1995.06.06 / dave pierson /  Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
     
Originally-From: pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "CF heater" available for purchase -- and testing!
Date: 6 JUN 95 19:18:53
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1995May30.120941.27275@vivitech.com>, kk@vivitech.com
(Kris Krug - RKkD) writes...

>>> In article <3q0tnp$aa0@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:

>>> >From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)

>>> >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

>I also agree with this.  I always felt that the money should be used to
>get to the bottom of 'something' ;-} .
>Kristoph Krug

	(Been busy...)

	Go for it...

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751		|pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / Michael Huffman /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 6 Jun 1995 23:23:05 GMT
Organization: Alternate Access Inc.

In article <3r2i84$b8s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
|
|I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
|Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
|stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
|active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
|has reason to be posting here.
|
|Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
|and forward them to Mr Wallace.
|
|
|____ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.
|
|
|____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
|
|
|____ other, please explain:
|
|
|
Scott,
  Are the results of this poll going to be posted publicly? I was more than a 
bit surprised when I voted on the reorganization of s.p.f to find my vote was 
later posted for all to see. Since I'm relatively new to the Internet and 
Usenet newsgroups, I don't really know what the convention is. In most 
democratic societies, how one votes is considered a private matter, and I feel 
most comfortable with that policy. Please advise. -Knuke
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenknuke cudfnMichael cudlnHuffman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.06 / 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: 6 Jun 1995 23:50:31 GMT
Organization: TRW

In article <3r1qtl$a55@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) wrote:

> KAnko (kanko@aol.com) wrote:
> : Mr. Wallace,
> 
> : Before I take exception to your work, I would like to agree with you on
> : something.  I agree that scientists who are unwilling to test their

[several Physics questions deleted]

> 
> : Take you for your time,
> 
> : Dr. Kevin Ankoviak
> 
> Kevin,
> 
>    It should soon be possible for you to ftp my published paper p.wp5 
> that is in WordPerfect 5.1 format that includes imbedded graphics from:
> ftp.intnet.net in the directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace .  The paper contains 
> dynamic ether computer simulations of quarks.
> 
> Bryan

Note that Bryan Wallace did not answer any questions asked by Dr. Kevin
Ankoviak (see original post).  For someone who constantly pleads for
reputable scientists attention, Bryan seems extremely reluctant to discuss
his theory in the open when the attention is there.  Hmmmmm...

Here are some simple yet direct questions that I have about new and
wonderful Physics theories:


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 documented in a
refereed journal 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.  If 1.a is no, list any new experiments not yet performed and
predictions which prove your new theory is correct and SR does 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 documented in a refereed
journal that contradict QED, yet match your theory.  (Remember that QED is
experimentally verified to around fourteen significant digits.)

2.c.  If 2.a is no, list any new experiments not yet performed and
predictions which prove your new theory is correct and where QED does
predict the correct outcome.  The experiments must be "do-able" with
present technology.

-- 
********************************************************************
** Einstein: "God does not roll dice."
** Heisenberg: "Stop telling God what to do."
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmike_hofmeister cudfnMichael cudlnHofmeister cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Molhant Norman /  Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: molhant@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Molhant Norman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 02:47:56 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

>I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
>Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
>stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
>active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
>has reason to be posting here.
>
>Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
>and forward them to Mr Wallace.
>
>
>__X_ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.
>
>
>____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
>
>
>____ other, please explain:
>

Norman W. Molhant
--
 ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
I own a PC to program what my customers want. | molhant@ere.umontreal.ca
I own a Mac to program what my students need. | above_opinions.only_owner =
I own an Amiga to program what I want & need. | Norman W. Molhant = me;
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmolhant cudfnMolhant cudlnNorman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 02:44:50 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <3r2i84$b8s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:
>
>I have been communicating with Bryan Wallace, the originator of the many
>Farce of Physics posts that fill this newsgroup.  I have asked him to
>stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
>active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
>has reason to be posting here.
>
>Please indicate your choice in this matter.  I will tally the responses
>and forward them to Mr Wallace.
>
>
>__X__ I wish to see all Farce of Physics posts disappear from s.p.f.
>
>
>____ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
>
>
>____ other, please explain:
>
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 7 Jun 1995 03:48:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
: active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
: has reason to be posting here.

I just did a little investigative work.  Of the last 195 unexpired articles
in my newsreader only a single Farce posting was posted with s.p.f. as the
only newsgroup (by a Mr. Hill.)  All others included multiple newsgroups
such as:

alt.alien.visitors
alt.paranet.ufo
alt.philosophy.objectivism
alt.sci.physics.new-theories
misc.books.technical
sci.astro
sci.energy
sci.misc
sci.physics
sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle
sci.research
sci.skeptic

Wallace cannot determine from which group the reader saw and responded
to the posting other than when a poster trims down the number of
newsgroups to one, as in the sole case of Mr. Hill.

So Wallace is lying for the most part.

And in any event, it is irrelevent if posters from this or any other
group respond to Wallace -- what is relevent is if the contents of those
postings are within the charter of the newsgroup to which they are
posted.


However, even if you got Wallace to stop his childish behavior, you
still have to get all the other responders to his postings to likewise
trim the follow-up groups.  So getting Wallace to stop is not going
to solve the problem.


The only effective solution is for each and every Farce posting you
see cross-posted to that bizarre array of newsgroups is to send a
nasty-gram to the originator of the posting -- Wallace or otherwise,
telling them to knock it off.  They won't like it and their responses
won't be pretty -- but that's what the job entails.

Who'll volunteer to join our little goon squad? 

--
 - 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:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Scott Little /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 7 Jun 1995 04:33:45 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3r2o0p$5jj@big.aa.net>, knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) says:
|
>Scott,
>  Are the results of this poll going to be posted publicly? I was more than a 
>bit surprised when I voted on the reorganization of s.p.f to find my vote was 
>later posted for all to see. Since I'm relatively new to the Internet and 
>Usenet newsgroups, I don't really know what the convention is. In most 
>democratic societies, how one votes is considered a private matter, and I feel 
>most comfortable with that policy. Please advise. -Knuke
> 

Good point, Knuke.  I swear on a stack of lab notebooks that I will only 
post the results in numerical form (e.g. 235 for, 2 against) with the
following exception:  if I get some good "other" responses, I might 
post them verbatim but I won't identify the authors, OK?

Come on, everybody, let's hear it.  One way or the other, please express
your opinion on this matter.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: nuclear coolants
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nuclear coolants
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 07:40:49 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3qv1ca$guf@newsbf02.news.aol.com> oostrander@aol.com (Oostrander) writes:
>I am  a  Middle  school student  and  I am  working  on  a  project   and 
>my  team   and  I have  to  go   to  Pluto.  I  need  to  know  a  super 
>coolant   for  a  nuclear  engine.  We were thinking of using alcohol, but
>we did not know the freezing temperature of alcohol or if it would be a
>suitable substance.  We would like to get information from you if we
>could.

Radiant cooling to deep space.   Otherwise, you'e dead... you'll never get
there with much of your health in tact, if any.   You'll never afford
the shielding necessary, and fission devices, under these circumstances,
can only do about 10 to 15% efficiency power conversion to electric 
in order to drive thrusters --- tops.   This is want came out of our
sp 100 program, which was dropped a couple of years back.  

