I call a challenge.    Even if the feebies don't hit us, 
all those hi velocity slugs will set off dozens of fires all over the 
structure.   

Hmmm!  I'm certain of our approach .. are you chaps just as sold on your
own??     Then together we can't lose.  

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.21 / Robert Heeter /  "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
Date: 21 May 1995 15:41:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

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.

As an unmoderated group we have to put up with unmoderated ideas, but
there's no reason at all why we need to put up with off-charter postings.
I think a form of "self-moderation" might work.  I don't advocate 
responding to the *content* of off-charter posts (or at least one should 
yank sci.physics.fusion from the newsgroups line so the thread leaves this
group), but I think occasionally it might be useful to post a short
followup 
article to indicate that a given post was off-charter (and to indicate
which 
group it belongs in).  Also, if enough people EMAIL replies to the
posters 
of off-charter articles, that might help people see the errors of their
ways.
This would be similar in style (if not in magnitude) to the
"email-bombings"
of the people who spam the net and/or post the "MAKE MONEY FAST" articles.
It seemed to work in the two cases where I tried it on people posting
"books for sale" type articles.

Does anyone else think this might work?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:27:20 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 22 May 1995, Richard A Blue wrote:

[...] 
> [...]                                                              If
> a bead (or a cluster of beads) is not making solid electrical contact
> with the cathode it is not part of that cathode, but it can still be
> in the electrical circuit because the electrolyte is present to complete
> the connection.

Just to complete the info on cells with metal film covered beads: you are
quite right here, Dick. What you are talking about is the bipolar electrode.
People use them, they are metal plates simply in the path of a current, and
such a plate (or, a bead) acts as a cathode on one side and an anode on the
other. I am sure that Cravens would avoid this like the plague (hence the
packed bed, no gaps), because if ever there was a scenario for recombination,
this would be it; a cell in which hydrogen and oxygen are produced throughout
the cell volume, and Pd film to catalyse their recombination.

[...]

> I would also ask how those of you who believe that the current density is
> an essential paramater need to address the question of what keeps the
> current density uniform on all cathode surfaces?

Good point. In a packed bed, I'd say that there would be significant iR drop
along the length of the bed, and therefore quite a dispersion of 
overvoltage, leading to a current density dispersion. If indeed 'cold 
fusion' (or hitherto unknown bla bla bla) depends on some minimum current 
density, this would mean the exotic process would be happening in some parts 
of the cell and not in others. 

I must say, nevertheless, that I like this cell. I have said many times 
that if there be such an exotic nuclear process, it is very likely to be 
a near-surface effect, and one ought to maximise surface; a packed bed is
one good way to do that.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / mitchell swartz /  "Self-Moderating" s.p.f.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f.
Subject: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:03:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3pnn02$ir2@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: "Self-Moderating" s.p.f
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

-As an unmoderated group we have to put up with unmoderated ideas, but
-there's no reason at all why we need to put up with off-charter postings.
-I think a form of "self-moderation" might work.  I don't advocate 
-responding to the *content* of off-charter posts (or at least one should 
-yank sci.physics.fusion from the newsgroups line so the thread leaves this
-group), but I think occasionally it might be useful to post a short
-followup 
-article to indicate that a given post was off-charter (and to indicate
-which 
-group it belongs in).  Also, if enough people EMAIL replies to the
-posters 
-of off-charter articles, that might help people see the errors of their
-ways.
-This would be similar in style (if not in magnitude) to the
--"email-bombings"
-of the people who spam the net and/or post the "MAKE MONEY FAST" articles.
-It seemed to work in the two cases where I tried it on people posting
-"books for sale" type articles.
-
-Does anyone else think this might work?

Agree with the spamers, but you might try to 
forget attacking people who swap/sell/buy books on fusion.
You might get some of the books and crack a few more
of them yourself.     ;-)X
When you do, your endlessly and near ubiquitously
posted FAQs might be updated by some correct 
material on cold and solid state fusion to augment the 
good stuff you already posted therein.
 
