1995.05.31 / Earle Williams /  Re: me on TV in Boston WCVB
     
Originally-From: williams@ibmaa-anc.usbm.gov (Earle Williams)
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, 31 May 1995 09:19:08 -900
Organization: U.S. Bureau of Mines

In article <3qga7d$njl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
: In article <3qd7f6$4kt@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
: fin@maths.tcd.ie (Fionn Quinlan) writes:
: 
: > The  universe is an atom thoery is not very new.I read a story by Asimov
: > or Heinlein about space explorers who went beyond the edge of the universe
: > (don't ask me how) and observed an amoeba like organism crawling.
: > Still the exactness is well thought up and I believe you may not be far from
: > the truth.
: 
:   Sorry, and I do not want to sound harsh in my explanation but you do
: not understand the theory yet. It may sound harsh because it aggravates
[snip]
:    But, in either of these two cases, none says the Atom Totality
: Whole. For, it is very obvious to anyone that should they have thought
: the idea, then they would have tried to figure out which chemical
: element specifically was the Atom Whole that we are living in. Does
: Lemaitre or Sagan ever say Hydrogen Atom Totality or Uranium Atom
: Totality, hell no. As I repeat, noone in the world had the idea of Atom
: Totality Whole before me. But, as the theory spreads and grows
: stronger, there will be I suspect many who will try to steal it from
: me. They will try to say that within their dumb notes or notebook which
: was never published and where they post-written and filled their
: notebook with my ideas, just to try to steal it from me.
: 
Rest assured, oh imaginative one, there's no scientist that will steal your 
theory.  Fellow crackpot philosopher magalomaniacs might, but no one who 
professes to follow the scientific method of investigating the 
universe/multiverse/atom would dream of stealing your intellectual
stillbirth^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbrainchild.
-- 
============================================================================
Earle M. Williams
  - Geophysicist by training, Mining Engineer by profession
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center
All standard disclaimers apply...
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenwilliams cudfnEarle cudlnWilliams cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 17:43:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Arnie Frisch <arnief@wu.cse.tek.com> writes:
 
>However, when everything turns to ----, and nothing we do seems to
>help, and it takes eight years to make NO PROGRESS, and we're still
>plugging away - then I think it's time to question our sanity.
 
You are incorrect. You think that there has been no progress in CF, but
if you examine the literature, you will see that you are wrong. Read Storms,
or compare results from E-Quest or Cravens/CETI or Arata & Zhang. You will
that gigantic progress has been made. A few years ago, only a fraction
of cathodes worked. The ones that failed were examined post mortem and
many problems were found. They would be swollen, cracked, contaminated,
and even melted and vaporized in some cases (particularly with E-Quest).
CETI had trouble with beads fracturing and cracking because of the
extreme temperature and pressure changes. All these problems and many
others have now been solved. A few years ago, we were lucky if a cell
produced 200 milliwatts intermittantly, representing only 20% xcess.
Now we have cells that routinely produce 300 watts, and they *always turn on*
a fraction of a second after the ultrasound starts (E-Quest). CETI's
cells always turn on after 10 or 20 minutes, and they produce up to
400% excess.
 
You claim there has been "NO PROGRESS." But just because you type those
words on your computer, that does not make what you say the truth. If you
examine experimental results objectively, and you compare the situation
a few years ago to the present, and you talk to people like Patterson
who have solved dozens of critical material scienced problems, then you will
see that you are wrong. Just typing something over and over agian does
not make it true. There are facts in the real world; test results; patents;
and independent evaluations of machines that prove beyond any doubt the
claims are real. An assertion from you in capital letters does not disprove
any of these facts.
 
The problems of CF are being solved by material science experts like Storms
and Cravens. It is applied solid state physics, not theoretical physics.
When you find out how to keep the material from crumbling, cracking and
self desctructing, then you can make a cell that turns on quickly and
stays hot indefinitely -- thousands, hundreds of thousands and then millions
of times longer than any chemical cell ever could. You do not need to know
why it works in terms of nuclear physics. All you have to know is what type
of specialized plastics to select for the bead substrate, and what type of
metal deposition techniques will deposit a coat of Ni and Pd strong enough
to withstand the harsh environment the cathode material is subjected to.
It is no different, in principle, than designing something like a printer
head or a high temperature silicon circuit.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones hypothesis about 3He in E-Quest experiments
Date: 31 May 95 14:44:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Bu4fcNp.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
>  
>>So tell us, Jed, did they [E-Quest experiment] find tritium?
>>I predict that they did.

>  
> You don't need to "predict" anything, Steve. You know the answer as
> well as I do. Stop playing games.
>  
> - Jed

Pardon me?  What little information I have been able to acquire regarding
this simple question leaves the answer unclear.
  
From what Jed says, he *does* know the answer, but he declines to provide
the answer.  Just who is playing games?

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 00:14:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed, to answer your question concerning which chemical reaction can
be ruled out, I do not know.  You assume that the only reactions
that need to be considered involve a mere 40 mg of metal.  I do not
know how you can make that restriction.  Was there during the
ICCF5 demo any attempt at chemical analysis of anything involved?

The assertion is that a chemical reaction must leave some evidence
in the form of a reaction product.  I certainly agree, but I would
point out that in the absence of any attempt at chemical analysis
we have no data as to whether there is a chemical reaction process
involved in the generation of excess heat.

Next you will tell me that there is no known chemical reaction process
that could account for the evidence provided by the Cravens demo at
ICCF5.  I think you will have to flesh out your argument there with
a bit more information before you can sell that one.

Now let's take the great leap of faith to say that the available data
can rule out the possibility that any known or expected chemical
reaction could account for the data.  In that case I would ask how
we can rule out some form of strange chemical reaction that is not
normally seen in similar situations.  If the electrolyte is never
analyzed what do we know about the chemistry?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.05.31 / John White /  Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens work
Date: 31 May 1995 21:41:07 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>If we are discussing the Cravens demo at ICCF5 isn't the proper
>characterization "an output of one watt for several days" rather
>than "weeks and weeks of output"?  In that case I agree with
>John that the observations may be consistant with some chemical
>process.  No proof of cold fusion occured at ICCF5,
 
In my post I noted that the claimed output of the ICCF5 demo
could be explained by decomposing an amount of hydrogen peroxide
corresponding to 40 percent of the electrolyte volume.

However, I have called Dr. Cravens on the phone and have learned
that the initial precharge really wasn't long enough to allow
the necessary energy to be stored. Furthermore, the cell was
then drained and shipped dry to the conference, where it
was filled with fresh electrolyte. So the ICCF5 demo could not
have been generating excess heat by decomposing peroxide.