>Thank you, 
>John
>Please e-mail responses to my teacher at oostrander@aol.com

You type it up and send it, or forward it to that person yourself.  
I don't send unsolicited mail. 
>---------------------------------------
>Peter Ostrander
>oostrander@aol.com
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Richard Schultz /  Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "INVESTORS DOUBT COLD FUSION": Article
Date: 7 Jun 1995 11:56:42 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950602164834.26326A-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz  <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:

>As for Pons, we had a rumour before, i.e. he was
>supposed to have "disappeared" when in fact he had resigned properly in
>order to take up his job in France. 

No, Pons actually did a disappearing act in the fall of 1989 in the sense
that the quarter started and he didn't show up to teach his course, and
in fact was nowhere to be found.  They eventually got a fax asking for
a leave of absence.  His "proper" resignation (they made him a research
professor so that his students could finish their dissertations) was
more a means of allowing him to save face, as not showing up to teach
your courses is one of the few things for which a tenured professor 
can be fired.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Thomas Selby /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 7 Jun 1995 12:19:22 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

It's been on my killfile for months

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Richard Blue /  Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:09:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed, If you spent less time berating me and more time addressing the
questions I raise you could possibly show me up more my ignorance more
quickly than you do.  As it is I think I am the winner in these exchanges.
What little factual information you do sneak into your posts does, however,
just get you further and further out on your bendy little limb.

I ask a question concerning a "heat exchanger" in the Cravens demo, and
in your indirect manner between all the invective you do sort of answer
the question even though you don't seem to realize that you did.

I now know that the Cravens demo did not have a heat exchanger as such.
It just relies on the plastic tubing in the external fluid circuit to
exchange its one watt of output with the room air.  What you don't seem
to realize, Jed, is that if one watt is so easy to get rid of that we
don't even have to know where it goes it follows as night follows day that
it is also easy to take up one watt from the surroundings.

All your blather about my suggesting magical energy sources for the external
fluid circuit is pointless, Jed.  The surroundings can certainly supply that
energy, and you have proved that in your remarks!  All that we lack is a
clearly identified means of energy transport.  In that regard it is sufficient
to note that Cravens does not supply data sufficient to rule out every
possibility.  Add to that your own assertion that there are indeed some
"secrets" involved in making this thing work, and I think I have solid grounds
for saying that the demo does not prove the existance of cold fusion.
Your usual arguement that the magic must be nuclear must, it seems to me, be
expanded to say that the magic may be chemistry.

Here you reveal one of your hangups, Jed.  Your argument against CF being
chemistry has always been directed against the storage of energy in chemical
form, and that is what you drag out once again in this case.  You fail to note
that I have suggested something different that is not addressed by your
arguments against chemical energy storage.  I suggest the possibility of
chemical energy transport.  What I have suggested is that the fluid carries
an additional 0.1 J per ml as it returns to the cell, if I have my numbers
right.  Check me on that number and tell us why it can't be so.  I say better
living through chemistry.

Now with regard to the filter, you rather shoot yourself in the foot on this
one, Jed.  When I ask why the filter is there you say that it is needed to
filter out the organic crude that would otherwise polute the electrolysis cell.
First question is how a fliter can trap anything in solution.  Answer: It
can't!  But the obvious conclusion is that if there is chemical activity of
any significance in the external plastic tubing, etc., we really ought to be
asking questions about the nature of that chemical activity.

Of course your final argument is always that there cannot be anything wrong
with the Cravens version of CF because there are all those other unnamed
versions that prove the reality of CF.  It is just that whenever we try to
pin you down on the specifics relating to one experiment, Jed, you insist that
the proof lies elsewhere.  If we point out that Cravens is only producing one
watt you inform us that someone in Lower Slobovia is producing kilowatts.
If we ask about "blanks" for heavy water experiments you assure us that the
corresponding light water runs produce no excess heat, but when a light water
experiment produces excess heat you see no problem with either result.  If
we ask for evidence of a reation product we are assured that deuterium fuses
to form 4He, but taking away 99 44/100 percent of the deuerium makes no
difference.

We are told that CF magic works because of a solid state effect in the Pd
lattice, but when the bulk of the Pd disappears things get better, right?
We are told that CF results have been showing constant improvement, but the
actual experiments have been run on smaller and smaller samples with the
results being scaled arbitrarily to make the numbers big.  So it is better
to make one watt using only 40 mg of metal than it is to make 10 watts using
a gram of metal.  I suppose the best alternative is to make kilowatts using
no metal and forget the solid state effects altogether.  You wouldn't suggest
that now would you, Jed?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Thanks for admitting you are ignorant, Arnie
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks for admitting you are ignorant, Arnie
Date: 7 Jun 1995 08:19:38 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <JMwc9Im.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>I asked arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) whether he has actually read any
>scientific papers about cold fusion. In his non-response, he tacitly admits
>the answer is no, he has not read anything. I asked what he has "seen." He
>responds:
> 
>    "What I have seen, and see almost every day in this newsgroup, is
>    your facile attempts . . ."
> 
>Right. No reference to any papers. You evade the issue and attack me instead.
>That settles it. Thanks for admitting you have read nothing and you know
>nothing.
> 
> 
>   "You are in no position to question me about what I read."
> 
>No need to, Arnie! I recognize an ignorant fool when I see one. Obviously you
>have not read anything.
> 
> 
>   "I suppose now, that Pons and Fleishmann [sic] seem no longer to be working
>   'in the area'" . . .
> 
>Oh, sure. You heard that from Morrison, and you believe it. Say, I have a




What you fail to understand is that your personal attacks on me have no
effect, whatsoever, except to graphically demonstrate that when you
don't want to - or can't - answer a question, your response is always a
vitriolic attack.  I accept this, because I consider the source.  Maybe
others, now, will also consider the source.



Again, I ask you, why you are trying so hard to convince everyone
that this stuff - whatever it is - works?  If you believe in it,
why don't you invest in it and make yourself rich?  Why do you
need to convince others?  Is that a source of revenue for you?



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories



ps:  I am ready and waiting for the next attack.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Scott Little /  Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
Date: 7 Jun 1995 15:12:40 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

I agree with John Logajan that it will take more than a vote to end this
Farce/Plutonium mess we're now in.  It seems to me that if a bunch of us
were to send email requests to cross-post abusers, including those who
respond to a message without removing the extraneous newsgroups from the
header, that eventually these folks would realize that they're offending
us...and (here goes my irrational faith in humankind again) they would 
STOP.

Here's my offering for a "nasty-gram" (not very nasty, actually) to send
 these folks:  Feel free to copy it, use it, modify it, as you see fit...
but, please, do send it to everyone you see abusing the cross-posting
privelege.


Greetings Fellow Internet Denizen:

Very recently, you either posted a follow-up or originated an article
which had too many newsgroups in the header.  In the future, please
limit your posts to one newsgroup. In the case of a follow-up, you must
manually remove all the extransous newsgroup names from the header of
your follow-up article.

At this point, you may be asking, "Why should I bother to do this?"

Newsgroups are set up according to subject so that traffic in any one
group will be light and reasonably well-focussed.  This enables people
to follow what's going on and allows the newsgroup to function as a
useful forum for the exchange of ideas.

Heavy cross-posting bloats newsgroups with a lot of stuff that is not
necessarily interesting to the regulars of that group.  It also forces
users to maintain a link to their Internet provider longer to download
the extra article headers.

A good example of cross-posting abuse is "the Farce of Physics".  These
articles rightfully belong in only one newsgroup:  sci.physics.new-theories.
Anyone wanting to read about the Farce of Physics would certainly look in
that newsgroup first, right?

Please join me in helping to eliminate this problem.

