1995.05.26 / Barry Merriman /  Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: 26 May 1995 01:44:40 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

PMK, I know last week you defended the stability 
of your desired spherical form with the
superball analogy---i.e. if you poke inward on the 
surface, the system internal energy goes up and resists
the poke.

However, how do you know that you can stably achieve 
a spherical compression? The enormous heating you
anticipate depends on uniform compression in all
three dimensions---but how do you rule out that 
the PLASMAK could compress into a pancake, or more
likely, a hot dog shape (wrapped into a toroidal 
form, of course)? So, you may get compression in
only 1 or 2 dimensions and so never reach the 
enormous compression ratios you desire before the
plasma dissipates the heating (by radiation, collisons
or turbulent transport).

It seems like, if anything, your plasmak's would tend to pinch
as free plasmas are wont to do, and that sort of tendency would
defeat you.

Also, aside from the issue of how the shape deforms as it
compresses, what form of adiabatic compression do you expect to
get, i..e. for

p V^gamma = constant

what gamma do you expect?



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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege confuses electrochemistry and calorimetry
Date: 26 May 1995 01:57:47 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <xW98MWE.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> You claim you will spot a systematic error someday, but someday never comes,
> and the results grow stronger every year.
>  

I think most armchair skeptics such as myself (and probably even 
more active skeptics such as Droege and Jones) are waiting for the 
CF community to produce an experiment that they consider to be
a good representative of the CF effect. Once such 
an _internal_ consensus is reached, you will probably see another wave
of activity from skeptical observers. I recall when CF was first
announced, everyone and their mother set out to replicate the experiment.
That first round of action ended largely in dissapointment, so clearly
something was lacking at the time. I also recall Feynman once said 
that a (good) experimentalist is best qualified to debug 
their own experiments, as only they understand it in enough detail. 

So, when Cravens or whoever has a nice, robust experiment---say 
10 watts in, 100 watts out, reliably, I'm sure the skeptics will
quit talking and start acting. Until that time, we're waiting...


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / David Cook /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
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: 26 May 1995 02:30:42 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

>The Relativists also have a problem: "What came before the Big Bang?"

We should get something straight;  Relativists are physicists study
gravitation.  They may not work on cosmology, and are not necessarily
advocates of any particular cosmogony if they do.

Dave Cook 

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: 26 May 1995 03:24:58 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: ... but how do you rule out that the PLASMAK could compress into
: a pancake, or more likely, a hot dog shape (wrapped into a toroidal 
: form, of course)?

Well, let me ask back, why would atmospheric pressure just happen to
be the magical pressure at which a spherical shape comes into being?
(aka ball lightning.)

Smaller BL's ought to be more oblate/prolate if there is a relationship 
between shape, electro-magnetic energy storage magnitude, and (fixed)
atmospheric pressure.

Is there a difference in shape between small and large BL's?  Ought
this not indicate things to come at higher pressures?

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 23:57:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>Inmates of USA seem to have the idea that business operates on a completely
>logical basis, and doesn't make mistakes. Try to get the book "The Carpet
 
That is nonsense. Every businessman knows that businesses can easily become
as screwed up as the worst government agencies. But, when that happens,
the market clobbers the business, it goes bankrupt, and healthy organizations
take over instead. Competition ensures that pathological behavior is
punished and cut short. There is no competition in government. No market
discipline. That is the only difference. Human nature is the same, people are
the same. When corporations grow too large and powerful in violation of
anti-trust laws, they begin acting the same as government agencies, with
exactly the same types of dysfunctional, pathological behavior. That is why
we must have a strong government able to cut them into chunks and revitalize
them. The government dismantled AT&T -- it cut it into many smaller
competing telephone companies. Their agreggate income is now *far greater*
than the original unified AT&T, and telephone rates have dropped 70%. The
best thing that ever happened to AT&T was Judge Green's ruling cutting it
into pieces.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / mitchell swartz /  Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:55:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <pE0dU4v.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Jed Rothwell ( jedrothwell@delphi.com ) writes:
 
"That is nonsense. Every businessman knows that businesses can easily become
as screwed up as the worst government agencies. But, when that happens,
the market clobbers the business, it goes bankrupt, and healthy organizations
take over instead. Competition ensures that pathological behavior is
punished and cut short. There is no competition in government. No market
discipline. That is the only difference. Human nature is the same, people are
the same. When corporations grow too large and powerful in violation of
anti-trust laws, they begin acting the same as government agencies, with
exactly the same types of dysfunctional, pathological behavior. That is why
we must have a strong government able to cut them into chunks and revitalize
them. The government dismantled AT&T -- it cut it into many smaller
competing telephone companies. Their agreggate income is now *far greater*
than the original unified AT&T, and telephone rates have dropped 70%. The
best thing that ever happened to AT&T was Judge Green's ruling cutting it
into pieces."