I still believe that Pons' boiling cells are due to peroxide, though.
There are many indications which all point in that direction.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good news: PPPL funding will be gutted
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 05:58:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <KCKLUGE.95May29204430@krusty.eecs.umich.edu> kckluge@krusty.
ecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>In article <R8wfctE.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>> A few years ago, a Congressman asked me if I could suggest a change to the
>> hot fusion funding bill....I suggested that they find some paying customers
>> for the tokamak reactors and ask them to put down some earnest money for the
>> product. If private industry agrees to pay for 51% of the hot fusion
>> program, because private industry intends to buy the product, that is fine
>> with me.

>Ironically, that's essentially what the TRP and ATP programs were -- they
>required an industrial lead for each consortium, and 50% cost-sharing.
>We've seen just how much the Republicans like that idea. Which is strange,
>really -- you'd think they'd have loved it as being fiscally prudent with
>Federal research money.

I'm suspicious that costs were not covered here, perhaps through tax
right offs.  It is true that a number of companies were ripped by
the Department magnetic fusion.  They lie big time. There are a number
of companies that will be very cautious about even bidding for ITER 
because of the DoE OFE changing the rules to cause real hurt to them
in the past.  They pull a fast one with patent law, as well but were
over turned in the court of appeals.  I'm not saying they are all
sleeze balls, but I don't think they want for grease.   

I don't think comment politique may not be quite fair.  The Democrats 
are very quick to tag the Republicans with the "Corporate Welfare" 
charge.  Guess they are falling into the role of minority party.  
Because of the effect this could have on even slightly weakening 
Republican attempts to balance the budget and strongly lower government 
spending, they must disassociate themselves with such concepts as
Corporate Welfar.  That may be a hit for efficiency; but a balanced 
budget through lower spending will eventually allow industry to get 
back into research and development in a way which should put them on 
a more equal footing with the Japanese and if real Capital Gains
relief is forthcoming, that will also include big gains against the
Germans and maybe even propel us into an advantageous position over 
the japanese and other Asians.   

After all, there are a lot of work stations out there and some of them
have to be used for something besides games.  
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Dieter Britz /  Result of $700 vote
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Result of $700 vote
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 10:24:05 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Hello contributors to the fund that sent Tom to Griggs:

About a month ago, I posted (I condense a bit):

>time is up for making suggestions on what to do with the remaining $700. I
>have collected the following:
> (1) Fund a prize for detection of [neutrons, X rays, excess heat, mutated
    children of CNF researchers]?
> (2) Fund another trip.
> (3) Give the money to a deserving participant of s.p.f.  [e.g. Tom]
> (4) Return pro-rata shares to the contributors.
> (5) give to some charity of Tom's choice.
> (6) Since Marshall Dudley has already indicated that he doesn't want to
    accept any of these funds to further his expedition to perform
    quantitative tests on the Griggs device, I think we should seriously
    consider Scott Little's offer to test a similar pump to which have been
    ascribed O/U claims.  It's the closest thing to an actual GG we could get
    for 700$.
> (7) Purchase a device/cell for a lab to test, provided the experiment
    is conducted 'on-line' or at least reported so.  I'd kick in more
    $$ to support this.
> (8) Give it to the graduate student that writes the most compelling
    essay, posted to s.p.f, making the case either for or against cf.
> (9) Giving it to the National Science Foundation as 'seed money' to
    support the hot fusion program.  ;-)
[...]
> OK, you have all of May to email me your vote (I have two already and will
> note them). Only those who have contributed may vote. Dick F, maybe you
> qualify, I'll check with Tom. This is pretty informal, so the exact manner
> in which you send your vote doesn't matter; either send me a plain number,
> or write an essay - as long as it's clear which choice you mean.

Well, some of you eligible voters have actually sent in more suggestions,
especially the last week or so, but I think they can mostly be fitted into
the above 9. I am going to put all the emails I have on this together into
one file, and archive it in vm1.nodak.edu, along with the bibliographic
files, under the name fusion.cnf-700. The file will be topped by the posting
of a month ago, and bottomed {:] by the list of contributors. Any objections?
I understand that the last point might be a bit sensitive, so I'll wait for
a week before doing it. If I receive any objections, I'll leave out that list.

Here is the result of the vote. I must admit to some inaccuracy. For one
thing, at the time I posted the above, I had only collected the suggestions
themselves but not the actual postings in which they were made. I will assume
that they were all made by contributors and give them each one vote to start
with. Then there were people who voted for several suggestions; I have counted
a vote for each of them in such cases - I am aware that this is highly
irregular, but I neglected to say you can vote only for one thing. Dick F did
not contribute, and I didn't accept his vote. Some voters didn't actually vote
for a number, but used words, like "let's buy one of these Russian machines".
I did my best to force-fit them into the 9 categories. As you will see,
inaccuracy is not a real problem:

Suggestion     Votes
^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^
    1             6
    2             6
    3             3
    4             1
    5             4
    6             6
    7            15
    8             3
    9             1

Clearly, 7 wins. It says purchase a device, not actually saying which one.
I guess we now have to decide what we want and what we can afford, and who
should purchase it. The name Scott Little got suggested several times, both
for no. 6 and 7. Are you willing, Scott?

So it looks as if we'll have to have another vote. Assuming that Scott is
willing to buy a machine and test it, that leaves deciding what to buy.
Please post some suggestions. The devices I know of are

Griggs
Russian device
Patterson/Cravens
Dr. Pons' Little Water Heater (just joking, I think)

Are there more? I guess we can't get Griggs' for $700 {:].


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

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / 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: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 06:43:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <AWC.95May29105615@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawc
aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) writes:
>In article <3q2ue6$1id@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>> The key in my mind would be to have some way to self-generate all of the
>> current needed for steady-state operation with using a transformer. This

Yep, good idea!   :-)   I love that word    ALL.  

>> ... Also, I put "bootstrap current"
>> in quotations because it is another example of the mainline tokamak
>> folks extending a bad use of terminology. Only part of the current is
>> really bootstrap. A lot of it is actually diamagnetic current, especially

:-)   Well at least for tokamak people

>Tokamaks are actually paramagnetic, not diamagnetic, that is, the
>toroidal field within the plasma is *higher* than the toroidal field
>at the same radius outside the plasma. 

Hmmm!  
Well, now that sounds strange, maybe we should consider how the tokamak
is started!  I mean some maybe diamagnetic and some paramagnetic.  
They may flip with time.  

>                        .. . .   I don't know if this is a good
>thing (your TF coils don't need to work so hard) or not (more field
>means less room for plasma pressure). 

No!  It's an opportunity to have higher plasma current (toroidal) and
poloidal field, since the higher toroidal field will be capable 
(in theory) of handling more kinking.  Now even at a constant Beta, we 
will have MORE plasma density and MORE TOTAL plasma since the pressure 
confinement of the plasma is higher.  