   Best wishes.
           Mitchell




cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / mitchell swartz /  More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:05:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950523091231.16365A-100000@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:

   On Mon, 22 May 1995, Richard A Blue wrote:
 > a bead (or a cluster of beads) is not making solid electrical contact
 > with the cathode it is not part of that cathode, but it can still be
 > in the electrical circuit because the electrolyte is present to complete
 > the connection.
-Just to complete the info on cells with metal film covered beads: you are
-quite right here, Dick. What you are talking about is the bipolar electrode.
-People use them, they are metal plates simply in the path of a current, and
-such a plate (or, a bead) acts as a cathode on one side and an anode on the
-other. I am sure that Cravens would avoid this like the plague (hence the
-packed bed, no gaps), because if ever there was a scenario for recombination,
-this would be it; a cell in which hydrogen and oxygen are produced throughout
-the cell volume, and Pd film to catalyse their recombination.

  Would cause some corrosively generated ions added to the
to the solution, too.

  > I would also ask how those of you who believe that the current density is
  > an essential paramater need to address the question of what keeps the
  > current density uniform on all cathode surfaces?
-Good point. In a packed bed, I'd say that there would be significant iR drop
-along the length of the bed, and therefore quite a dispersion of 
-overvoltage, leading to a current density dispersion. If indeed 'cold 
-fusion' (or hitherto unknown bla bla bla) depends on some minimum current 
-density, this would mean the exotic process would be happening in some parts 
-of the cell and not in others. 

   Packed beds of metallic spheres might actually give a small IR drop,
an insignificant IR drop, over the bed; but they would also tend
to distort the E-field distribution because of the equipotential lines
therein.


-I must say, nevertheless, that I like this cell. I have said many times 
-that if there be such an exotic nuclear process, it is very likely to be 
-a near-surface effect, and one ought to maximise surface; a packed bed is
-one good way to do that.

"near-surface effects" depend upon the ratio of loading and internal
diffusion.  right, mate?  Therefore a function of material and other
physical issues.

  Dieter, where are reviews of the ICCF4 papers located? looked at 
sunsite in cnf-com, cnf-pat, and cnf- peri ...   and did not see them?
is there a better ftp site for your copious good work?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Alan M /  Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
Date: 23 May 1995 15:48:25 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <browe-2205952212530001@192.0.2.1>  browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:

> Schultz's comments are not about "all experts" nor are they about the
> credibility of any expert. Instead, they address your apparent williness
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
> to believe experts at some times but not others when in each case you have
> indicated not having a full understanding of the subject at hand.
> 

You said it, William <g>.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 23 May 1995 10:33:23 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Sandra Russell (srussell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3po2dd$efc@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan 
: Wallace) writes: 

: >
: >Sandra Russell (srussell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: Sorry, but I could not find much in your letter which was relevent to 
: >: the question we were discussion, except that you said you had no 
: problem 
: >: with E = mc^2 (which is nice).  You also reject the idea that the 
: speed 
: >: of light is constant, but don't offer any reason for why we always 
: >: measure it to be the the same value.  Do you think that light from a 
: >: moving flashlight goes faster than light from a stopped one?  So how 
: do 
: >: you tell which is the moving one?  Do you think that particles 
: >: accelerated to nearly lightspeed should behave differently in an 
: >: accelerator which is moving in one direction (along the ring 
: orthogonal 
: >: axis) vs moving another direction (along a line in the ring plane)?  
: And 
: >: so on?  How do you explain the Michaelson-Morely results?
: >
: >:                                                   Steve Harris
: >
: >The simple explanation of the M M experiment has always been the 
: particle 
: >model of light.  The Fox extinction length to speed c by interaction of 
: >photons with electrons is 2 mm in air at sea level and one light year 
: in 
: >space.  Read my free electronic book, its all in there, including 
: >arguments by Einstein and other prominent physicists.
: >
: >Bryan
: >
: >
: >

: Sorry, but I'm not going to read your book until you give some evidence 
: of beginning to grasp questions and arguments in person.  So far you 
: haven't.  What the devil does the Fox extinction have to do with 
: anything.  MM experiments can be run in vacuum.  You didn't answer the 
: questions about the flashlights or the accelerator, either.