If you do not agree with me, let me know, I will be glad to discuss this
issue with you.  My goal is to make Usenet more useful for everyone.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Alan M /  Re: Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
Date: 7 Jun 1995 17:35:02 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <Js4fNwl.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Now that Morrison has graced this newsgroup with more of his imaginative
> reporting, I think it is time to re-post some of previous contributions to
> 20th century science sociology

Even by your abysmal standards, Jed, this is an atrocious attempt at
character assassination in the evident absence of any realistic
response to the points Morrison made.

FACT: Last year, you were repeatedly happy - no eager - to tell us of
the millions of dollars that world-respected organisations like EPRI,
Toyota, NTT and Shell Oil were investing in Cold Fusion, and indeed to
use this as your oft-repeated prime argument that "there must be something
in it, since these companies aren't mugs".

FACT: Now that all the evidence indicates that external funds have (not
surprisingly) dried up, you are suddenly very coy about how much external
funding is actually still available.

If these companies weren't mugs last year, and didn't mind you talking
about their funding then, what - other than you own obvious embarrassment -
is to stop you talking about it today?

Tell us where Morrison has used his imagination in his report or, better still,
just shut up and go away. I can asure you that nobody will regret your going.

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: 7 Jun 1995 04:49:10 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

One poster recently came up with the ``novel'' idea of
achieving fusion by shooting a deuterium beam at 
a tritium (or other) solid state target. As I pointed out,
this idea is nowhere close to being new, and is known
to not be able to produce net energy.

Looking through my references, I find that in fact this 
is essentially the technique by which fusion was first demonstrated:
Rutherford, in his continuing beam-target experiments, demonstrated
beam-target induced fusion in ~1932! Presumably, it became abundantly 
clear to them from their experimentally measured yields that 
this process could not produce net energy. (And, as I said, there
is a simple theoretical argument that shows the ion bullets loose too much
energy to heating up target electrons for the process to be 
efficient.)

So, if we take it to heart that accelerated ions hitting ``solid'' state
electrons lose too much of their stored energy to warming up local
electrons, this casts doubt on the possibility of producing net energy
by any of the known or readily envisioned solid state fusion mechanisms:
fracto-fusion (ions accelerated by E fields in stress-induced cracks
in a material) and to a lesser extent possible sonoluminscent fusion
(the mechanismn here is ions heated by compression, but again the
ions would in turn pass on much of their energy to local electrons).

The only solid state mechanism that could avoid this is some means
that would preferentially aim the accelrated ion at another ion,
rather than an electron target. Perhaps a channel in a crystalline
lattice could act as a conduit to guide a bullet ion towards its
target ion at the other end. But, I rather doubt even this could
work, as the ion would still interact fairly strongly with the
electrons that form the channel walls...




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


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Tom Droege /  Re: $700 will do just fine
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 will do just fine
Date: 7 Jun 1995 18:41:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3r0k5m$kh8@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>In article <pG9+dkU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
>
>>Actually, I would like about a thousand of them at that price, because the
>>add on equipment alone (pumps, pipes and plumbing) is worth more than
>>$700. 
>
>Jed, my understanding (vague as it is) is that the device costs "a few hundred
>dollars" by itself (without the associated pump and accessories) and thus
>I said that $700 should just about get one into the US (a wild guess on the
>shipping costs).  You're right, a 4kW pump will cost a pretty penny...
>probably quite a bit more than the P device!

Scott,

Don't overlook the used machinery market.  There is a huge market in
used motors, pumps, etc..  Jed would have a tough time selling off the
stuff.  It is a real cut throat market!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / 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: 7 Jun 1995 15:19:12 -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 611 posts by 214 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:
cuddy7 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / 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: 7 Jun 1995 15:21:35 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.



Bryan G. Wallace                                      49195 words
7210 12th. Ave. No.           (c) Copyright 1993 Bryan G. Wallace
St. Petersburg, FL. 33710
Phone (813) 347-9309
Fax   (813) 864-8382
Email wallace@eckerd.edu










                      THE FARCE OF PHYSICS


                       by Bryan G. Wallace
                       7210 12th. Ave. No.
                    St. Petersburg, FL. 33710
                       Ph. (813) 347-9309

Contents

    Introduction                2

1.  Sacred Science              5

2.  Pathological Physics       23

3.  Mathematical Magic         56

4.  Publication Politics       93

5.  Light Lunacy              126

6.  Relativity Revolution     155

7.  Ultimate Unification      185

    References                207
Introduction

   A 1986 Harris poll found that about 70 percent of the
responding adult Americans described themselves as interested in
science and technology, and they said their understanding of the
subject was very good or adequate.[153]  The word scientist
entered the English language in 1840, and few individuals earned
a living doing research, with most of the investigations carried
out by gentlemen of wealth and leisure.  At that time, a handful
of American scientist were taking steps to transform their status
and image and separate themselves as professionals from those
they considered amateurs.[154]  The major tactic used to create
this artificial separation has been the elaborate use of
technical jargon and complex mathematics.  This erection of
higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of scientific
affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of science,
its openness to outside examination and appraisal.[155]  Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce.  I will attempt to explore
and document this argument, and this book is meant for anyone who
is interested in this subject.  I have tried to reduce the
technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach
the widest possible audience.  If the reader finds parts that are
hard to understand, just skip them, and perhaps come back to them
later if you decide to explore that part in greater detail.  You
should realize that in general only about 90% of professional
physicists are able to make sense of less than 10% of what other
physicists say.[156]  For the past 50 years most of the
scientific research has been funded by the federal government,
and the number of Ph.D. scientists working in the U.S. has far
outstripped the growth of the population as a whole.  President
Eisenhower stated that "in holding scientific research and
discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the
equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become
the captive of a scientific-technological elite."[150]  You the
taxpayer fund this research, and you also enjoy the benefits that
legitimate research can bring.  That is why it is important to
understand what you are getting for your money, and for you to
inform your elected representatives when you think your precious
tax dollars are being wasted.  This book is a journey through my
career as a physicist, giving the interesting details of the many
events, arguments, and evidence encountered along the way.  I
suspect that the reader will discover that the truth can be
stranger than fiction.
   The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for
nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of
Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science,
philosophy and religion were not separated.  The aim of physics
is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at
the base of all of natural science.  The father of modern physics
and astronomy, Galileo Galilei, was outspoken, forceful,
sometimes tactless, and he enjoyed debate.  He made many powerful
enemies, and was eventually tried by the Inquisition and
convicted of heresy.  In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim
there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in our
time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed
of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter
how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's
sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory.  The heresies change, but
as you will find from reading this book, human nature remains the
same!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / 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: 7 Jun 1995 15:24:09 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Chapter 1

                         Sacred Science

   The title of this book was inspired by Dr. Fritjof Capra's
book The Tao of Physics.  Capra, a theoretical physicist states:

     The purpose of this book is to explore this relationship
  between the concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in
  the philosophical and religious traditions of the Far East. 
  We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century
  physicsÄÄquantum theory and relativity theoryÄÄboth force us
  to see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist, or
  Taoist sees it, and how this similarity strengthens when we
  look at the recent attempts to combine these two theories in
  order to describe the phenomena of the submicroscopic world:
  the properties and interactions of the subatomic particles of
  which all matter is made.  Here the parallels between modern
  physics and Eastern mysticism are most striking, and we shall
  often encounter statements where it is almost impossible to
  say whether they have been made by physicists or Eastern
  mystics. [1 p.4]