>                          .. .       .    I also don't know the
>relationship between between toroidal and poloidal
>dia-/paramagnetism. Does plasma pressure always drive a toroidal
>current in the direction you want?

NO!
It depends what field is constraining the plasma and what field 
is "stablizing" it.  For example, the toroidal current is a plasma
current and the field it generates acts back on the plasma.  That
makes for pressure type confinment. The coil produced toroidal field 
does NOT confine the plasma, but its field lines do constrain it 
(frozen in) to being "stiff", and not so otherwise floppy.  

BUT,
Let's look at `which comes first?'  -- the coil field or the plasma.   

1. If the toroidal field is present before the plasma is "lite up" 
then the plasma will be diamagnetic and the flux will be diminished 
insided.   Other factors can modify this. 

2.   If the toroidal field is started up after the plasma is in 
place then it must soak in from the outside and now it generates 
surface plasma currents and these surface currents act to keep 
the field out and therefore produce force to "compress or confine" 
the plasma.  If it is a resistive plasma, it's not long before this 
effect dies away.  

3.  If the field is there and the plasma is started up and then
heated followed by compression, finally some cooling is taking place,
then the flux can be concentrated within the plasma, and the beta
not increased due to losses (alcator scaling).  Now the field is
stronger inside the plasma than outside.  

4,  Finally, if the field is inserted into the plasma and it is
heated  (frozen in) then the coil currents are lowered, a dropping 
of the field to lower values occurs, and the field is stronger outside.  

Consequences of a higher toroidal field inside is that the hoop
stress will be increased and not decreased as it normally would be.  
(So, there is a toroidal field effect on radial comrpession + or 
- depending) 

A stronger total fields and more energetic (higher conductivity
plasma), is always the way to go.   

>> If the self-generated + beam + RF current fraction was 100% (and
>> you could get a startup scenario), then there would be no need for
>> a center post.

>I'll let you get rid of the central solenoid, but you'll still need a
>center post for the inner legs of the TF coils.

Actually, one must plasmatize the TF coils and then the plasma ring
can be supported, not by a center post, but rather a column of vertical
field.    Just like the form of the Spherical tokamak that spheromak or
PLASMAK(tm) topologies can embody.  

>> ... This is the physics challenge for ST's. So while
>> current designs don't extrapolate well to reactors, the next two
>> generations of ST experiments hold great promise in finding a way to
>> reduce (or perhaps even eliminate) the need for the center post.

Two generations??       boo how            :-(
Why not go straight to burn? if it's better??   Well ... 

>You mean, if we develop ST's far enough we'll learn how to solve the
>problems of CT's. If it doesn't have a center post, it's not a tokamak
>anymore.

CT's have only funding problems, by comparison.  

Still I hope they aren't trying to shoe horn this ST into a CT glass 
slipper.  It Ain'ta gonna fit.  Thar's NO Prince for this chick.    

>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:37:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3qhuo8$dps@hawk.le.ac.uk>, M.D. O'Leary <mdo4@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <Tarmo.Kaldma-3005952020560001@macbeth.hh.se>,
>Tarmo Kaldma <Tarmo.Kaldma@cca.hh.se> wrote:
>
>>Who so nasty ? 
>
>That wasn't me being nasty ;)
>
>Yet.
>
>Seriously, long posts reporting how many people had posted on the subject, as
>if that were evidence for how true his theory was, are a waste of resources. As
>is prefacing every remark with "In chapter X of my book, I quote scientist Y
>saying "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"... " Especially when the quote is not substantive or
>is downright irrelevant.
>
>>People like Wallace make life interesting.
>
>Oh agreed - crackpots are _fun_. But equally annoying.

As long as we're name calling, Rednecks are *not* fun. But equally annoying.
(Especially when they assume a stuffed shirt attitude)

>>How many people had nice possibility to move his brains a bit!
>>It is not so important at all is hi correct or not.
>
>Assuming english is your second language I shall do my best to make sense of
>this.
>
>Sufficient evidence to change his mind has been posted repeatedly, and
>discarded.

He could say the same about you, no?


>And it _is_ important whether he is "right or not": the internet audience
>includes many younger readers making decisions concerning their future studies:
>If his characterisation of science as close-minded in the face of overwhelming
>evidence, with vast conspiracies designed to maintain the status quo is allowed
>to remain unchallenged, their decisions will be based on false data. He is in
>effect spreading anti-science, or anti-physcis propaganda. A balancing view must
>be given.

True, a balancing view must be given. Aye, there's the crux. 

I have received his book and have only read part of it so am at a 
disadvantage there. Also, I have *not* been following the thread
assiduously. But I have read enough to know that he has a very valid point.

"Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that
individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties
never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had.
(Idon't know whether that's clearly stated or not -- english *is* my
first language :-)   )

It seems to me the "conspiricy" theory is all that makes Wallace's work
extreme -- the way you interpret it. Stated the way I interpret it, it is
simply the truth.


>>And hi got replays in quit a high level, that prove that
>>hi is in a high level. Otherway hi will be ignored. I will be not
>>surprised if some scientist got ideas hi/she can use at this thread.
>
>The 'level' of the replies he got is a result of the 'level' of the science he
>says is wrong, not the quality of his argument. He cant be ignored for the
>reason I gave above, amongst others.
>
>And if any scientist got ideas from this thread, I'd very much like to see them
>post to confirm it...
>
>>And it is true that scientists are really very conservative. It will be
>>impossible to be accepted with perpetum mobile even if you really haw one.
>
>Rubbish. 

Double rubbish. Simply not true.

>Set the thing going, let a physicist pull one to pieces and see how it
>works, if it works, they'll accept it. 

You have to be kidding. You must be living in a different universe than I 
do. I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND 
consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that
cannot be explained by the present model.

The biggest respone? Ignore it.
The second biggest respone? Ridicule it -- speciously.
The third biggest respone is to ignore a superior explanation of the 
universe and to say, "where are the predictions? A theory is no good that
doesn't predict."

There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them.

A challenge: Why don't you take a look at my thesis (ON THE QUANTUM AS A
PHYSICAL ENTITY) "take it to pieces and see how it works"  and let's take
it from there. (I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have a saying in
Colonies: "Put you money where your mouth is" :-)    )



If you're too busy for that, I have posted an out of context description
of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural developing
equation. So far, every answer to that post criticised and questioned
ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the post and did not address itself to the subject
of the post -- the description of the force and its equation.


>They just don't _expect_ anyone to be
>able to produce one, from what is currently known - if one can be produced, it
>may hold advances that will revolutionise all our lives, and we will _all_
>benefit. Theres no benefit from hiding things that are real. There is a benefit
>in debunking claims that arent.