  That doesnt mean that monopolies don't have their time.  NASA
at one time had the prowess to keep us on the moon albeit for
a blink.   Columbus.     Many technologic breakthroughs.
   The post office and AT&T did perform a service until their
petrification during initial (and present for the former) monopoly.

  "While competition cannot be created by statutory enactment,
    it can in large measure be revived by changing the laws
     and forbidding the practices that killed it, 
     and by enacting laws that will give it heart and occasion again.
     We can arrest and prevent monopoly."
             [Woodrow Wilson  8/7/1912]

 Also, IMHO  it would be as much a shame if hot fusion is gutted as it is
that cold fusion is presently, and has been, savaged.   The solutions
to fusion may remain interdisciplinary.

  BTW  thanks for the cartoon Jed.   :-)

  - Mitchell

 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 26 May 1995 05:07:40 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <1995May24.163736.2250@plasma.byu.edu>  writes:

> How about it, Tom?  Any comments from those on s.p.f. who contributed to the 
> previous exposee?   At least we have a claim of a working (light) water  
heater,
> available for purchase.  Makes for a definitive test, one supposes.  And  
cheap,
> too. 


I second that---I'd be willing to donate money to a fund to buy 
one of these units (12kW would be fine); hell, for $260 I'd
buy the whole thing, if someone would be willing to test the
electric power in:heated water power out ratio.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 26 May 1995 05:28:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: When corporations grow too large and powerful in violation of
: anti-trust laws, they begin acting the same as government agencies, with
: exactly the same types of dysfunctional, pathological behavior. That is why
: we must have a strong government able to cut them into chunks and revitalize
: them.

This is common (private) monopoly theory -- which happens to be wrong. 

One of the biggest monopoly cases of all time was Standard Oil.  At its
peak it held an 80% share of the kerosene market.  It had a huge captial
investment in kerosene production -- but for the decade just preceeding
the mandated breakup, the market had increasingly shifted to the use
of other more useful fuels.  Standard Oil was losing market share on
its own for over a decade without need of government intervention.

The price of kerosene continually declined from the day Standard Oil
began producing it until Standard Oil was divested. 

So Standard Oil was a study in the successful search for efficiency,
but it had no special power (contrary to the current monopoly myth)
to prevent the market from shifting to newer better energy forms --
otherwise it would have never let itself suffer through a decade long
market share loss.

Not only is monopoly power (in the private sphere) a myth, increasing
market share is actually a vulnerability.  Take a company with a
billion dollars in reserve, 90% share of the market, versus a company
with 110 million dollars in reserve and 10% share of the market.

They are on an equal footing in a price war.  Now that's leverage!!!

If BigCo sells each item at $1 loss, and LittleCo also sells each
item at a $1 loss, since BigCo sells nine items to each one item of
LittleCo (since they have a 90/10 market share) BigCo will lose money 
nine times as fast as LittleCo and they will go broke at the same
instant.

Now if LittleCo is more efficient than BigCo, which is very common
in such situations, LittleCo will lose less on each sale than BigCo
even at an equal price, so BigCo will run out of money first.

Every BigCo out there knows it has inverse leverage with size and that
is why BigCo's avoid price wars with LittleCo's like the plague --
they know who is going to do who the most damage.


More LittleCo's have been put out of business by BigGov than
all the BigCo's combined.  BigGov is a far worse disease than BigCo.
If you are worried about the health of LittleCo, stomp out BigGov,
since tough LittleCo can easily handle flabby BigCo on its own.


: The government dismantled AT&T ...

At&T was a hybrid public/private institution with much government regulation
protecting it from competition.  This isn't a particularly illuminating
case in the study of the rise and fall of private monopoly.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Kondis /  Condensed matter/solid state newsgroup.
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Condensed matter/solid state newsgroup.
Date: 26 May 95 07:53:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

I hope everyone has voted for sci.physics.cond-matter.  If you haven't 
yet, you can reply (not followup) to this article (body and subject are 
ignored) and a Call For Votes, containing a Ballot and voting 
instructions, will be sent to your e-mail account.  Voting deadline is 
Monday, May 29.