   This presents an interesting question, what is the difference
between modern physics and Eastern mysticism?  There was a
fascinating debate concerning creation-science published in the
letters section of the journal Physics Today that directly
relates to this question.  The journal is sent free of charge to
all members of the American Physical Society.  The Society is the
largest physics society in the world, and has world-wide
membership.  The letters section is popular, and is probably the
most important communicative link between the world's physicists. 
The following quote is from a letter by Prof. Harry W. Ellis, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College:

     On the other hand, the scientist (or anyone) who dismisses
  religion because the idea of an omnipotent God is logically
  inconsistent is guilty of intellectual hypocrisy.  Does he or
  she think that science is free from inconsistencies?  Perhaps
  he or she is not aware of the existence of Russell's paradox
  or Goedel's Theorem.  Actually, aside from obvious
  methodological differences, science and theology have much in
  common.  Each is an attempt to model reality, founded on
  unprovable articles of faith.  If the existence of a benign
  supreme being is the fundamental assumption at the heart of
  religion, certainly the practice of science is founded on the
  unprovable hypothesis that the universe is rationalÄÄthat its
  behavior is subject to human understanding.  Through science
  we construct highly useful models which permit us to
  understand the universe, in the sense of predicting its
  behavior.  Let us not commit the elementary epistemological
  mistake of confusing the model with reality.  Surely
  scientists, as well as religious leaders, should possess
  sufficient maturity to realize that whatever ultimate reality
  there may be is not directly accessible to mortal humans.[2]

Dr. Rodney B. Hall of the University of Iowa writes:

     Perhaps faith or the lack of it is simply a matter of
  indoctrination.  You have been indoctrinated by the priests or
  the professors or both.[3]

Dr. John C. Bortz of the University of Rochester argues:

     Faith is not a valid cognitive procedure.  When it is
  accepted as such, the process of rational argumentation
  degenerates into a contest of whims, and any idea, no matter
  how absurd or evil, may be successfully defended by claiming
  that those who advocate it feel, somehow, that it is right.  In
  such a philosophical environment ideas are accepted not on the
  basis of how logical they are but rather on the basis of how
  much "feeling" their advocates seem to have.  Unfortunately,
  the acceptance of ideas on this basis has been and continues to
  be the dominant epistemological trend in the world.[4]

Dr. Anthony L. Peratt of Los Alamos states:

     It is almost amusing to see the proponents of Big Bang
  cosmology, who have themselves been accused of fostering a
  religious intolerance toward those who question whether the
  foundations of the Big Bang hypothesis are scientifically
  justifiable, now getting a dose of their own medicine from
  biblical creationists.[5]

Dr. Carl A. Zapffe presents the view that:

     Science deserves every whack it gets from the so-called
  creationists, for a charge of puritanical posture belongs as
  much to one side as to the other.[6]

   The governing body of the American Physical Society has
released the following official statement on the matter:

     The Council of The American Physical Society opposes
  proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public
  school science classes of the biblical story of creation and
  the scientific theory of evolution.  The issues raised by such
  proposals, while mainly focused on evolution, have important
  implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry,
  including geology, physics, and astronomy.  In contrast to
  "Creationism," the systematic application of scientific
  principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature
  of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is
  constantly being tested and refined by observation and
  analysis.  This ability to construct critical experiments,
  whose results can require rejection of a theory, is fundamental
  to the scientific method.  While our society must constantly
  guard against oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of
  science in the education process, we must also resist attempts
  to interfere with the presentation of properly developed
  scientific principles in establishing guidelines for classroom
  instruction or in the development of scientific textbooks.  We
  therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel
  treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in
  science classes.  Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are
  two distinct elements of the human experience.  Attempts to
  present them in the same context can only lead to
  misunderstandings of both.[7]

I expect that the average scientist would agree with the
following argument presented by Dr. Michael A. Seeds:

  ...A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science
  but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
  sciences.  Thus such subjects are false sciences.
     True science is a method of studying nature.  It is a set of
  rules that prevents scientists from lying to each other or to
  themselves.  Hypotheses must be open to testing and must be
  revised in the face of contradictory evidence.  All evidence
  must be considered and all alternative hypotheses must be
  explored.  The rules of good science are nothing more than the
  rules of good thinkingÄÄthat is, the rules of intellectual
  honesty.[8 p.A5]

This brings up an interesting question; Do scientists actually
practice what they preach?  The evidence clearly shows that the
average scientist tends not to use the rules of good science.  In
fact, it appears that Protestant ministers are inclined to have
more intellectual honesty than Ph.D. scientists.  To document
this fact, I will quote from an article titled "Researchers Found
Reluctant to Test Theories" by Dr. David Dickson:

     Despite the emphasis placed by philosophers of science on
  the importance of "falsification"ÄÄthe idea that one of a
  scientist's main concerns should be to try to find evidence
  that disproves rather than supports a particular
  hypothesisÄÄexperiments reported at the AAAS annual meeting
  suggest that research workers are in practice reluctant to put
  their pet theories to such a test.
     In a paper on self-deception in science, Michael J. Mahoney
  of the University of California at Santa Barbara described the
  results of a field trial in which a group of 30 Ph.D.
  scientists were given 10 minutes to find the rule used to
  construct a sequence of three numbers, 2,4,6, by making up new
  sequences, inquiring whether they obeyed the same rule, and
  then announcing (or "publishing") what they concluded the rule
  to be when they felt sufficiently confident.
     The results obtained by the scientists were compared to
  those achieved by a control group of 15 Protestant ministers. 
  Analysis showed that the ministers conducted two to three times
  more experiments for every hypothesis that they put forward,
  were more than three times slower in "publishing" their first
  hypothesis, and were only about half as likely as the
  scientists to return to a hypothesis that had already been
  disconfirmed.[9]

   There is an interesting article by Dr. T. Theocharis and Dr.
M. Psimopoulos of the Department of Physics of the Imperial
College of Science and Technology in London titled "Where science
has gone wrong," that explores the arguments put forth by
prominent scientists and philosophers with regard to the nature
of modern science.[10]  The following is several quotes from that
article:

     On 17 and 22 February 1986 BBC television broadcast, in the
  highly regarded Horizon series, a film entitled "Science ...
  Fiction?", and in the issue of 20 February 1986 The Listener
  published an article entitled "The Fallacy of Scientific
  Objectivity".  As is evident from their titles, these were
  attacks against objectivity, truth and science.... 
     This state of affairs is bad enough.  But things are even
  worse: perversely, many individual scientists and philosophers
  seem bent on questioning and rejecting the true theses, and
  supporting the antitheses.  For example, most of the
  participants in the "Science ... Fiction?" film were academic
  scientists....
  Popper also thought that observations are theory-laden.  He
  phrased it thus: "Sense-data, untheoretical items of
  observation, simply do not exist....[11]
     But if observations are theory-laden, this means that
  observations are simply theories, and then how can one theory
  falsify (never mind verify) another theory?...[12]
     So back to square one: if verifiability and falsifiability
  are not the criteria, then what makes a proposition scientific? 
  It is hard to discern the answer to this question in Lakatos's
  writings.  But if any answer is discerned at all, it is one
  that contradicts flagrantly the motto of the Royal Society:  "I
  am not bound to swear as any master dictates".[13]  This answer
  is more obvious in Thomas Kuhn's[14] writings: a proposition is
  scientific if it is sanctioned by the scientific establishment. 
  (Example: if the scientific establishment decrees that "fairies
  exist", then this would be scientific indeed.)
     According to Kuhn, science is not the steady, cumulative
  acquisition of knowledge that was portrayed in old-fashioned
  textbooks.  Rather, it is an endless succession of long
  peaceful periods which are violently interrupted by brief
  intellectual revolutions.  During the peaceful period, which
  Kuhn calls "normal science", scientists are guided by a set of
  theories, standards and methods, which Kuhn collectively
  designates as a "paradigm".  (Others call it a "world-view".) 
  During a revolution, the old paradigm is violently overthrown
  and replaced by a new one....
     Kuhn's view, that a proposition is scientific if it is
  sanctioned by the scientific establishment, gives rise to the
  problematic question: what exactly makes an establishment
  "scientific"?  This particular Gordian knot was cut by Paul
  Feyerabend: any proposition is scientificÄÄ"There is only one
  principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in
  all stages of human development.  It is the principle: Anything
  goes"....[15]
     In 1979 Science published a four-page complimentary
  feature[16] about Feyerabend, the Salvador Dali of academic
  philosophy, and currently the worst enemy of science.  In this
  article Feyerabend was quoted as stating that "normal science
  is a fairy tale" and that "equal time should be given to
  competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupuncture,
  and witchcraft."  Oddly, religion was omitted.  For according
  to Feyerabend (and the "Science ... Fiction?" film too),
  religionÄÄand everything elseÄÄis an equally valid avenue of
  knowledge.  In fact on one occasion Feyerabend
  characteristically put science on a par with "religion,
  prostitution and so on."[15]

The above mentioned Prof. Thomas S. Kuhn, was a man who wrote a
controversial book on science.  In an interview of Kuhn by John
Horgan on page 40 of the May 1991 issue of the prestigious US
journal SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, we find the following:

  ... "The book" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
  commonly called the most influential treatise ever written on
  how science does (or does not) proceed.  Since its publication
  in 1962, it has sold nearly a million copies in 16 languages,
  and it is still fundamental reading in courses on the history
  and philosophy of science.
     The book is notable for having spawned that trendy term
  "paradigm."  It also fomented the now trite idea that
  personalities and politics play a large role in science. 
  Perhaps the book's most profound argument is less obvious:
  scientists can never fully understand the "real world" or
  evenÄÄto  a crucial degreeÄÄone another...
     Denying the view of science as a continual building process,
  Kuhn asserts that a revolution is a destructive as well as a
  creative event.  The proposer of a new paradigm stands on the
  shoulders of giants and then bashes them over the head.  He or
  she is often young or new to the field, that is, not fully
  indoctrinated....

   Dr. Spencer Weart directs the Center for History of Physics at
the American Institute of Physics in New York.  In his
interesting article THE PHYSICIST AS MAD SCIENTIST published in
Physics Today, he writes:

  The public image of the scientist partly evolved out of ideas
  about wizards.  Here was an impressive figure, known to all
  from early childhood, reaching back through ancient sorcery
  legends to prehistoric shamans.[17 p.28]

   Prof. Albert Einstein states the following on the general lack
of scientific integrity in the temple of science:

     In the temple of science are many mansions, and various
  indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have
  led them thither.  Many take to science out of a joyful sense
  of superior intellectual power; science is their own special
  sport to which they look for vivid experience and the
  satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the
  temple who have offered the products of their brains on this
  altar for purely utilitarian purposes.  Were an angel of the
  Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two
  categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously
  depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present
  and past times, left inside.[39 p.224]

In Ronald W. Clark's definitive biography of Einstein, we find
what Einstein means when he makes the above statement pertaining
to the Lord, or some of his other famous statements such as "God
is subtle, but he is not malicious" or "God does not play dice
with the world.":

     However Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. 
  When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later
  life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that
  "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with
  different names what to more ordinary mortalsÄÄand to most
  JewsÄÄlooked like a variant of simple agnosticism.  Replying in
  1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he
  said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in
  the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns
  himself with the fate and actions of men."  And it is claimed
  that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in
  God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass,
  agreed that there must be something behind the energy."  No
  doubt.  But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of
  belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a
  celestial machine minder, running the universe with
  undisputable authority and expert touch.  Instead, Einstein's
  God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely
  marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty
  of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the
  majesty of a massive cyclotron.  This was belief enough.  It
  grew early and rooted deep.  Only later was it dignified by the
  title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible
  respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a
  life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the
  earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect
  rather than celestial reward.  Einstein's God thus stood for an
  orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those
  who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go
  on searching for them.  And it was to this task which he began
  to turn his mind soon after the age of twelve.  For the rest of
  his life everything else was to seem almost trivial by
  comparison.[38 p.38]

In an expansion of Einstein's views with regard to a scientific
cosmic religion, Clark states:

     Maybe.  To some extent the differences between Einstein and
  more conventional believers were semantic, a point brought out
  in his "Religion and Science" which, on Sunday, November 9,
  occupied the entire first page of the New York Times Magazine. 
  "Everything that men do or think," it began, "concerns the
  satisfaction of the needs they feel or the escape from pain." 
  Einstein then went on to outline three states of religious
  development, starting with the religion of fear that moved
  primitive people, and which in due course became the moral
  religion whose driving force was social feelings.  This in turn
  could become the "cosmic religious sense ... which recognizes
  neither dogmas nor God made in man's image."  And he then put
  the key to his ideas in two sentences.  "I assert that the
  cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest
  driving force behind scientific research."  And, as a
  corollary, "the only deeply religious people of our largely
  materialistic age are the earnest men of research."[38 p.516]

   With reference to the general view of most scientists with
regard to science and religion, there is a very interesting FOCAL
POINT article in the journal Sky & Telescope by Dr. Paul Davies,
a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide
Australia.[139]  The title of the article is What Hath COBE
Wrought?, and the following statements are from the article:

  THE BLAZE of publicity that accompanied the recent discovery of
  ripples in the heat radiation from the Big Bang focused
  attention once again on the subject of God and creation. 
  Commentators disagree on the theological significance of what
  NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer, or COBE, found.  Some
  referred to the ripples as the "fingerprint of God," while
  others lashed out at what they saw as the scientists' attempt
  to demystify God's last refuge.
     When the Big Bang theory became popular in the 1950s, many
  people used it to support the belief that the universe was
  created by God at some specific moment in the past.  And some
  still regard the Big Bang as "the creation" ÄÄ a divine act to
  be left beyond the scope of science.... Cosmologist regard the
  Big Bang as marking the origin of space and time, as well as of
  matter and energy.... This more sophisticated, but abstract,
  idea of God adapts well to the scientific picture of a universe
  subject to timeless eternal laws.... If time itself began with
  the Big Bang, then the question "What caused the Big Bang?" is
  rendered meaningless.... New and exciting theories of quantum
  cosmology seek to explain the origin of the universe within the
  framework of scientific law.  Their central feature is
  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which permits genuine
  spontaneity in nature.  As a result, the tight linkage between
  cause and effect so characteristic of classical physics is
  loosened.  Quantum events do not need well-defined prior
  causes; they can be regarded as spontaneous fluctuations.  It
  is then possible to imagine the universe coming into being from
  nothing entirely spontaneously, without violating any laws. 