True -- but what's "real"?


Regards,

New Paradigm Vergon




>>Better is to forget it and do something real, as example improve usual
>>engine by 0.1%. Therefore it is very good if somebody sheik this pond a
>>bit. 
>
>Sorry, lost you there.
>
>>
>>     Tarmo
>
>M.
>-- 
>.sig test


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Winfinity /  Re: Palladium Question
     
Originally-From: winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium Question
Date: 1 Jun 1995 02:54:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>hench@utia.cas.cz writes:

>I have another suggestion. Is it feasible of running some of
>the test set-ups with different isotopes of palladium?  If
>the nuclear mechanism, for example, is the simulaneous capture
>of two dueterons, and the helium is produced by a process of
>alpha decay, then the isotopes of palladium would have an
>important bearing on the process of cold fusion.

I noticed the same thing about palladium.  Its isotopes are spread in such
a way that it has the potential for releasing energy when increasing in
atomic number.

I wrote a lengthy post about this last year, which I will re-post under
the title "Palladium and Neutron Flow" if you are interested.

-David Schneider

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenwinfinity cudlnWinfinity cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Winfinity /  Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
     
Originally-From: winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
Date: 1 Jun 1995 02:54:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Palladium and Neutron Flow

by David R. Schneider

For post to: sci.physics.fusion, 6/94

Abstract: Palladium, the metal used as an electrode in many cold fusion
(CF) experiments, has some interesting nuclear properties - specifically
its isotope distribution.  Is it possible that neutron flow is responsible
for experimental results in support of CF?

Author’s note:  As this is a post, please forgive the loose format of the
material presented.  Several people have read over the following, and have
commented that the problems mentioned in my conclusion probably invalidate
my hypothesis.  Well, this is a forum for ideas...even ones previously
considered and discarded.


1. Background

As with most elements, palladium appears naturally (i.e. on Earth) in a
variety of isotopes.  The most common isotopes of palladium are (with
approximate percentages contributing to its atomic weight of 106.42) [1]:

Pd-102 : 01.02%
Pd-104 : 11.14%
Pd-105 : 22.33%
Pd-106 : 27.33%
Pd-108 : 26.46%
Pd-110 : 11.72%

As often happens, there are isotopes of palladium which do not occur
because they are not stable.  The geometry of their nuclear configuration
is such that a bound neutron is easily shed, or a free neutron (if one is
available) becomes bound.  (Although free neutrons exist in normal
conditions, they are rare since a free neutron has a half-life of only
about 10 minutes.)  Such isotopes include Pd-103, Pd-107 and Pd-109. 
These unstable isotopes do not appear in natural palladium because they
have a short half-life compared to the age of Earth; thus any which might
have once existed has long since decayed.

In general, a stable isotope is one which occurs naturally.  But stability
is something of a relative attribute.  A stable configuration normally
requires an input of energy to create a less stable configuration. 
Conversely, a stable configuration releases energy when changing to one
which is even more stable.

For many elements, their most common stable isotope is also their lightest
stable isotope.  Also, for many elements, their isotopes form a series,
each differing from the next by the addition or subtraction of a single
neutron.  For example, the common isotopes of silicon are [1]:

Si-28 : 92.20%
Si-29 : 04.67%
Si-30 : 03.10%

Generally, heavier isotopes of an element are more stable than their
lighter counterparts.


2. How Palladium is Unusual

A search of the isotope tables will show that palladium is special when
the following are considered:

1. Its range of stable isotopes is wide.  Ignoring trace quantities, it
has the one of the widest range of isotopes.  The difference between its
lightest and heaviest stable isotopes is 8 (neutrons).  Only samarium has
a wider range of isotopes (10).

2. Its most common isotope has isotopes both above and below it in atomic
mass which are abundant.  Specifically, its most common isotope is Pd-106.
 Yet over 33% of palladium isotopes are lighter, and over 38% are heavier.

The isotope tables show also some other elements which share the above
attributes, but not in quite so pronounced a way as palladium.  They
include titanium, selenium, molybdenum, ruthenium and even numbered
elements from neodymium to lead.

Now suppose we require that the following be also true: 

3. It is a highly conductive metal (i.e. useful as an electrode -
necessary for initial consideration in CF experiments).

4. There should be readily available isotopes such that neutrons could
flow from a heavier isotope to a lighter isotope, releasing energy and
creating a stable isotope of the same element (with a neutron count
between that of the two other isotopes).

If we add these criteria to the previous 2, only 2 elements will be on our
list: palladium and titanium.

Note: It has been also pointed out that palladium is special for another
reason - its outer orbital contains more electrons (10) than other metals,
allowing it to interact with deuterium in a slightly different way than
other elements could. 

To summarize: the number, relative distribution and atomic weights of
palladium isotopes are unusual.  Palladium is a good conductor (even when
heated).  Further, palladium can be saturated with deuterium ions under
the proper situation.  These attributes make palladium special.


3. Speculation

The above are (more or less) the facts.  The significance of these facts
involves some speculation.  I do not know enough about cold fusion theory
(does anybody?) to be sure this means anything, so here goes...

There is a substantial barrier preventing the common isotope Pd-108 from
transitioning to Pd-106 (which is *not* more stable) by losing 2 neutrons.
 An even more substantial barrier prevents the common isotope Pd-105 from
transitioning to Pd-106 (which *is* more stable) by gaining a neutron
(since this requires the opportune presence of a neutron).  If both of
these barriers were overcome, energy would be released in the form of
heat.  This is because the final result, 3 atoms of Pd-106, is more stable
(net) than the all of the inputs (considered as a whole).

But suppose you had a mixture of Pd-105 and Pd-108 (i.e. natural
palladium).  Now suppose you put this mixture under conditions which would
some small amount of neutron flow might occur (such as under conditions of
very high temperature or pressure - a common premise of CF experiments).

With a *proper* neutron and energy flow to serve as “catalyst”, heat could
be released as a result of: 

(1)     2(Pd-105) + Pd-108 + catalyst  =>  3(Pd-106) + catalyst + energy  

If this occurred, there might not be any significant neutron flow outside
the apparatus, since the neutrons would be used to create Pd-106 from
Pd-105.

How much heat would be generated?  In the above example, we go from
317.7141u (atomic masses in) to 317.7102u (atomic masses out), a
difference of .0039u.  That’s 3.63 MeV of energy released!

This is exactly the problem which we have had with cold fusion
experiments: how to explain (apparent) heat production - resulting from a
postulated nuclear reaction - without seeing significant particle
byproducts, such as neutrons.  The electrode serves to dampen the neutron
flux to nil by absorbing them.