:                                                    Steve

   A very prominent scientist who is a member of the US National Academy of
Sciences, Gerard de Vaucouleurs, found the provocative title of my book most 
intriguing, and he requested the free ASCII email copy.  He read it two times
and sent me a 3 page review of the book by regular mail.  My answer to his
review was:

     In reply to your letter of 4 April, I am pleased that you found my book
  of interest.  You are correct in seeing the two main themes in the book,
  and I like to think that I would be happy to be proven wrong, because then
  I would know more about the true nature of the universe.  You are also
  right in assuming that I would like to resurrect the "ballistic" theory of
  light.  With regard to the evidence that contends that spectroscopic
  binaries present evidence against the ballistic theory, in a classic
  astronomy textbook (R. H. Baker, Astronomy (D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton,
  N.J., 1955) p.414) we find the following ad hoc c constant light velocity
  argument to explain observed phenomena in eclipsing binary stars:

      Struve concludes that the gas whirlpools cause the seeming discrepancy
    in the behavior of a few eclipsing binaries which long puzzled the
    investigators.  Where the velocity curve of the binary implies an orbit
    of considerable eccentricity, the light curve may require a circular
    orbit.

  Fox has done an extensive investigation of the supposed evidence against
  the ballistic Ritz c+v emission theory (J. G. Fox, "Evidence Against
  Emission Theories, "Amer. J. Phys., 33,1(1965)) and with regard to binary
  stars argues:

      There are also some difficulties for Struve's hypothesis.  The model
    would seem to have consequences similar to those of the Ritz theory.  

     With regard to your argument "that there must exist publicly accessible
  records on planetary or space probes ranging which should be more precise
  than the early Venus data you have used and which could provide a more
  stringent test of the constancy of the velocity of light," the original
  Venus radar data was supposed to be accurate to within 1.5 km and the
  current radio to spacecraft data is reported to be accurate to within 1.5
  m, an increase in accuracy by a factor of 1000 times.  The Earth's rotation
  would cause a maximum difference in calculated distance between the two
  theories of 260 km for the radar observations when Venus is at its closest
  point, while a spacecraft orbiting Venus in a low circular orbit as
  indicated by its radar altimeter would have a maximum difference in
  calculated distance of about 4680 km. This would provide a dramatic
  demonstration of whether the c constant velocity or the c+v variable
  velocity of light model, or a variation of either model, is the correct
  theory.  The wrong theory would show the craft was in a highly elliptical
  orbit, while the correct theory would show it to be in its proper circular
  orbit.  The data already exists, our Magellan spacecraft is orbiting Venus
  in a low nearly circular orbit and the data is being used for measurement
  of a high-resolution global gravity field of the planet.


Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 23 May 1995 10:37:51 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ucf.edu) wrote:
: In article <vergonD8F2Gu.C2J@netcom.com> vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:
: >In article <3or974$8so@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
: >Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
: >>In article <3oefp8$fml@xcalibur.IntNet.net> wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan  
: >>Wallace) writes:
: >>

: >>> The conformist bigots and politicians that have made modern 
: >>> physics a farce ignore the fact that an objective comparative analysis of 
: >>> the wave and particle models of light in the solar system would be a 
: >>> definitive test of their stationary ether/space/vacuum theoretical 
: >>> arguments because they it know it gives a politically incorrect answer! 

: >>What do you mean?  The Aspect experiment which confirms bizarre pathological
: >>mystic quantum mechanical predictions was carried out in the solar system.

: <Detailed allusion to the Aspect experiment deleted>

: >>Nothing politically correct or incorrect about the outcomes of experiment
: >>or of reasoning based on elementary set theory.

: >Now there's a bunch of gobble-de-gook. 

: >Merely confirms Bryan's position.

: Pray, do elaborate on your judgement?

: Is it the logic your object to?  The experimental observations?

: I personally see in this "gobble-de-gook" a serious chink in the
: armor of "conformist" physics.  The reason I carry on so is 
: because I think people like Bryan are trying to go backward to
: an old physical paradigm, and are missing the opportunity to 
: use their energy to advance forward to the next new paradigm.

: Tom Clarke

   On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter" we find the following statement:

  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--each little lump of light is
  called a photon--and if the light is all one color, all the "rain-drops"
  are the same size.

On page 15 of his book he states:

     I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles.  It is
  very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for
  those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told
  something about light behaving like waves.  I'm telling you the way it does
  behave--like particles.

On page 37 he argues:

  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the
  price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the
  position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will
  hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.

On page 119 he writes:

  ...We must accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification and
  suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from all parts of a mirror,
  light travelling in paths other than a straight line, photons going faster
  or slower than the conventional speed of light...