   Sir Isaac Newton, in his reasoning in support of the particle
(corpuscular) model of light in space, as opposed to the wave in
ether model, presented the argument:

  Against filling the Heavens with fluid mediums, unless they be
  exceeding rare, a great Objection arises from the regular and
  very lasting motions of the Planets and Comets.  For thence it
  is manifest, that the Heavens are void of all sensible
  resistance, and by consequence of all sensible matter.[140]

In 1846 Michael Faraday wrote in his diary:

  All I can say is, that I do not perceive in any part of space,
  whether (to use the common phrase) vacant or filled with
  matter, anything but forces and the lines in which they
  exerted.[141]

This was the beginning of the dominant modern physics theories,
where it is the geometric and physical conditions of space itself
that is fundamental.  Prof. Eyvind H. Wichmann, in the Berkeley
Physics Course, Volume 4, quantum physics, presents the following
argument:

  35   Today the mechanical ether has been banished from the
  world of physics, and the word "ether" itself, because of its
  "bad" connotations, no longer occurs in textbooks on physics. 
  We talk ostentatiously about the "vacuum" instead, thereby
  indicating our lack of interest in the medium in which waves
  propagate.  We no longer ask what it is that "really
  oscillates" when we study electromagnetic waves or de Broglie
  waves.  All we wish to do is to formulate wave equations for
  these waves, through which we can predict experimentally
  observable phenomena....[122]

   There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession
is sexual prostitution.  I think that it is far more likely that
the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century.  I
suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the
prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire
status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the
dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do.  So
in a sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the
earliest scientists were the prehistoric shamans, and the
argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par with religion
and prostitution.  I also tend to agree with the argument of
Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith.  Using the logic that if it looks
like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must
be a duck: I support the argument that since there is no
significant difference between science and religion, science
should be considered a religion!  I would also agree with Ellis'
argument of the obvious methodological differences between
science and the other religions.  The other dominant religions
are static because their arguments are based on rigid doctrines
set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad,
who have died long ago.  Science on the other hand, is a dynamic
religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence.
   The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia,
which means knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is
just another word for knowledge.  An associate of mine, Prof.
Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once
told me that students in his graduate school used to joke that
Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper.  If one considers the
vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description
of the degree.  Considering the results from Mahoney's field
trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to three times
more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists,
it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to three times
more right to be called scientists then the so-called Ph.D.
scientists.  I would agree with Popper's argument that
observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an
argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very
least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the
scientific method.  The true scientist must have faith and
believe in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in
the theories themselves.  I agree with Seeds argument that "A
pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does
not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences." 
Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow
the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled
pseudoscience.  The people who tend to believe more in theories
than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore
the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be
considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists.  To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for
status, wealth , or political reasons, these people are
scientific prostitutes. 
   I agree with Newton's argument that if light was a wave in the
ether, the ether would have to be nonsensible matter.  Calling
the ether space or vacuum does not solve the problem.  Its
existence is based on blind faith and not experimental evidence. 
As I will show in the following Chapters, there is an
overwhelming body of evidence that light is a particle, as Newton
predicted.  The fact that most modern physicists have refused to
objectively consider this evidence, has made a farce of physics. 
This empty space of modern physics is a supernatural solid[123]
that can have infinite temperature and density.[105]  A spot of
this material that is smaller than an atom is supposed to have
created the entire universe.[8 p.325]  This physical material has
become the God of most modern physicists!

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Klaus Breslauer /  Re: information on solid state ("cold") fusion
     
Originally-From: kbreslau@Direct.CA (Klaus Breslauer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: information on solid state ("cold") fusion
Date: 7 Jun 1995 20:33:53 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.


As per your post, I am interested in more information, 
especially experimental appartus designs
and safety procedures used in cf work.  

Sincerely,
Klaus Breslauer in Vancouver, BC
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkbreslau cudfnKlaus cudlnBreslauer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Scott Little /  attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 7 Jun 1995 21:08:57 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 /  Rhame /  Re: Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
     
Originally-From: rhame@aol.com (Rhame)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Announcement of Scientific Breakthrough
Date: 7 Jun 1995 17:39:24 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In response to Paul Koloc's message dated June 5, 1995:

The cluster model does not require that nucleons be massless, and does not
present a
problem of mass accumulation.  As an example, if the proton were
considered to consist
of two(2) NP clusters and one(1) anti-NPN cluster during part of its lfe,
as demonstrated
by the model, this would result in its observed mass of one.

	2-He-4 (d)   -   1-H-3 (u)   =   1-H-1 (d)

Here, Z-Symbol-A (down or up attraction to gravity).  "d" is normal
gravity.  The "u"
indicates repulsion to gravity by the anticluster.  Note the proper net
charge that results.
Similarly,

	5-B-10 (d)   -   2-He-6 (u)   -   2-He-3 (u) =   1-H-1 (d),

is another representation possible for the proton, consisting of 5 NPs, 2
anti-NPNs, and
1(one) anti-PNP.  The model demonstrates that all nuclei can be shown to
consist of a
number of these types of representations, all conserving their observed
mass and charge. 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrhame cudlnRhame cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aryan Science Numerology from Morrison
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 23:11:09 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <887152540wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
   "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article: <Js4fNwl.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>> Now that Morrison has graced this newsgroup with more of his imaginative
>> reporting, I think it is time to re-post some of previous contributions to
>> 20th century science sociology
>
>Even by your abysmal standards, Jed, this is an atrocious attempt at
>character assassination in the evident absence of any realistic
>response to the points Morrison made.
>

I, too, was displeased by the tone of Jed's post. Ad hominem posts hurt the 
attacker more than the attackee. Messages of this kind should go in private 
e-mail, if they have to go at all. Give it some thought Jed.

A Dilbert cartoon from a couple of months ago provides an explanation for 
this type of behavior:

Panel 1:
Dilbert:  My status report is a bit light this week because I'm having an 
e-mail flame war with Wally.

Panel 2:
Dilbert:  Wally refuses to admit my technical superiority or his simian 
ancestry.  It is my obligation to set him straight.
Wally:  NEVER!!

Panel 3:
Dilbert: I'm thinking this somehow elevates my rank in the herd and improves 
my mating possibilities.
Wally:  We're victims of hormones.


cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  NON FACTS from Dunsmuir and "Regionalization" Morrison
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NON FACTS from Dunsmuir and "Regionalization" Morrison
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 22:17:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, who apparently believes
anything Morrison tells him, writes:
 
    "FACT: Last year, you were repeatedly happy - no eager - to tell us of
    the millions of dollars that world-respected organizations like EPRI,
    Toyota, NTT and Shell Oil were investing in Cold Fusion, and indeed to
    use this as your oft-repeated prime argument that "there must be something
    in it, since these companies aren't mugs".
 
    FACT: Now that all the evidence indicates that external funds have (not
    surprisingly) dried up, you are suddenly very coy about how much external
    funding is actually still available."
 
Who told you those funds have dried up? How do you know? Did you call EPRI,
Toyota, NTT or Shell? Of course you didn't! Morrison wrote it, and you
automatically believe anything he says. Morrison made that up, or he heard it
from some two-bit rumor monger. It is not true. EPRI, Toyota, NTT and Shell
Oil still are investing in cold fusion. EPRI is miles ahead of where they used
to be, now that they are doing sonofusion.
 
FACT: Morrison's claims are nothing but absurd, discredited rumors which he
feeds to True Believers like you, knowing you are too lazy to call EPRI or
Toyota.
 
 
   "Even by your abysmal standards, Jed, this is an atrocious attempt at
   character assassination . . ."
 
Oh, how awful of me!!! Yes, I confess. This is such dreadful character
assassination. Yes, Morrison went on national television and spouted this
elitist, racist, poison, and then he wrote it up in a crackpot "paper" or two,
and now . . .  <sniff> I QUOTED IT BACK TO HIM.
 