When you look at titanium, you see a similar situation.  Heat could be
released as a result of :

(2)     Ti-47 + Ti-49 + catalyst  =>  2(Ti-48) + catalyst + energy  

In this example, we go from 95.9293u to 95.9262u, a difference of .0031u,
or e=2.89 MeV.

What about getting the *proper* neutron and energy flow to start a
reaction?  Maybe the high pressure the deuterium is under causes it to act
as the catalyst.  The deuterium can (relatively) easily lose its neutron
(less than 1 MeV would be required), providing a seed neutron.  The energy
released by the reaction would greater than the input, allowing the
process to continue.  

A bigger problem arises when considering what it would take to liberate
neutrons from the heavier isotopes.  Typical nuclear binding energies are
about 9 MeV (such as for palladium and titanium).  This amount of energy
would be necessary to serve as a catalyst for processes such as (1) and
(2).  This is much greater than the net energy release in these processes,
so it is questionable whether these processes could readily continue. 
Perhaps this is why CF experiments take so long to get to the point of
producing heat.

On the other hand, you might also have a process like the following:

(3)     H-2 + Pd-105 + catalyst  =>  H-1 + Pd-106 + catalyst + energy

Here the change in mass is -.0078u, so that e=7.27 MeV.  The difference is
that the required catalyst energy (about 1 MeV) is much less than the net
energy released, so the reaction could potentially sustain itself.  

In (3), deuterium is coaxed into releasing its neutron to the Pd-105,
which yields a lot more energy than is required to start this process. 
This is a much simpler reaction than the multi-step fusion process
postulated in support of CF.  In this scenario, the deuterium plays an
integral role, so the electrode must be one which can be suitably
saturated with it - which again limits which elements could be used. 
Palladium is apparently suitable in this regard.


4.  Conclusion

There is no question that repacking nuclei by moving neutrons from isotope
to isotope - as described above - could theoretically yield energy
(although it would not necessarily be 100% converted to heat).  Natural
palladium and titanium isotope distributions would support this kind of
repacking.  This says nothing about the practical obstacles involved with
starting and continuing such reactions, nor does it say anything about
what kind of ancillary signatures we might expect (gamma radiation,
x-rays, etc.).

I am suggesting that changes in isotope distributions cause heat
production in CF experiments.  This explanation still leaves important
unanswered questions; hopefully, some new discussion or ideas might result
from this post.

If the above speculation were correct, it could provide some basis for the
mixed experimental results seen so far regarding CF.  I note in passing
that some positive results have recently been seen in titanium electrode
experiments; a recent post from Steven Jones says that this was due to
contaminated Ti, not CF.

-David Schneider

Reference
1. Table of the Isotopes (revised 1990), Norman E. Holden, The Handbook of
Physics and Chemistry.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenwinfinity cudlnWinfinity cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / 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: 1 Jun 1995 14:03:52 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3qi8ri$mip@miner.usbm.gov>
williams@ibmaa-anc.usbm.gov (Earle Williams) writes:

> Rest assured, oh imaginative one, there's no scientist that will steal your 
> theory.  Fellow crackpot philosopher magalomaniacs might, but no one who 
> professes to follow the scientific method of investigating the 
> universe/multiverse/atom would dream of stealing your intellectual
> stillbirth^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbrainchild.
> -- 
> ============================================================================
> Earle M. Williams
>   - Geophysicist by training, Mining Engineer by profession
> U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center
> All standard disclaimers apply...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Result of $700 vote
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Result of $700 vote
Date: 1 Jun 1995 15:00:57 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

Dieter Britz  <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
    . . . discussion of voting results elided . . .
>
>Clearly, 7 wins. It says purchase a device, not actually saying which one.
>I guess we now have to decide what we want and what we can afford, and who
>should purchase it. The name Scott Little got suggested several times, both
>for no. 6 and 7. Are you willing, Scott?
>
>So it looks as if we'll have to have another vote. Assuming that Scott is
>willing to buy a machine and test it, that leaves deciding what to buy.
>Please post some suggestions. The devices I know of are
>
>Griggs
>Russian device
>Patterson/Cravens
>Dr. Pons' Little Water Heater (just joking, I think)

Dieter, great job on the vote!  Results seem pretty clear.  I would suggest
that before we select a device to purchase, we come up with some numbers
as to what each would cost.  Perhaps Griggs would give us a discount.  ;-)

In any case, once we establish what each would cost, we should select one,
and commence any fund raising needed to obtain the device.  Let's make the
choice on technical merit, tempered with knowledge of what it would actually
cost to aquire the unit.  I would personally make a further contribution,
and I believe others have indicated the same sentiment as well.

So, do we have at least MSRP for the devices under consideration?  

-Bob Virzi

-- 

  rvirzi@gte.com            Just another ascii character...
  +1(617)466-2881           

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Akira Kawasaki /  Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
Date: 1 Jun 1995 15:18:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom

   As I checked upon this newsgroup fairly constantly, I noticed a fast 
drop off any conversation of the Griggs' Hydrosonic Pump shortly after 
the ICCF-5. Its not that I enjoyed the seeming endless coverage but if 
memory serves me right, there was to be another visit (self-funded) 
scheduled among the newgroup participants to the Griggs facility. They 
were to actively take measurements and arrive at independant conclusions 
to be announced. Has this taken place?

   At the ICCF-5, Griggs had a poster display with pictures of a 
disassembled rotor and actual section samples that had mysterious copper 
plating occuring aside from the hole distortions that has occurred. He 
mentioned some tests that were still in progress. It would be 
interesting to get an update on his pump research inasmuch as there is a 
flurry of interest in an available and affordable excess heat device 
from Russia like Griggs' pump. 

   Also, what is the staus of the other machine developed by Mr. Michael 
T. Huffman interestingly covered in the March-April 'Infinite Energy' 
magazine (Premier issue) published by Eugene F. Mallove? This is another 
pump design that has effects similar to the Griggs' pump. The article's 
last paragraph mentioned some test results undertaken under the 
sponsorship of ENECO (Fred Jaeger, pres.) which might be presented in 
time for the ICCF-5 (it was not). The article ended with "stay tuned" 
--- it didn't say how long.
-AK-
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 1 Jun 95 15:46:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:

>"Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that
>individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties
>never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had.
>(Idon't know whether that's clearly stated or not -- english *is* my
>first language :-)   )

>It seems to me the "conspiricy" theory is all that makes Wallace's work
>extreme -- the way you interpret it. Stated the way I interpret it, it is
>simply the truth.