Thanks!
...John

    .   |     . |                      .     .   | |             |  .
___oooooOOOOooooOoooooooo_____________ooooooOOOOOOOOOoo______ooooOOooooo__
John Kondis        University of California, Irvine        jkondis@uci.edu
God made the bulk; surfaces were invented by the devil.  -- Wolfgang Pauli

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:22:43 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 24 May 1995, John Logajan wrote:

> Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
> : Inmates of USA seem to have the idea that business operates on a completely
> : logical basis, and doesn't make mistakes....  Don't tell me that business
> : has no momentum.
> 
> Well I can't speak for all of the inmates, but many of us recognize the
> superiority of private versus public business *without* needing to assert
> that private business is always right.  The distinction is that as often
> as private business is wrong, public business is wrong far more often.
> 
> Public businesses start out, just as private businesses do, on an uncertain
> path.  But the feedback mechanism for public businesses is totally
> screwed up.  It is massively delayed, politicized, unanswerable to its
> direct customers, is never expected to show a profit or loss statement,
> etc etc etc.
> 
> Add to that the coercive nature of tax collection and you have a real
> recipe for a ethical and practical nightmare.

OK, maybe I should apologise for "inmates"; I was trying to be funny but I
don't always flag my jokes properly. I know I oversimplified the issue, in
response to the very USAmerican oversimplification that says that private
enterprise can handle everything better than public. This, I believe, is an
ideology, rather than common sense. Hence that word, because this is an
especially USAmerican ideology (it is present elsewhere as well, of course).

I don't deny that private enterprise can do some things better than public.
What I deny is that it can do ALL things better. There are some things, that
one can argue need doing, that would never be done by private enterprise.
Now I happen to believe that hot fusion is indeed a giant waste of money;
But let's suppose that some giant project exists, such as
hot fusion, with real benefits in sight, but not before maybe 50 years,
and a lot of money spent. Who should do it? Mankind, or if you prefer, the
USA, would benefit enormously in 50 years, but private enterprise would not
care for such a time scale. At least a large proportion of hot fusion workers
must see that program as fitting into this category. I don't believe they are
most of them plotting a comfortable life for themselves, knowing it will
never pay off.
Then there are other activities, perhaps more debatable. In Europe, culture
tends to be publically subsidised... I am not sure what I think about this,
but one argument is that in that way, even poorer people can afford to go to
the opera etc. How about astronomy? Do we need to know all about that stuff?
Private enterprise wouldn't touch it, no profit. How about street cleaning?
Do you want garbage lying around? Schools? I believe that there are both
moral and practical arguments for free schooling, run publically.

What do cold fusion want? They have asked for government money; now some of
them at least seem to say they want everything private. Which is it?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Dieter Britz /  The farce of farce
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Originally-From: Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@IntNet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The farce of farce
Subject: post answer
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 11:33:53 GMT
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:49:06 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Further to my postings about how to persuade people like Bryan Wallace not
to put us (i.e. spf) into his cross-post list: I have emailed him about this,
and one of his replies is seen below; I have his permission to reproduce it
here.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:49:06 -0400 (EDT)
Originally-From: Bryan Wallace <wallaceb@IntNet.net>
To: britz@kemi.aau.dk
Subject: post answer

Dieter,

   Since may 3, 1995 58 articles have been posted to my thread in 
sci.physics.fusion, in contrast during the same period 102 articles have 
been posted to sci.research.  I started with over 200 newsgroups and have 
reduced it to 14 groups that have given the best response.  My 
correspondence tends to indicate that the same people interested in cold 
fusion are also interested in my book.

Bryan
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have asked him how he knows what group a given reply comes from. I think
he is reasonable about this and will at least consider argument. No chance
of that, I take it, with AP or McElwaine.

However, I disagree with him here; none of the people who reply to Farce
are normal posters to spf, at least not lately - maybe there have been some.
That would imply, as I said before, that there are people reading this group
just to read and reply to Farce postings; I doubt that.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Dieter Britz /  Bead cells (Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions)
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bead cells (Re: More of Dick Blue's super questions)
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 13:54:12 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Thu, 25 May 1995, Richard A Blue wrote:

> Then we come to the subject of voltage, current, and Faraday
> efficiency.  Some have said the voltage was probably too
> low for multicell operation in the Cravens device.  However,
> I was going on the information given here that said the
> "cell" voltage was 5-8 volts.  That seems high enough for
> me to not rule out 2 or 3 cells in series.  Of course the
> current won't be very high, or so we are told.  Let's see
> this operates at input power of 0.3 watts so the current
> is....?  Is that a "high current density" situation when
> the large surface area is considered?

You could conceivably get a few beads that happen not to be in electrical
contact with the others, and you would then have a few bipolar cells. But...

> Next we come to the information concerning the measurement
> of the "expected" Faraday efficiency.  John Logajan provides
> this information, but I am not sure I agree with John's
> interpretation.  If we have multiple cells in series instead
> of a single cell does not that make it possible to evolve
> more gas than the correct amount for a single cell?  Of course
> it only this correct amount is observed that would confirm
> the notion that this is a single cell unless something else
> is going on.