   The fact that modern physics is a farce is due to the fact that for
pathological or political reasons most modern physicists refuse to objectively
evaluate the modern observational evidence.  Feynman was one of a small number
of physicists that have had the intelligence and courage to behave like
legitimate scientists.  For example on page 10 of James Gleick's new book
"GENIUS, THE LIFE AND SCIENCE OF RICHARD FEYNMAN" he states:

  ..."Dick could get away with a lot because he was so goddamn smart," a
  theorist said. ...

On page 11 he wrote:

  ... At the atomic bomb project he was the thorn in the side of the military
  censors.  On the commission investigating the 1986 space-shuttle explosion
  he was the outsider who pushed aside red tape to uncover the true cause. 
  He was the enemy of pomp, convention, quackery, and hypocrisy.  He was the
  boy who saw the emperor with no clothes. ...

On page 16 he states:

     After he died several colleagues tried to write his epitaph.  One was
  Schwinger, in certain time not just his colleague but his preeminent rival,
  who chose these words: "An honest man, the outstanding intuitionist of our
  age, and a prime example of what may lie in store for anyone who dares to
  follow the beat of a different drum." ...

With regard to my views on this matter, Chapter 7 of my book details the
arguments that influenced my dynamic ether unified theory research, as well as
the history, methods and results that I've obtained.   My role model as a
scientist was Albert Einstein, and his quest for a simple unified theory for
physics had become my quest.  In March of 1964, I had an intuitive insight on
how to devise such a theory.  The insight was that the only material in the
universe is a dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the speed
of light.  A photon of light would be this material moving through space at
the speed of light, and a particle of matter would be this material moving in
closed orbit.  The basic building blocks of matter would be positive and
negative electrons, the electronic charge being determined by their direction
of planar vortex orbital motion relative to their translational motion, and
protons and neutrons being built from stacked positrons and electrons.  The
gravitational, electro-magnetic, and nuclear forces would be due to the
surface tension and velocity interaction  characteristics of this fluid, and
time would be defined by the periodic motion and space by the translational
motion of the fluid.  The transformation of mass into energy would be due to
the closed orbital motion of particles being changed into the open
translational motion of photons, with the transformation of energy into mass
being the reverse process.  The Universe is infinite and eternal and galaxies
are born and die with the transformation of energy into mass and then mass
back into energy in a constant life cycle determined by the simple physical
characteristics of the dynamic ether. My research has only scratched the
surface of the full potential of the logical advance from the stationary
ether/vacuum/space with its mystic infinite mass and energy properties, to the
dynamic ether with its complete conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. 
The kinetic energy of the mass moving at speed c in a closed orbit in a
particle at rest leads naturally to the E = mc^2 formula, and the Lorentz
equation for time is related to the periodic motion at a given radial distance
in the particle as it moves from rest to a high velocity.  The computer
simulation of the mass dynamics showed the proper magnitudes for the
gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable
algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from
positive and negative electrons, just as Wheeler suspected.  I expect that
some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological trick that
will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass annihilation
will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to space travel at
near light speeds.  Of the many interesting comments on the book that I've
received to date, the most important one was by Wheeler who wrote:

    "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the speed of
  light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in a subject so
  important.

The dynamic ether offers a simpler explanation for the polarization
characteristics of photons than the stationary ether model.  Feynman's
raindrop photon can have a rotational motion that would create a lenticular
shape, and this lens shaped photon could rotate as it travels through space. 
Electronic signals travel in conductors at near the speed of light while the
electrons that carry the signals travel at thermal velocities.  The sole
explanation in all textbooks of physical optics for over a century is the
theory that the diffraction pattern of the aperture is the interference
pattern of all the Huygen's wavelets from every position in the aperture.  The
edge has no effect other than to bound the radiation area.  With the
development of sources of hand-sized centimeter waves it is now possible to
measure diffraction patterns near and in the plane of the aperture itself. 
Such patterns indicate photons are reradiated from electrons at the edge of
the aperture.  Diffraction patterns from waves in air, water, and solids are a
multi-particle phenomena.  I suspect that diffraction patterns for photons and
electrons is also a multi-particle phenomena, and that electronic signals in
the apparatus synchronize the radiation patterns of individual photons and
electrons to create the observed patterns even over a long time period.

Gleick states on page 250 of his book:

     Optics students learned alternative explanations for such phenomena in
  terms of waves like those undulating through water and air.  Feynman was--
  with finality--eliminating the wave viewpoint altogether.  Waviness was
  built into the phases carried by amplitudes, like little clocks. ...