Part of Wallace's conspiracy theory implies the JPL scientists lie
about how they calculate orbits.  He claims they must use "his
theory", while in the published literature, JPL scientists state that
they do take GR into account.  I don't think this is something you can
describe as a passive conspiracy.  This one of many reasons I find
Wallace's claims totally unbelieveable.  His work is also extreme
because his version of physics is clearly in conflict with well
established physics.

>You have to be kidding. You must be living in a different universe than I 
>do. I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND 
>consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that
>cannot be explained by the present model.

I have not followed the threads associated with your theory, but from
what I have seen, your work conflicts with QED, and QED has been
successfully verified by many high precision measurements.  This leads
me to believe that your "VERY COGENT" thesis is wrong.

For example, you claim that photons have an invariant mass, but recent
work has established that the upper limit on the photon rest mass is
10^{-48} gm, Fischbach etal, PRL, 73, #4, p514, 25-July-94.  This
upper limit is 21 orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the
electron.  What is the minimum invariant mass of the photon in your
theory?

>There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them.

Since you are proposing a radical new theory, I think the onus is on
you to provide clear cut predictions and experimental tests that
distinguish your theory from current physics.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Michael Huffman /  Re: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
     
Originally-From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:34:16 GMT
Organization: Alternate Access Inc.

In article <3qklos$q5f@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
   aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) wrote:
|
|   Also, what is the staus of the other machine developed by Mr. Michael 
|T. Huffman interestingly covered in the March-April 'Infinite Energy' 
|magazine (Premier issue) published by Eugene F. Mallove? This is another 
|pump design that has effects similar to the Griggs' pump. The article's 
|last paragraph mentioned some test results undertaken under the 
|sponsorship of ENECO (Fred Jaeger, pres.) which might be presented in 
|time for the ICCF-5 (it was not). The article ended with "stay tuned" 
|--- it didn't say how long.
|-AK-

I built a prototype for ENECO which I tested at home before delivery. By my 
crude measurements of thermal output over electrical input, the device was 96% 
efficient. This calculation did not include any heat loss from the motor or 
case. I shipped the device on the 24th of this month to ENECO, and they are in 
the process of running their own tests. They will first run a simple 
efficiency test, and if the device appears to have overunity characteristics, 
they will rent a complete calorimeter to find out exactly how much heat is 
being produced by the entire machine. Your desire to know the outcome of these 
tests can't possibly match mine, but for now we'll all have to "stay tuned". 
-Knuke
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Simon Robertson /  Solid State Fusion
     
Originally-From: simonr@vironix.co.za (Simon Robertson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solid State Fusion
Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:18:11 GMT
Organization: Vironix Corporation

Fusion can accure in any state not just in a plasma state.
The only requirement that two nuclei fuse is that the kinetic energy 
involved in the colision is great enough to over come the electromagnetic 
repultion of the nuclei. 

A beam of accelerated hydrogen nuclei fired at a lithium metal target with 
enough energy to overcome the nuclei repulsive forces will result in the 
fusion of the hydrogen and lithium to form carbon. The energy released from 
this fusion process will be greater than that used to accelarate the 
hydrogen nuclei to the velocity needed for fusion to occure.

Is this not the practical solution to generating electricity from fusion?
Why have fusion physicists not explored this fusion method instead of 
struggling to raise plasma temperatures while at the same time trying to 
raise the plasma desities. This solid state fusion method has none of these 
problems.

Any comments, besides that I can't spell?
Interested
Simon

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensimonr cudfnSimon cudlnRobertson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs, Huffman, and Russia
Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:48:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3qklos$q5f@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) says:

(snip)

>   At the ICCF-5, Griggs had a poster display with pictures of a 
>disassembled rotor and actual section samples that had mysterious copper 
>plating occuring aside from the hole distortions that has occurred. He 
>mentioned some tests that were still in progress. It would be 
>interesting to get an update on his pump research inasmuch as there is a 
>flurry of interest in an available and affordable excess heat device 
>from Russia like Griggs' pump. 

Nothing mysterious about copper plating inside a device like the Griggs
pump.  As the junior co-op student in 1948, I got to crawl into the 
bottom drum of the boiler of the Applachian Electric Power Co. in Logan
W. Va.  The idea was to hold a bag over the end of the boiler tube and
catch the metal that was scraped off by a brush run through the tube.
We took many samples to study the distribution of copper plating inside
the boiler that came from the condenser tubes.  

Lots of copper came out.  Metal is always moving around in water systems.
Copper from copper piping often wants to go somewhere else.  Dieter can
comment on this as it is his field.  In any case, the plant had a chemist
that was always worrying about the water.  He would always be adding 
little bits of chemical to try to get it right.  But Griggs is just using
tap water.  All kinds of stuff could plate out.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Rhame /  Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
     
Originally-From: rhame@aol.com (Rhame)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
Date: 1 Jun 1995 14:34:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


                        ANNOUNCING A MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH

                                For Release June 1, 1995 via Internet

Clustron Sciences Corporation (CSC) today announced an historic
development
in nuclear physics, discovered by its President, Ronald A. Brightsen,
which 
dramatically changes our understanding of the structure of the nucleus,
and 
which may alter our view of all matter.  For the first time in the long
history of nuclear
physics, he has deduced a relationship among the approximately 350 stable
isotopes (nuclides) known to man.  The relationship demonstrates quite
clearly the fundamental characteristics of nature: symmetry, systematics,
and periodicity.

The Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides is analogous to the Periodic
Table
of Elements, discovered by the Russian scientist Mendeleev in 1869, and
may 
well revolutionize virtually all sciences and technologies in the 21st
Century.

The Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides is based on a Nucleon Cluster
Model (NCM), which describes all nuclei (stable and radioactive) in terms
of three 
clusters of neutrons and protons (nucleons).  Numerical values assignable
to 
those clusters lead to elimination of the "Coulomb barrier," and replaces
it 
with a positive-negative attraction, thus explaining otherwise classically

inexplicable low-energy nuclear reactions. In addition, the NCM provides
for 
the first time an explanation for thermal neutron fission.

Based on this new understanding, CSC has filed patent applications on
several
processes, including methods for: (A) Converting radioactive nuclear
wastes
to short-lived or stable nuclides, (B) Converting Pu-239 to U-235 and/or 
non-fissionable heavy nuclides and (C) Improving the performance of widely

used silicon semi-conductors.

In the field of cosmology, it is likely that the long-sought system
explaining the Origin of the Elements and the "missing mass" issue will
finally be understood, utilizing the NCM.