If you were to get more gas out than is equivalent to the number of
Coulombs you shove into the cell at one end and pull out the other, then
you would be getting some "free-lunch" electrolysis, i.e. you would break up
some water without applying current. This cannot be done. So the answer is
no, the total amount of gas is independent of the cell geometry.
 
> So my current super question is how do you rule out the
> possibility of multiple cells producing excess gas (burp!)
> which then gets lost through recombination.  Recombination -
> you all remember that old chestnut.  Of course the next
> question will be, "What difference does it make?"

I don't think it makes any difference, and I am sorry if the continued
discussion of bipolar cells seems to give the impression that it may. My
original explanation of bipolar cells was only a bit of pedantry on my
part, to complete the picture of what CAN happen in a cell full of coated
beads.

I happen to have had #9 of 'Cold Fusion' in my hands, and so I saw a piccie
of this cell. There is a cathode plate at the bottom of a heap of coated
beads. This is topped with uncoated, i.e. insulating, beads, and the anode
plate (or mesh) pushes down on that layer. The best way to look at this cell
is as a large-area cathode, a cathode extended a long way into the
cell by means of all those beads. The only cathodic reaction possible is 
hydrogen evolution (plus the production of OH- ions). Forget bipolar effects.
Recombination is only possible at the anode mesh. We are told that the
amount of gas coming out is about right, so presumably there is no 
significant recombination.
Actually, one could visualise oxidation of evolved hydrogen at the anode
mesh; this cell would certainly favour that. Again, this would reduce the
amount of gas evolved, which does not happen, it seems.

About the OH- produced: at the anode OH- ions are used up. This happens in
all these alkaline water electrolysis cells. Normally, convection evens
things out again, but here, it can't. That raises the interesting spectre
of temperature gradients. Heat will not be dispersed either. If I were doing
this, I would have a lot of temperature sensors scattered through the bed.

We do have to take someone's word on the gas evolved, and I have no idea how
reliable that is. There were claims of this sort for the Mills cell, too, and
Steve Jones has now demonstrated pretty well that recombination plays a huge
part in that cell, after all (this paper, in J. Phys. Chem., will soon appear
as an abstract in an Update). So, I don't know. Science, when done by
interested parties that stand to gain, tends to be less honest and more
sparing with information than otherwise.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 13:57:27 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 25 May 1995, Tom Droege wrote:

> In article <3q0tnp$aa0@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) says:
> >
> >jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
> >: > prices start at US$260 for the 12 KW units, in quantity. I do not know the
> >: > cost of additional hardware like the pumps, control units and heat
> >: > exchangers.
> >
> >: Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
> >: Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed
> >: calls them.
> >
> >I'd like to nominate Scott Little as a recipient, but a major problem
> >is actually taking possession of a device.  I think the $260 price
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I second the nomination of Scott Little as the tester of the Russian 
> device.  I figure I need to get rid of the money by December 31 or I
> will have a tax problem.  
> 
> Looks like Visor@globalcom.ne will figure out how to get it into the
> country for us. 
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

Remember that all this month, I have been collecting votes on what to do
with the $700; I take this recent spate of suggestions as more votes. OK?
In a few days, I'll report the result. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / 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: 26 May 1995 09:20:40 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

The "The Farce of Physics" thread that I started November 1994 plus several
short related threads has now reached a total of 489 posts by 182 people in 14
newsgroups that have shown an interest in it by postings, correspondence, book
requests, etc.  The thread is devoted to the topics, information, and
arguments in my free general interest electronic book by the same name, as
well as related current information and arguments discussing the problems in
modern physics.
   My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by
using Gopher and World Wide Web and will be available from Project Gutenberg
archives and on their CDROM's.  The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be
obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in
a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the
system will send you the uncompressed text.  If you use a graphics interface
to ftp the book, like that used by America Online, you may get a file called
farce.txt that is still in a compressed form.  You can ftp a software package
for the PC called gzip124.zip from ftp.aol.com in the directory
/pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the book after you rename it
farce.gz.  Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will also
uncompress the .gz format.  You can also ftp the book in an uncompressed form
from my Internet service provider at ftp.intnet.net in the directory
/pub/BOOKS/Wallace in which I plan to add GIF picture files of events and
people in the book as well as WordPerfect 5.1 computer files with enclosed
graphics of reprints of papers I've published over the years.  If you have
email but not ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a
size limit on your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being
55KB for Chapter 3.  If you don't have access to the Internet but have a
computer with a modem, you can download the book from the Bulletin Board
"SIRIUS CONNECTION" in Ontario Canada.  The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone
lines are 705-737-0728 and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using
ANSI or RIP graphics, then log to the BROWSE file library and download the
file FARCE.TXT.  The stats from EU Net show a peek of 2013 copies sent by ftp
November 1994 and I've sent out at least 6000 copies of the book by email over
the past few years.  There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or
paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so
if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should be able to find
someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book.  A
paperback non-profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus postage and
handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will post
information on it on this thread when I have it.  The current plan is to
publish up to one million copies of the first edition if there is enough
demand for it.  The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is
available via:

URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html

   Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in
large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International
Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second
Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia.  Neil Munch was a
participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact
for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in
the Fall of 1996.  You can reach Neil at his email address:

70047.2123@compuserve.com

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Gary Steckly /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 13:34:47 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3q0tnp$aa0@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
>From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
>Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
>Date: 25 May 1995 03:32:09 GMT

>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
>: > prices start at US$260 for the 12 KW units, in quantity. I do not know the
>: > cost of additional hardware like the pumps, control units and heat
>: > exchangers.

>: Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
>: Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed
>: calls them.

>I'd like to nominate Scott Little as a recipient, but a major problem
>is actually taking possession of a device.  I think the $260 price
>belies the actual cost of getting a device in hand.  And then you have
>to buy the pumps etc.  A device capable of giving 12KW out (assuming
>a factor of x3 gain) is going to require 4KW of pumping power, or
>about 5-6 HP (my guess.)

You can throw my share of the remaining Droege funds toward this one too.  I 
also second Johns nomination of Scott Little as official tester, assuming he 
is willing.

Regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 15:03:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As I recall the discussion of the Cravens demo device at ICCF5 started
with some assertions that this provided a clearcut, robust proof of
the production of excess heat in an H2O electrolysis system.  However,
when questions are raised concerning the experimental details we hear
the old familiar refrain that setting up a working cell requires the
careful work of highly skilled experts so that ordinary bumbling experimenters
are not likely to be successful in any attempt at replication.  There
may even be a few proprietary secrets involved in making one of these
cells work.  You will note that any details of the specific conditions
that must be met for a working cell is generally missing from the discussion.
Data which describes a non-working "blank" that matches a working cell in
all but one significant detail is never mentioned.  Nothing that shows
how the effect can be turned on and off or scaled up or down in magnitude
has been mentioned.  Cold fusion, as we all have been informed, is not
proportional to anything.

So we come to questions concerning a "theory" for the operation of
the Cravens device.  For years we have been told CF was a form of
deuteron fusion which mysteriously produces helium but little else.
The Cravens device does not appear to require any deuterium.  For
years we have been told that condensed matter phenomena in a crystal
lattice were playing a key role in cold fusion, but the Cravens device
uses thin films of uncertain characterization so I doubt the lattice
is doing anything magical.  At least there is no evidence to support
that notion.  For years we have been told that the solid-state magic
turns on only at high loadings and that is achieved only at higher
current densities, but I don't think the Cravens device supports that
notion either.

Basically the Cravens device demonstrates "excess heat" under conditions
that have no obvious connection to any other positive cold fusion result.
In that regard it joins a long succession of other experiments that show
the same pathology.

Until there is a "theory" for the process that produces the excess heat,
and that theory has been confirmed by some further observations such as
the detection of reaction products the Cravens experiment has done nothing
to further progress in CF investigations.  In fact it is remarkably similar
in character to the unsubstantiated, unreplicated experiments that have
been typical of CF from the beginning.

As an aside, if critical remarks such as this is keeping cold fusion
investigators from participation in this sort of discussion I wonder
what sort of coddling they expect.  Is everyone who floats some half-baked
notion that is supposed to revolutionize science or technology to be
given some special consideration just because they make such claims?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: 26 May 1995 10:59:07 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3q3ot4$epi@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>: When corporations grow too large and powerful in violation of
>: anti-trust laws, they begin acting the same as government agencies, with
>: exactly the same types of dysfunctional, pathological behavior. That is why
>: we must have a strong government able to cut them into chunks and revitalize
>: them.
>
>This is common (private) monopoly theory -- which happens to be wrong. 
>
>One of the biggest monopoly cases of all time was Standard Oil....
>
>The price of kerosene continually declined from the day Standard Oil
>began producing it until Standard Oil was divested. 
>
>Not only is monopoly power (in the private sphere) a myth, increasing
>market share is actually a vulnerability.  Take a company with a
>billion dollars in reserve, 90% share of the market, versus a company
>with 110 million dollars in reserve and 10% share of the market.
>
>They are on an equal footing in a price war.  Now that's leverage!!!

Only if there costs of production are equivalent.

>
>If BigCo sells each item at $1 loss, and LittleCo also sells each
>item at a $1 loss, since BigCo sells nine items to each one item of
>LittleCo (since they have a 90/10 market share) BigCo will lose money 
>nine times as fast as LittleCo and they will go broke at the same
>instant.