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 11:45 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> Just to complete the info on cells with metal film covered beads: you are
-> quite right here, Dick. What you are talking about is the bipolar electrode.
-> People use them, they are metal plates simply in the path of a current, and
-> such a plate (or, a bead) acts as a cathode on one side and an anode on the
-> other. I am sure that Cravens would avoid this like the plague (hence the
-> packed bed, no gaps), because if ever there was a scenario for recombination
-> this would be it; a cell in which hydrogen and oxygen are produced throughou
-> the cell volume, and Pd film to catalyse their recombination.
 
I think you are missing something major here.  What you are proposing is
electrically equivalent to multiple cells in series.  Each cell will have the
normal voltage drop associated with that electolyte and metal, typically
around 1.5 volts. Thus it is impossible for current to flow in and out of
multiple beads unless the driving emf is at least twice that value, or around 3
volts. I don't believe that Cravens is running that high a voltage.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Mark North /  Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:06:59 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Droege also wants me to parrot this nonsense:
> 
>     "Tests were made with and without the overhead light on.  Variation was
>     within the error limits"
> 
>Oh, come on now!!! How the heck could overhead lights affect an experiment
>like this? Puu-leezze let us have some common sense. Should I list all the
>other factors that could not possibly affect an experiment of this nature?

Rothwell, you are a truly clueless idiot. In 1907 when Rutherford and
Royds were studying alpha particles they found they got differing results
depending on whether the lab door was open or closed, which they had 
carefully recorded in their lab notebook. They later went on to 
demonstrate that alpha particles are helium nuclei. In the late '30s
when Fermi was studying fission they were confounded for a time by
differing results depending on which room they counted their neutrons
until someone noticed that the experimental setup in one room was
on a wood table and in the other on a metal table. The wood table,
which is full of protons moderated the neutrons resulting in a higher
count rate. As for overhead lights they are notorious for screwing
up things. The fluorescent ones at least are non-linear and radiate
all sorts of high frequency noise. If you happen to have a ground loop
(read antenna) in your setup you're in trouble. Most of the time, if
this is going on, it's very obvious and easily remedied. Other times
it can be very subtle so it's always a good idea to note whether the
lights are on or off.

Actually, I don't think Rothwell is clueless I think he's willfully
ignorant which, to me, is a form of dishonesty. Personally, I
wouldn't buy a stamp from the man. (Is there an echo in here?)

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / Mark North /  Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz does not understand politics
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:24:07 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:

>In article <REwc8OH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>>I mentioned that I do not have any idea how Rockwell measures their tritium,
>>but I am sure they do. I should have added that it is not difficult to tell
>>tritium from helium because, after all, tritium is radioactive; it has a
>>distinct half life, and you can detect it in much smaller amounts than helium.
>>In any case, after I wrote that  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
>>made an astoundingly naive comment

>Is this an attempt to duck the issue which is the difficulty in determinig
>tritium from helium using a mass spectrometer?

>As far as detecting tritium using its radioactive signature, this may or
>may not be easy depending on the amount of tritium and the background
>level of radiation.

>Did Rockwell measure a sample for tritium content? Were they even asked
>to? Your statement above i.e., "... I am sure they do." makes a lot of
>assumptions.

In addition to the helium section of the Rockwell mass spec I have
a vu-graph of the tritium line. Since I posted the anonymous ftp info
a couple of weeks ago I have discovered that there are some problems
with it. If anyone ftp'd and got 'permission denied' I apologize.
If anyone would like to see these vu-graphs in .gif format you may email
me or I could just fax them.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 12:50:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
    "In case you don't remember, you brought up the overhead lights.  I took
    you seriously."
 
You shouldn't have. That's silly. I will grant that it is not as silly as
Blue's "water friction" idea or Morrison's "cigarette lighter." I guess you
are used to people parading preposterous ideas here and claiming they are
science.
 
 
    "I could and did measure the effect of the overhead lights in my work."
 
That's a waste of time. You should have learned to keep your electrolyte
clean instead.
 
 
    "I could also measure the effect of a person entering the
    room.  Only by some very hard work did I reduce these effects so that
    they contributed a negligible amount to the total error calculation."
 
Instead of worrying about such tiny background fluctuations, you should
have boosted the CF heat to one or two watts -- thousands of times
greater than the effect of people's body heat. You did the experiment
backwards. There is no need to increase the sensitivity of the instruments
and decrease the noise when you can do the experiment right and boost the
signal by three orders of magnitude.
 