On-line requests for additional information and questions will be routed
to Mr. Brightsen via this newsgroup or email to rhame@aol.com.  Also, a
copy of the 40-page paper entitled, "The Nucleon Cluster Model and the
Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides" is available from Clustron
Sciences Corporation to technically qualified individuals or
organizations.  The amount of $5.00 is requested to cover copying and
postage.  Clustron Sciences Corporation's address is 1917 Upper Lake
Drive, Reston, VA 22091; Telephone
Number: 703-476-8731 and Fax: 703-827-4066.  
                                        
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrhame cudlnRhame cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / M Hofmeister /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mike_hofmeister@qmail4.sp.trw.com (Michael Hofmeister)
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: 1 Jun 1995 20:15:14 GMT
Organization: TRW

In article <vergonD9HsAt.LuI@netcom.com>, vergon@netcom.com (Vertner
Vergon) wrote:

> "Conspiricy" is in the eye of the beholder. There can be forces that
> individually add up to a de facto conspiricy in which the parties
> never conspired to conspire but their actions total up as though they had.

[chatter deleted]

> I have presented A VERY COGENT thesis that is self consistent AND 
> consistent with empiricism. It is sraightforward and explains much that
> cannot be explained by the present model.
> 
> The biggest respone? Ignore it.
> The second biggest respone? Ridicule it -- speciously.
> The third biggest respone is to ignore a superior explanation of the 
> universe and to say, "where are the predictions? A theory is no good that
> doesn't predict."
> 
> There are predictions, you simply must look closely for them.
> 
> A challenge: Why don't you take a look at my thesis (ON THE QUANTUM AS A
> PHYSICAL ENTITY) "take it to pieces and see how it works"  and let's take
> it from there. (I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have a saying in
> Colonies: "Put you money where your mouth is" :-)    )
> 
> If you're too busy for that, I have posted an out of context description
> of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural developing
> equation. So far, every answer to that post criticised and questioned
> ALL OTHER ASPECTS of the post and did not address itself to the subject
> of the post -- the description of the force and its equation.
> 

[more chatter deleted]

> 
> New Paradigm Vergon
> 

Vertner:

Well, this is truly GOOD NEWS.  The theory that explains everything. 
Since I'm way too busy to read the book or read an "out of context
description of the mechanism of the strong force along with the natural
developing equation," please be so kind as to answer these simple direct
questions:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY:

1.a.  Does this new theory give exactly the same predictions as Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity (SR)? Yes/No.

1.b.  If 1.a is no, reference the relativistic experiments that contradict
SR, yet match your theory.  (Remember that High Energy Particle
Acclelerators in several locations around the world operate daily if and
only if SR is correct.)

1.c.  List any new experiments not yet performed and predictions which
prove your new theory is correct and SR does not predict the correct
outcome.  The experiments must be "do-able" with present technology (i.e.
no colliding counter-rotating black holes at 0.99999c).

QUANTUM MECHANICS:

2.a.  Does this new theory give exactly the same predictions as Quantum
ElectroDynamics (QED)? Yes/No.

2.b.  If 2.a is no, reference the experiments that contradict QED, yet
match your theory.  (Remember that High Energy Particle Acclelerators in
several locations around the world operate daily if and only if QED is
correct to about fourteen decimal places.)

2.c.  List any new experiments not yet performed and predictions which
prove your new theory is correct and QED does not predict the correct
outcome.  The experiments must be "do-able" with present technology.

This should not take too long since these questions are fundamental and
will form the cornerstone of any credibility your theories might have.

-- 
********************************************************************
** Zero times Infinity is One.
** This is PHYSICS, not Math.
** Without this truth, Quantum ElectroDynamics makes no sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmike_hofmeister cudfnMichael cudlnHofmeister cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Tom Droege /  Re: Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium and Neutron Flow (Originally from 6/94)
Date: 1 Jun 1995 21:12:37 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3qjo6r$3o1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, winfinity@aol.com (Winfinity) says:
>
>Palladium and Neutron Flow
>
>by David R. Schneider
>
>For post to: sci.physics.fusion, 6/94
>
>Abstract: Palladium, the metal used as an electrode in many cold fusion
>(CF) experiments, has some interesting nuclear properties - specifically
>its isotope distribution.  Is it possible that neutron flow is responsible
>for experimental results in support of CF?

(snip)

I can remember looking at all those palladium states a few years back.

There are (at least) two problems with this idea:

1) How to get rid of the 3.63 Mev without producing some energetic
gamma rays that are easy to detect.  None seem to have been seen.

2) If it does work, it is not interesting as it uses a very expensive
fuel.

Sorry if this seems rude.  It is not intended.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cravens pump power
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens pump power
Date: 1 Jun 1995 14:34:21 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <RK98kVl.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Arnie Frisch <arnief@wu.cse.tek.com> writes:
> 
>>However, when everything turns to ----, and nothing we do seems to
>>help, and it takes eight years to make NO PROGRESS, and we're still
>>plugging away - then I think it's time to question our sanity.
> 
>You are incorrect.

I'm always wrong!

>if you examine the literature, you will see that you are wrong.

What I've seen does not qualify as "literature" in the scientific sense.

>or compare results from E-Quest or Cravens/CETI or Arata & Zhang. You will
>that gigantic progress has been made.

Really!

>of cathodes worked.

What work are the cathodes doing?

>CETI had trouble with beads fracturing and cracking because of the
>extreme temperature and pressure changes. All these problems and many
>others have now been solved. A few years ago, we were lucky if a cell
>produced 200 milliwatts intermittantly, representing only 20% xcess.
>Now we have cells that routinely produce 300 watts, and they *always turn on*
>a fraction of a second after the ultrasound starts (E-Quest). CETI's

If these things really do what you say, how come you're trying to convince
everybody how good they are?  If they really are that good, you should
shut up and put every cent you have into it and become filthy rich when
customers buy them by the billions.  You sound like you're trying to
convince everybody ELSE to put their money into it so you can get rich
as a result of THEIR investment!.

>You claim there has been "NO PROGRESS." But just because you type those
>words on your computer, that does not make what you say the truth. If you
>examine experimental results objectively, and you compare the situation
>a few years ago to the present, and you talk to people like Patterson
>who have solved dozens of critical material scienced problems, then you will
>see that you are wrong. Just typing something over and over agian does
>not make it true. There are facts in the real world; test results; patents;
>and independent evaluations of machines that prove beyond any doubt the
>claims are real. An assertion from you in capital letters does not disprove
>any of these facts.

I am more than ready buy something that makes economic sense in
the realm of energy production.  In fact, I am standing near the head of the line!

If anything, your drivel has made me much more cautious about believing
anything that I read about this subject.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  jonesse@plasma /  "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: 1 Jun 95 13:35:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

From the Tribune de Geneve of 31 May 1995 (translated):

"INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION.  PERHAPS ITS SECOND DEATH.
"THE SOURCE OF ENERGY REVEALED IN 1989 HAS ALREAD BEEN DENOUNCED BY MANY
SCIENTISTS.   THE ENTERPRISES WHICH HAVE INVESTED  IN THIS SECTOR SEEM
NOW TO BE RETIRING ON THE TIPS OF THEIR TOES."