Oh, how terrible of me. I shall never forgive myself for quoting Morrison's
exact words. It is so unfair! You True Believers like to to swallow his story
straight and you don't want to know that he is a closet crackpot. He writes
political news about cold fusion in national newspapers, and you believe it,
even though he has gone on record time after time with statements about
society and science that any decent person will find revolting.
 
Or are you defending his disgusting lies about the distribution of cold
fusion results? Do you think he is justified in trashing all results outside
of Northern Europe? Do you think it is okay for him to sweep Harwell, CalTech
and MIT under the rug to justify his sick theories? My God, haven't we seen
enough of that this century! World War II and concentration camps were only 50
years ago. The nightrider's reign of terror here in Georgia ended only 30
years ago. The worst poison -- the most destructive idea in history -- begins
when you say: "people here in this one country can think and do science. These
other people down in Southern Europe, and those people in Japan -- they can't
think. Ignore them. Their experiments and their results must be wrong, because
they don't come from Northern Europe." And just who comes from Northern
Europe, and what color are they? What evidence is there that only white people
at elite institutions have the ability to do science?
 
Everyone knows what these code words of Morrison's mean. Everyone knows what
they have led to, time after time, throughout history. Degradation, murder,
mayhem, genocide, slavery, war . . . these are the inevitable nemesis of hate,
bigotry, elitism, and race prejudice. When you stick pins in the map and you
pretend that people in other countries cannot think, or do science, or feel,
or measure a 20 degree Delta T, you are headed straight for Hell on Earth.
 
If you want to take your political news and opinions directly from someone
like Morrison, then you go right ahead, but beware of what else he feeds you.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Paul Rubin /  What happened to Riggatrons?
     
Originally-From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What happened to Riggatrons?
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 02:17:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


About 10 years ago Robert Bussard and some other people started a
company called Inesco to manufacture power-producing tokamaks that
were supposed to cost $100k and be about the size of a desk and
produce 100 MW of heat energy for ~1 month before burning out (at
which point you'd plug in another one, like changing a light bulb).
Although the claims sounded outlandish, some very respectable people
including Bruno Coppi (a main designer of the MIT Alcator tokamaks)
were working for the company.

Eventually it ran out of money and folded, like many other startups.
There was apparently a lurid tale surrounding this but I don't
know any of the details.

Anyone know more about this?   Was the device they were trying
to build scientifically sound?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenphr cudfnPaul cudlnRubin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / A Plutonium /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 8 Jun 1995 02:32:27 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3r54h9$89s@boris.eden.com>
little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:

> As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
> want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
> want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.

  I read one or two of his posts and realized he was trying to sell
something. I smelled he was trying to sell his book or manuscript.
Since then I never read any of his posts or threads. So then, I do
think s.p.f. does not even need a vote but can have his thread
cancelled because of "selling his own book commercialism" inappropriate
posts. That explains why he crossposts so much. I had heard of someone
anonymous through anon cancel all posts of a commercial book seller on
Internet. This Farce, in my opinion is another one of those money
grubs.
  So count this post of mine as 31.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / A Plutonium /  Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
Date: 8 Jun 1995 02:43:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3r4fl8$17m@boris.eden.com>
little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes:

> I agree with John Logajan that it will take more than a vote to end this
> Farce/Plutonium mess we're now in.

 I have a patent pending on fusion. I more than you Scott Little, need
to be over here. I had posted that patent in some detail to s.p.f
 And Scott has emailed me to stop crossposting to s.p.f. And I told him
that I am all for that. I think there should be absolutely no
crossposts whatsoever. I can live with that. But, until crossposts are
removed, I will continue to crosspost. Scott was kind enough to ask the
administrators of Internet to seek to eliminate the crosspost.
Apparently the admin. told Scott that crosspost was a feature the
Internet can not do without. So, there it is Scott. As important as
crosspost is to the Internet. That is how important crosspost is to me.
If I give up my crosspost rights, obviously Scott, think about it, my
right to crosspost will only be gladly taken up by some hyena over
there.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Date: 8 Jun 1995 03:00:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: What you don't seem to realize, Jed, is that if one watt is so easy to
: get rid of that we don't even have to know where it goes it follows as
: night follows day that it is also easy to take up one watt from the
: surroundings.

I think this mistates the case.  We know the flow rate and the temperature
in and out.  So we do know which direction heat is flowing and we do know
where it goes (or where it comes from.)  Furthermore we know from calibration
runs that Cravens was able to achieve thermal accounting to 93%.  I see
from the photo Jed sent me of the Cravens/Patterson ICCF5 demo unit that
Cravens used dewars (looked like soup thermos bottles) as thermal insulation.
[Photo available on my www page, url below.]


: The surroundings can certainly supply that energy

We are required to explain, however, how it does so while avoiding being
sensed at the input when at the same time calibration runs detect no
such anomalous energy either at the input or at the output.


: All that we lack is a clearly identified means of energy transport.

That's a mouthful.


: In that regard it is sufficient to note that Cravens does not supply
: data sufficient to rule out every possibility.

But that is always going to be the case -- since you can't ever rule out
every possibility.  Just ask a Flat Earth Society member about proving
every possibility.


--
 - 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:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: $700 will do just fine
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 will do just fine
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 23:13:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Scott Little <little@eden.com> writes:
 
>I said that $700 should just about get one into the US (a wild guess on the
>shipping costs).  You're right, a 4kW pump will cost a pretty penny...
>probably quite a bit more than the P device!
 
Possibly . . . if they will sell you just one unit at the multi-unit
price. The cheapest 4 kW pump suitable for the P device that I have found
costs $1,000 or so, at a big discount.
 
For the record: I was just kidding about wanting to buy 1000 machines. Really.
I do *not* want anyone to ship me a thousand new, used, boxed or unboxed
4 kW pumps. Thanks very much, but no thanks. My wife would have a fit! I have
enough partial computers and bicycles already, too. Thanks anyway.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Scott Little /  Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
Date: 8 Jun 1995 04:16:02 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3r5o5a$roc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) says:

>As important as
>crosspost is to the Internet. That is how important crosspost is to me.
>If I give up my crosspost rights, obviously Scott, think about it, my
>right to crosspost will only be gladly taken up by some hyena over
>there.

No Archie, I don't think so.  At this point in time, there are only two 
of you hyenas out there that are making our little newsgroup messy and 
hard to read.  I ABSOLUTELY do not have a problem with you posting stuff
about your fusion patent here.  What I (and apparently everyone else who
is a regular here) object to is the multi-group CROSS-posting of articles
that DON'T have anything to do with fusion or cold fusion.

Your position that you favor a ban on cross-posting but will continue to
do it as long as it is available is absurd!  You're one of the main reasons
we would EVER consider a ban on cross-posting.  If YOU would limit your
posts according to subject matter, as Usenet was intended to be used, 
nobody would need to consider a ban on cross-posting!

Come on man, show a little backbone!

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Scott Little /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 8 Jun 1995 04:18:44 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3r5nfr$put@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) says:

>  So count this post of mine as 31.