 
    "When you take careful measurements a lot of things are seen."
 
When you take milliwatt level measurements, everything you see is probably
a mistake. You cannot trust conventional calorimetry at that level. Not
even thermoelectric calorimetry.
 
 
     "One last observation, Morrison was still a distinguished person.  No
     resemblance to a monkey."
 
Distinguished?!? Why he cannot even distinguish the difference between nickel
and palladium! He cannot distinguish the difference between 6 nanowatts and
150 watts in his cigarette lighter theory. His ICCF5 paper is a farce. He
makes only one statement about calorimetry, which was flat out wrong, where he
claimed NEDO's 16% excess is not statistically significant. He does not have
the guts to quote the results from Amoco or SRI. He does not include a single
direct quote or any data from any abstract, paper, or presentation. Instead of
discussing experimental evidence, he devotes the paper to snide personal
attacks and childish mischaractorizations of the papers. For example, he
describes the Prevenslik presentation as "a talk about the problems of keeping
fish in tanks in Hong Kong." (It was about ultrasonic cavitation.) In his
previous reports Morrison praised KEK as the acid test of cold fusion. Now
that they have reported definitive proof that CF exists, he does not even
mention them! Morrison is nothing but a propaganda agent for the hot fusion
program. Furthermore, with his "regionalization of results" theory, he
dismisses results from Italy, Japan, Russia, and other countries outside of
Northern Europe. Let me tell you straight what that is: it is blatant, filthy,
neo-Nazi racism. It is a disgrace. And he is serious about it. He believes
that theory. He has published it before and discussed it on national
television. I do not like to discuss such vile ideas. As far as I know, I am
the first person to point out in public that Morrison is a professed racist.
You and Morrison's other supporters have remained silent all these years in
the face of these abominations. How dare you call such an person
"distinguished"?
 
 
   "Sure.  I measured the effect [of HVAC]. There was an elaborate system
   that compensated for variations in room temperature. Read my paper."
 
I read it. If you need an elaborate system to cancel out the effect of HVAC,
then your signal is much too low. If you have to worry about such small
perturbations you are doing the experiment wrong.
 
 
    "In fact, I think all the positive calorimetry experiments are
    explainable by just such "systematic" error."
 
Sure you think that. You probably think you can fly, too, but thinking does
not make it so. Anyone can say "I think I can prove McKubre is wrong" but
nobody can do it. You can't, and you do not even have the guts to try. That is
why you never talk about Cravens, McKubre, Oriani, Amoco, KEK or any of the
others. Oh, you make flippant comments from time to time, but you have never
read their papers or address the technical issues in a serious, scientific
manner. When Logajan and I pointed out that you have made a gross logical
error, you dropped the subject instead of admitting you are wrong. You know as
well as I do that you cannot "explain" Cravens any more than Morrison can. He
never said a word about the Cravens lecture or the machine. You people are
masters at ducking the issues and playing "let's pretend" with water friction
and overhead lights, which are 10,000 times too small to explain anything.
 
 
     "A one watt laser shot from Mars is hard (but not impossible) while a
     one watt error is commonplace.  I think I could remind you of a similar
     error you made in the early days doing Takahashi."
 
That was one watt out of 150! That's a tiny percentage error. Cravens is one
watt excess with only a tenth-watt going in. It is a completely different
situation.
 
 
   "I remember a long conversation on the phone with Mallove.  After that he
   changed his measurement technique and the big power went away."
 
You remember nothing of the kind. I discovered the error, not you. (It was
insufficient mixing in the flow -- a problem Cravens has addressed by two
different methods.) That was not a big error. It was tiny compared to input.
 
Not only does Cravens use two methods of mixing the flow, he uses two or three
different independent measuring techniques for each parameter (power in, flow,
temperature delta T), and he calibrated even more ways than you did. He
calorimeter is far more reliable than yours ever was, and more accurate (not
precise). He is more skilled than you (or me, for that matter). You strut, you
brag, you pretend you can find some "systematic error" in his work, or in the
work of KEK or Amoco, but you never do it. You skeptics are all talk, no
action. If you could have found an error in any of these experiments, you
would have found it years ago.
 