There is an unspoken assumption that must be examined on a case by
case basis. That is what is the cost of production of both firms. 
Specifically, what are the economies (or inverse economies) of scale?

Suppose that because BigCo is such a large customer that it can wrangle
a bulk deal with suppliers that LittleCo can't. Suppose this deal will
lower their cost by $2 / item. Then BigCo can cut prices to the point
that they get 1$/item profit while LittleCo must sell at a loss. Who's
gettin squeezed now? 

Okay, so the Monopoly apologists then say that this is just a case of
the more efficient company winning in the market (a debatable
proposition since this efficiency is a simple "efficiency of size" and
is independant of successful business management). But consider, for a
minute, the more common case of predatory competition where BigCo has
9 market channels (such as geographical areas or distributor networks)
and only competes with LittleCo in one of these channels. Then even
supposing your even cost assumption, BigCo could sell for $1 loss in
the channel where it competes with LittleCo and charge whatever it
likes, without regard to competition in the other 8 channels. It can
concentrate its muscle one by one to destroy its competiitors. Note,
BigCo can kill LittleCo even if LittleCo is the MORE efficient
producer. Read Yergin's book to see some example of Standard Oil's use
of this strategy. Certainly there is some need to curb this type of
monopoly behavior don't you think John?

The crux of the question is where does efficient come from. Does it
come from economies of scale or does it come from being nimble in the
marketplace. The former would give BigCo the edge while the later tilts
to LittleCo.

These are important issues to consider with the evolving  computer
network, telephone, cable, software industries. For a given product
line where is the reward? In terms of bandwidth it seems that there is a great
economy of scale so we should be careful how we structure competition
between telco's, cableco's, Internet Backbone providers, etc. On the
other hand, most steller software successes seem to come from the garage.
So maybe Microsoft (as a software publisher) is one of John's dinosaurs.
Any comments?

-john .w cobb
-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / W Weingarten /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 26 May 1995 18:50:50 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <gsteckly.128.0009A0C3@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) wrote:
> 
> In article <3q0tnp$aa0@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> >From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
> >Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
> >Date: 25 May 1995 03:32:09 GMT
> 
> >jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
> >: > prices start at US$260 for the 12 KW units, in quantity. I do not know the
> >: > cost of additional hardware like the pumps, control units and heat
> >: > exchangers.
> 
> >: Suggest that the funds remaining from Tom Droege's inspection of the
> >: Griggs device be used now to purchase one of these "CF heaters" as Jed
> >: calls them.
> 
> >I'd like to nominate Scott Little as a recipient, but a major problem
> >is actually taking possession of a device.  I think the $260 price
> >belies the actual cost of getting a device in hand.  And then you have
> >to buy the pumps etc.  A device capable of giving 12KW out (assuming
> >a factor of x3 gain) is going to require 4KW of pumping power, or
> >about 5-6 HP (my guess.)
> 
> You can throw my share of the remaining Droege funds toward this one too.  I 
> also second Johns nomination of Scott Little as official tester, assuming he 
> is willing.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gary
I agree with this plan, Warren Weingarten
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: 26 May 1995 18:52:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: As I recall the discussion of the Cravens demo device at ICCF5 started
: with some assertions that this provided a clearcut, robust proof of
: the production of excess heat in an H2O electrolysis system.

Well as an active party in discussing the PPC device, I never asserted
that it was a robust proof.  Rather, I suggested that there was no
obvious experimental flaw that would account for the excess measured
heat.  I cannot speak to the characterizations of others.

I'm still interested in finding the experimental flaw.  I examine the
suggested flaws and see if they are consistent with the available data.
If not, then they don't really apply.

The only suggestion I've seen so far that can account for a several day
one watt continuous output would be some "burning" of the electrolyte,
but the chemical basis of that burning is as yet unknown.  And it can't
account for weeks and weeks of energy output.


: There may even be a few proprietary secrets involved in making one of
: these cells work.

I haven't heard that claim.  Patterson has patents issued so has no
need to keep proprietary secrets.  If the "secrets" hold the key,
then his patents are worthless protections.  So he has no motivation
to keep proprietary secrets and a motivation to fully disclose in
the patents.


: You will note that any details of the specific conditions
: that must be met for a working cell is generally missing from the discussion.

The exact protocols are published in at least two magazines.  The patents
describing the device are availabe from the patent office.


: Data which describes a non-working "blank" that matches a working cell in
: all but one significant detail is never mentioned.

Calibration using an internal resistive heater is described.


: Nothing that shows how the effect can be turned on and off or scaled up
: or down in magnitude has been mentioned.

Do you mean more effect per individual microsphere?  Indeed, that
might not be yet known.


: Cold fusion, as we all have been informed, is not proportional to anything.