Thank you very much, Archie.  I sincerely appreciate this vote.  Perhaps
you're not such a bad guy after all. :)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 02:43:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <D9KJJ1.GvE@nntpa.cb.att.com> gfp@docunet.mv.att.com
(guiness.mv.att.com!gfp) writes:
>hhhhhhhh
>
This probably refers to "High" Mode, a current/field distribution or topology 
achieved in clean tokamak discharges due to higher conductivity and sharper 
profiled edges.  The "echo" is probably related to the sawtooth behavior 
caused by a competitive mag field energy slosh between plasa current 
generated toroidal and poloidal fields, which act back to effect the 
corresponding waxing and waning of poloidal and (out of phase) toroidal 
components of plasma current. 

                        Of course, I could be jumping to conclusions,
here.  After all the message was rather terse.  

                               :-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:08:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Obviously the most benign way to create fusion is to find
>a way to shrink neutral hydrogen atoms. This allows the nuclei to 
>get close together without feeling the electric repulsion, to the
>point where they fuse spontaneously (with a little help from 
>quantum tunneling across the remaining distance) 
>at ``room tempeprature''  (< 1000 degrees C). 

> .. .

>So far, only one way has ever been demonstrated, which is to replace the 
>normal electron with a heavy electron---i.e. muon, which is 200 x as massive
>as e and thus has an orbital radius 200 x smaller. The only flaw with this
>muon catalyzed fusion is that it costs more to make the muons
>than what you get back from fusion energy (only by a factor of 3 or 
>so, but it appears hard to beat that due to muons sticking
>to the alpha's with certain probability...comments from S.J. ?)

>So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of
>any other sound approach? 

No, but it could be just as valuable to be able to make cheap muons, and
if the conversion efficiency could be vastly increased then the muononeum 
technique could be a real winner.  My candidate for doing this is to
capture a ball lightning of the type (NOT PLASMAKtm configurations), which 
is produced by a grain of decaying nuclear matter, and flatten the nuclear 
matter to something less than the area of a small postage stamp and whose 
thickness doesn't exceed much more than 10% of the width of an electron.  
Then by passing a beam of hydrogen through this matter the bound electrons 
should be converted to muons, since the preferred ground state for an 
electrons within the nuclear matter is that of the muon.  Incidentally, 
when one of this pops out of a nucleus it can be though of as an electron 
in a high energy level state.     What we won't consider, just to bump a 
local paradigm.  

                     Gee!  It almost make you wish other guy's
                     theory is correct, which explains the 
                     nature of ball lightning. 
                                  I said, 
                                 "  ALMOST. "
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.07 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 23:58:41 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3r37hq$nn7@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
> : stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
> : active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
> : has reason to be posting here.
> 
> I just did a little investigative work.  Of the last 195 unexpired articles
> in my newsreader only a single Farce posting was posted with s.p.f. as the
> only newsgroup (by a Mr. Hill.)  All others included multiple newsgroups
> such as:
> 
> alt.alien.visitors
> alt.paranet.ufo
> alt.philosophy.objectivism
> alt.sci.physics.new-theories
> misc.books.technical
> sci.astro
> sci.energy
> sci.misc
> sci.physics
> sci.physics.electromag
> sci.physics.fusion
> sci.physics.particle
> sci.research
> sci.skeptic
> 
> Wallace cannot determine from which group the reader saw and responded
> to the posting other than when a poster trims down the number of
> newsgroups to one, as in the sole case of Mr. Hill.
> 
> So Wallace is lying for the most part.
> 
> And in any event, it is irrelevent if posters from this or any other
> group respond to Wallace -- what is relevent is if the contents of those
> postings are within the charter of the newsgroup to which they are
> posted.
> 
> 
> However, even if you got Wallace to stop his childish behavior, you
> still have to get all the other responders to his postings to likewise
> trim the follow-up groups.  So getting Wallace to stop is not going
> to solve the problem.
> 
> 
> The only effective solution is for each and every Farce posting you
> see cross-posted to that bizarre array of newsgroups is to send a
> nasty-gram to the originator of the posting -- Wallace or otherwise,
> telling them to knock it off.  They won't like it and their responses
> won't be pretty -- but that's what the job entails.
> 
> Who'll volunteer to join our little goon squad? 
> 
> --
>  - 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    -

What in the world is the matter with you guys? Don't you have anything
better to do with your time than try to censor and control the behavior of
others? If you don't like Wallace's posts, don't read them! The same
sentiments apply to those who are trying to conduct a "democratic" vote,
with the assumption that the majority has some sort of innate right to
control the behavior of the minority! Grow up and get a life, for Christ's
sake!

--Mitchell Jones
===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 00:20:29 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3r54h9$89s@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

> As of midday on Jun 7th, I have received 30 votes from folks who
> want Farce postings removed from s.p.f. and 0 votes from folks who
> want to continue to see Farce postings on s.p.f.

Nobody cares about your dumb vote except scumbags who believe that the
majority has a right to censor and control the behavior of the minority!
The rest of us--those who are inclined to mind our own business--deal with
posts we don't like by not reading them. It's called "live and let live,"
and it works just fine. It's people like you, driven by your insatiable
desire to control and intimidate others, who are the impetus behind the
move for government control of the internet. The logic is simple: at
present, Wallace and other victims of attempted majoritarian intimidation
have the option of simply telling the busybodies to kiss off. Therefore,
say the busybodies, we need to legislate penalties with teeth in them.
And, of course, once the penalties with teeth are in place, they will be
used to silence newsgroups such as this one, where a majority vote will
beyond a shadow of a doubt conclude that "cold fusion" is a crackpot
notion that ought to be suppressed! You guys need to pull your heads out
of your behinds and look at the implications of what you are doing!

--Mitchell Jones
===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 /   /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
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: 8 Jun 1995 02:15:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Good God, what a tremendous waste of bandwidth!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 08:48:10 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 7 Jun 1995, John Logajan wrote:

> Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
> : stop cross-posting into this newsgroup and he tells me that many of his
> : active readers are in this newsgroup.  If that is true, then perhaps he 
> : has reason to be posting here.
> 
> I just did a little investigative work.  Of the last 195 unexpired articles
> in my newsreader only a single Farce posting was posted with s.p.f. as the
> only newsgroup (by a Mr. Hill.)  All others included multiple newsgroups
> such as:
> 
> alt.alien.visitors
> alt.paranet.ufo
> alt.philosophy.objectivism
> alt.sci.physics.new-theories
> misc.books.technical
> sci.astro
> sci.energy
> sci.misc
> sci.physics
> sci.physics.electromag
> sci.physics.fusion
> sci.physics.particle
> sci.research
> sci.skeptic
> 
> Wallace cannot determine from which group the reader saw and responded
> to the posting other than when a poster trims down the number of
> newsgroups to one, as in the sole case of Mr. Hill.
> 
> So Wallace is lying for the most part.
> 
> And in any event, it is irrelevent if posters from this or any other
> group respond to Wallace -- what is relevent is if the contents of those
> postings are within the charter of the newsgroup to which they are
> posted.
> 
> 
> However, even if you got Wallace to stop his childish behavior, you
> still have to get all the other responders to his postings to likewise
> trim the follow-up groups.  So getting Wallace to stop is not going
> to solve the problem.
> 
> 
> The only effective solution is for each and every Farce posting you
> see cross-posted to that bizarre array of newsgroups is to send a
> nasty-gram to the originator of the posting -- Wallace or otherwise,
> telling them to knock it off.  They won't like it and their responses
> won't be pretty -- but that's what the job entails.
> 
> Who'll volunteer to join our little goon squad? 

You've just given a good reason for turning this group into a mildly 
moderated one... aaargh. Yes, I'll join the "fun". What about Archimedes Pu,
Edward "Plasmoid" Lewis, and McElwaine?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun  8 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