The text of the article provides a brief history of P&F claims and funding by
Japanese, EPRI, etc., then states:

"There may have been a dramatic change in this situation.  It has just been
learnt from a reliable source, that Fleischmann spends most of his time in
England and that Pons is now working on some other project for IMRA ...  Did 
they choose to stop full time work or did IMRA ask them?   Doubt if one will
ever know as commercial companies that have spent money on bad science,
tend to be very discrete about it."

Does anyone have information about this?

(Thanks to D. Morrison for providing the article; very interesting.)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  KAnko /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: kanko@aol.com (KAnko)
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: 1 Jun 1995 18:47:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

V.V.,

Sorry I didn't get back to you.  I would have to read your thesis before
commenting in detail.  Is it archived anywhere??  I think it is but I
can't remember where.  However,

Point one.  The idea of a single particle and single force is not new.  I
assume your treatment is.

Point two.  My probelm with Mr. Wallace is his hypocracy.  I, and I assume
others, have given him experimental results which we wish to see explained
by his theories, and his answer, in my case at least, is to say I changed
the subject.  If a theory can't stand up or gives the same reults and is
overly complicated, it is rejected.  Yet he says that main stream
sciencists are doing that exact thing.  He needs to make his theory fit
observations, not the other way around.

Point three.  As for the ridicule you have recieved, I am surprised.  Not
that you have recieved the ridicule but that any credible scientist would
heep such junk.  However being new to this thread I don't want to throw
stones at anyone yet.  However, if your responses are anything like Mr.
Wallace's responses, that may be the problem.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your thesis,

Dr. Kevin Ankoviak
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkanko cudlnKAnko cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 / mitchell swartz /  "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 23:03:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 -"From the Tribune de Geneve of 31 May 1995 (translated): ....
 -The text of the article provides a brief history of P&F claims and funding by
 -Japanese, EPRI, etc., then states:
 -"There may have been a dramatic change in this situation.  It has just been
 -learnt from a reliable source, that Fleischmann spends most of his time in
 -England and that Pons is now working on some other project for IMRA ...  Did 
 -they choose to stop full time work or did IMRA ask them?   Doubt if one will
 -ever know as commercial companies that have spent money on bad science,
 -tend to be very discrete about it.""

  Was this translated too?  Is it relevant where Dr. F is for the
physics of fusion in the solid state?

 -"Does anyone have information about this?
 -(Thanks to D. Morrison for providing the article; very interesting.)"

Obviously you have quite a bit if D.M sent you
the article. Would you please type 
in, or OCR the article?
the entire article instead of the single possibly
out-of-context-quote or translation?

  That would be a real contribution.
If you could, we all thank you in advance.
 
   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: 1 Jun 1995 20:05:20 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Here is a simpler explanation, of why traffic drops on moderated
newsgroups.  Moderated newsgroups suck!

Surely, a foundation principle of the internet, and of internet culture
and of everything internet, is, complete freedom from censorship.  (Both
the positive and negative aspects of.)

A 'moderated list', to me, seems extremely un-internet!

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.01 /  Jpmjpmjpm /  Re: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
     
Originally-From: jpmjpmjpm@aol.com (Jpmjpmjpm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, review of episode 13 and 14
Date: 1 Jun 1995 20:10:31 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Where can we find THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE .... ??

On which TV show.. video tape?  Distributor of video tape?

Thanks!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjpmjpmjpm cudlnJpmjpmjpm cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Solid State Fusion
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion
Date: 2 Jun 1995 00:12:06 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Simon Robertson (simonr@vironix.co.za) wrote:
: A beam of accelerated hydrogen nuclei fired at a lithium metal target with 
: enough energy to overcome the nuclei repulsive forces will result in the 
: fusion of the hydrogen and lithium to form carbon. The energy released from 
: this fusion process will be greater than that used to accelarate the 
: hydrogen nuclei to the velocity needed for fusion to occure.

The problem is that the nucleus of the atom is very small in comparison
to the atomic spacing.  I think someone suggested the electon orbit
dimensions versus nucleus diameter are similar in ratio to the orbit
of planets in the solar system and the diameter of the sun.

So the atom is mostly empty space, but the coulomb field fills that
empty space.  So if you fire a stream of hydrogen atoms at a plate
of lithium, most of the hydrogen projectiles will miss the first
Li nuclei they come across, but they won't miss the coulomb fields
which will start diverting them hither and thither, slowing them
down and causing the Li atoms to pick up some of the kinetic
energy.

When most of your projectile atoms are going into heating the lithium
rather than having actual head-on collisions with the nucleus, you 
can see that it becomes very expensive in energy terms to get your
tiny percentage of fusion/fission reactions.  You don't end up
recovering the high grade energy from the paltry number of nuclear
events generated -- it's not even a good thermal energy (low grade
energy) amplifier.

So nobody does it that way.

--
 - 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:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Solid State Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion
Date: 2 Jun 1995 02:49:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3qksoj$dur@hermes.is.co.za> simonr@vironix.co.za (Simon Robertson)  
writes:

> A beam of accelerated hydrogen nuclei fired at a lithium metal target with 
> enough energy to overcome the nuclei repulsive forces will result in the 
> fusion of the hydrogen and lithium to form carbon. The energy released from 
> this fusion process will be greater than that used to accelarate the 
> hydrogen nuclei to the velocity needed for fusion to occure.
> 
> Is this not the practical solution to generating electricity from fusion?
> Why have fusion physicists not explored this fusion method instead of 
> struggling to raise plasma temperatures while at the same time trying to 
> raise the plasma desities. This solid state fusion method has none of these 
> problems.
> 
> Any comments, besides that I can't spell?
> Interested
> Simon

You can't spell and you are an idiot. No, just joking. The above is
a great idea---in fact, your afore mentioned fusion scientists thought
of it circa 1960. Its called beam fusion. And, contrary to your claim, 
it does not produce excess energy. The problem is that the high energy
H ions lose a lot of energy to warming up the cold elctrons in the 
metallic lithium target. One can show with simple estimates that you
miss energy breakeven by a large margin...I seem to recall around 30%
ratio of power in to power out is about the theoretical limit.

The obvious solution is to pre-heat those cold electrons, and the
state of matter you end up with is a plasma. Think of our current
approach as shooting an ion beam into a _plasma_ target instead of a metallic
target. Now the problem is just to hold that target still long enough...

Question: how much experimental work was done on beam fusion? The
theoretical analysis is pretty simple, but still I would check it
with experiment. Anyone know?



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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun  2 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