Cold fusion or whatever is going on may or may not be proportional to the
applied electrolysis current -- it seems not to be.  But CF (or whatever)
may be proportional to *something.*


: So we come to questions concerning a "theory" for the operation of
: the Cravens device.

It's really a Patterson device ... but yeah, the theory is not there
yet, at least to my satisfaction.  Cravens himself says he doesn't buy
into a particular theory yet.  I don't know about Patterson.


: For years we have been told CF was a form of
: deuteron fusion which mysteriously produces helium but little else.

By some people. Others have suggested other theories.  I haven't seen
a theory that you could say was the common theory of all investigators
into the field, so you may be building a strawman here.


: the Cravens device uses thin films of uncertain characterization

I'm not sure what you mean.  The dimension of the thin films is known.
The composition is known (polystrene beads, a flash coating of Cu as
a starting base, Ni, Pd, and Ni.  The three outer metal layers being
on the order of a micron thick.)  [Patterson device]


: Basically the Cravens device demonstrates "excess heat" under conditions
: that have no obvious connection to any other positive cold fusion result.

Actually, there seems to be an obvious link to the Ni lightwater work of
Mills et al. [Patterson device]


: Until there is a "theory" for the process that produces the excess heat,
: and that theory has been confirmed by some further observations such as
: the detection of reaction products the Cravens experiment has done nothing
: to further progress in CF investigations.

No, you're making an assertion that cannot be supported by logic --
the observation of reality does not require a theoretical understanding
of the basis of that reality.

An odd characteristic of history is that once an observation is validated
to the satisfaction of most people, all avenues of investigation into
that observation become, retrospectively, furtherments of progress.

Time will (may) tell.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Logajan's comments on competition
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logajan's comments on competition
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 16:15:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

It is annoying how slow these messages come through the net. I would like make
a few comments on jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)'s statements about
competition. I wrote:
 
     "When corporations grow too large and powerful in violation of
     anti-trust laws, they begin acting the same as government agencies, with
     exactly the same types of dysfunctional, pathological behavior. . . .
 
Logajan replied:
 
     "This is common (private) monopoly theory -- which happens to be wrong.
 
     One of the biggest monopoly cases of all time was Standard Oil.  At its
     peak it held an 80% share of the kerosene market.  It had a huge capital
     investment in kerosene production -- but for the decade just preceding
     the mandated breakup, the market had increasingly shifted to the use of
     other more useful fuels.  Standard Oil was losing market share on its
     own for over a decade without need of government intervention."
 
There is no contradiction here. I did not say that private monopoly is good
for the corporation that has the monopoly ("BigCo"). That is an obsolete,
over-simplified model. Often the monopoly is as bad for BigCo as everyone
else. When Standard Oil gradually lost market share for over a decade, that
was dysfunctional and pathological. Just what I meant! In modern times, IBM
did the same thing because it got so big, the managers became sheltered from
market forces. IBM won the big anti-trust suit the same year AT&T lost theirs.
That is a shame for the stockholders, customers and employees of IBM. If it
had lost, it would have been broken up, and the individual small companies
that emerged would have been more dynamic than the dinosaur that remains. The
aggregate stock value would have gone up. They spun off Lexmark, which I
believe is doing well.
 
I think many people would agree that Microsoft has now grown too big for its
own good. If I was B.G. I would break it up. He would get to keep the same
percent of stock he now owns, but it would be bet on lottsa little horses
instead of just one. I doubt he would do it. I gather B.G. is not the kinda
guy who likes to give up control.
 
 
     "Not only is monopoly power (in the private sphere) a myth, increasing
     market share is actually a vulnerability."
 
My point exactly. Monopoly is not power, it is a burden on everyone. However,
it can and often is used as a club to hurt competition. That hurts BigCo and
everyone else too; it depresses the entire market. IBM used to lord over
others. The testimony during the anti-trust case revealed how much damage IBM
did to the Seven Dwarfs, almost inadvertently. Many MIS administrators did not
even bother to get estimates from competing companies. When the president of
NCR saw that, he called the sales staff together and read the riot act.
 
 
     At&T was a hybrid public/private institution with much government
     regulation protecting it from competition.  This isn't a particularly
     illuminating case in the study of the rise and fall of private
     monopoly."
 
I disagree. It is a textbook case. It is true that the historic origin of this
monopoly was sorta peculiar (okay, make that: very peculiar), but the break up
was a textbook example of the benefits of antitrust enforcement.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  More insanity from Richard Blue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More insanity from Richard Blue
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 17:11:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue), who has not got a clue, writes:
 
     "As I recall the discussion of the Cravens demo device at ICCF5 started
     with some assertions that this provided a clearcut, robust proof of the
     production of excess heat in an H2O electrolysis system."
 