If Morrison had spotted an error in the CETI calorimeter, he would have
plastered it all over the e-mail networks. He could not even dream up an
imaginary error like the cigarette lighter effect. If you could have found an
error at Griggs, you would have done it. You found no error. You did not even
dare to look for one! You did not even see there were dial thermometers in the
machine. You did not even bring back the data printout. You posture and brag.
You claim you will spot a systematic error someday, but someday never comes,
and the results grow stronger every year.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / John Vetrano /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 23 May 1995 17:00:20 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <REw-EYK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

 
> It is a shame the Congress does not plan to abolish the DoE altogether. If
> they got rid of all this so-called energy research, private industry would
> take over, hire the real DoE scientists (if there are any), and do a far
> better job. Naturally, nobody will ever pay a dime for any of the hot fusion
> tokamak stuff. The hot fusion scientists will be reduced to flipping burgers
> at Mac Donalds. Far better they should be doing that than stealing money from
> me for their pie-in-the-sky ripoff "tokamak" machines. Some people say it is
> shame that scientific talent goes to waste in the U.S. but I don't think so.
> Most of the scientific talent at the DoE is applied to grand larceny in which
> "scientists" spend their time figuring out new ways to steal money from the
> taxpayers for bogus "energy research" while they spread infamous lies about
> cold fusion. It would be much better for us taxpayers if those people were
> forced to do honest work instead.
>  
> It is a shame for some of the other scientists in the Government, but it is
> their fault too, in a way. The whole scientific establishment stood by for
> years defending this kind of grand larceny. Projects like the SSC, the Hubble
> telescope, and hot fusion have been overrun with corruption, rotten planning,
> inept engineering, outrageous sloppy accounting, and gutter politics. The
> scientific establishment refused to clean house. Now the Congress will do it
> instead, and it will toss out the good with the bad.
>  
> Let us hope that ITER also gets the ax soon.
>  
> - Jed


Jed,
  Just curious.  Have you ever been to a national laboratory?  Ever been
to DoE headquarters?  I know that you strongly criticize others who speak
out about subjects they have no expertise in, so I wanted to clarify this
point.  I assume that you realize that the DoE labs do much more than hot
fusion and atom smashing work.  The list of positive accomplishments by
DoE laboratories in my opinion far exceeds the inevitable cost overruns
and bad project choices that accompany any large agency or company.  Have
you read the lists of projects and project areas DoE runs, or just the
ones related to hot fusion?

  Also, do these feelings of privatization that you have extend to NASA as
well?  Do you think that the space program would have accomplished all
that it has strictly on private funding?  Since businesses are typically
unwilling to work together, it would have been a prohibitive investment
for one company to fund all of this work that has benefitted many.

  Based on this posting and others you seem to have a great contempt for
DoE scientists in general and feel that it is an "ivory tower" situation. 
However, there is a great deal of laboratory-business interaction that
occurs that you seem to be unaware of.  No, these laboratories don't
"make" things, but to think that the scientists are ignorant of the basics
of business practice is a naive generalization.  Please find out more
about the scope of DoE research, and try to keep your criticisms a bit
more specific instead of downgrading thousands of people that you have
never met.

  Sorry that this is not directly about fusion, but general, non-specific
and destructive criticism is a pet peeve of mine.

John Vetrano

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.23 / John Logajan /  Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More of Dick Blue's super remarks
Date: 23 May 1995 17:02:21 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Thus it is impossible for current to flow in and out of multiple beads
: unless the driving emf is at least twice that value, or around 3
: volts. I don't believe that Cravens is running that high a voltage.

I don't know what the Cravens ICCF5 demo unit used, but the Klein/Cravens
data published on earlier devices utilized somewhere between 5-8 volts.

The 1.48 volt requirement to get any current flowing also just barely
gets current flowing.  You actually need a significant overvoltage to
get a high current flowing. 

The best way to get to the bottom of this question is to construct
a single cell device using similar materials and then characterize
the voltage/current performance.

Then in comparison to the PPC device we could pretty much tell if there
where any "mini-cells" in electrical series.


BTW, I believe operating cells in series (unknowingly) would result
in cooler operation if there were no recombination -- since any
(V-1.48)*I correction factor would underestimate the amount of gas
produced.  However, I think Dieter worried that "bipolar electrodes"
would result in the best chance for recombination effects.

Cravens says that gas flow meters agree with expected Faraday efficiency,
so if those readings are true, this whole issue is moot.

--
 - 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:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May 24 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