Exactly right! A miracle. He understands. But wait, the lunacy soon kicks in.
 
 
     "However, when questions are raised concerning the experimental details
     we hear the old familiar refrain that setting up a working cell requires
     the careful work of highly skilled experts so that ordinary bumbling
     experimenters are not likely to be successful in any attempt at
     replication."
 
Exactly right again! He has the premises nailed.
 
 
     "There may even be a few proprietary secrets involved in making one of
     these cells work."
 
Of course there are!
 
 
     "You will note that any details of the specific conditions that must be
     met for a working cell is generally missing from the discussion."
 
Naturally. Yes. CETI is in business to make money.
 
 
     "Data which describes a non-working "blank" that matches a working cell
     in all but one significant detail is never mentioned.
 
Oops. Incorrect. They use thin film gold, as they said in their documentation
and as I reported. Too bad Dick Blue is incapable of reading original source
material.
 
 
     "Nothing that shows how the effect can be turned on and off or scaled up
     or down in magnitude has been mentioned."
 
Yup.
 
 
     "Cold fusion, as we all have been informed, is not proportional to
     anything."
 
Incorrect, it is proportional to the nuclear-active state established in the
lattice. That state is not directly proportional to input power, for obvious
reasons.
 
. . . and bla, bla, bla, ending up this absurdity: "the Cravens experiment has
done nothing to further progress in CF investigations."
 
 
Now then, what does all this insane nonsense add up to? What is Dick trying to
tell us? What picture emerges? He has the following lunatic vision:
 
1. CF is supposed to be easy. Anyone should be able to replicate it. Just
follow some "recipe" or other. God only knows where Dick got the idea that ANY
industrial product is easy to replicate. Not from observations of the real
world, that's for sure. Looking around the room here where I sit, I spot a
late model computer with a CPU in it that only Intel can replicate, a scanner
and a printer with documentation so gorgeous and performance so rock solid
that only Hewlett Packard could ever make them, and a fax machine that breaks
so often and screws up in so many ways that it must have taken an evil genius
inventor to come up with it. There are dozens of items here that only an
expert could replicate. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find even one
industrial product that Dick Blue could replicate in three months of hard
work, starting from scratch. Maybe the coffee pot.
 
2. Dick apparently believes that Patterson should publish everything he knows
on Internet. Just for the fun of it. It may have taken many years, and perhaps
millions of dollars for him to gain this knowledge, but he should just hand it
out to anyone who asks. Yes! Sure! Why not? And the banks should give away
money to anyone walks in off the street. Restaurants should hand out food for
free. Auto dealers should let anyone who wants a car to drive off into the
sunset. No need to pay! Just give it away.
 
Yes, this is charming, utopian vision. Kind of like Marx (Groucho, or maybe
Harpo). Anyone who glances at a Pentium processor instantly sees how to
replicate it. You look into it with X-Ray vision. No need for experience. No
need to read the technical literature. Never been to the factory? So what! You
putter around at home and figure it out. Why, Dick Blue could knock out a
Pentium over the weekend if he put his mind to it. He could make a tokamak
reactor in a week too, out of spare parts, but that would spoil the fun for
the folks at PPPL. Anyone can do any technology. It is intuitively obvious.
You read a few messages from Jed and some guesses by Dieter and viola -- you
automatically know everything the Patterson has learned in five years of mind
bending lab work and 40 years of surface chemistry. Sure! Everything works
that way! And when you want a new car you just walk into a dealership and take
one. Why pay? What's money for? Who needs it?
 
Ah, this is a lovely vision of a never-never-land world. But let's face it: it
is LUNACY. 100%, unadulterated, stark staring cra-zee.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Logajan's comments on competition
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's comments on competition
Date: 26 May 1995 21:53:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I'd like to continue this debate, as I have plenty more points to make
and assertions to refute, but I suppose this tangent has grown far
afield of the topic of this group, so my previous post will have to
stand as my last word on the topic -- except that there are other
sources out there -- such as D.T. Armentano's "The Myths of Antitrust"
which studied the realities and rhetoric of all the major US anti-trust
cases.

--
 - 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:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.27 / Joshua Halpern /  Zr, Hf reactions with N2
     
Originally-From: jbh@news.cldc.howard.edu (Joshua B. Halpern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zr, Hf reactions with N2
Date: 27 May 1995 01:03:59 GMT
Organization: Howard University, Computer Learning & Design Center

Hi,

Can anyone give me information about hafnium or zirconium reactions
with nitrogen.  (I assume that there are some nuclear engineering
types on this list who have a lot of experience with zirconium)
Please reply to me directly as I do not scan this list often.

Thanks
Josh Halpern

PS I am especially interested in what happens at high temperatures

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjbh cudfnJoshua cudlnHalpern cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May 27 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
