1995.06.09 / 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: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 14:00:45 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3r7ebk$8ki@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0806950020290001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> >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.
> 
> So you wouldn't mind me going into your favourite newsgroup and flooding
> it with posts for sex hot-lines, perfume advertisements, chain letters,
> discussions about abortion, child-rearing advice, recipes, binary nudes,
> weather forecasts, etc?
> 
> This is not about censorship, it's about keeping the books on the right
> shelves. There are perfectly valid newsgroups for Mr. Wallace to post to
> which can be read by any of the millions of Usenet subscribers who so choose.
> That hardly constitutes censorship.
> 
> The charter of this group is such that it is _not_ one of those groups where
> it makes any sense for Mr. Wallace's `Farce' postings to appear. The sole
> purpose of the vote is as a `sanity check' to ensure that the people
> reading this group do agree on the interpretation of the group's charter.
> 
> Furthermore, Mr. Little clearly stated that the intent of his vote
> was to convince Mr. Wallace that the readership of this group was not, in
> fact, interested in his posts, since the latter had given that as his reason
> for posting here. Since this is a non-moderated group, there is no form of
> coercion that can be applied to Mr. Wallace other than to ask him to kindly
> limit his posts to those groups where they are pertinent and of interest
> which, being an intelligent and considerate man, I am sure he'll do.
> 
> So the vehemence of your post is both overdone and out of place.
> 
> If Mr. Wallace wishes to post about cold fusion, he is free to do so
> here. But broadly-based physical theories which do not deal with the
> specifics of cold fusion clearly have nothing to do with cold fusion and
> therefore belong elsewhere.
> =============================================================================
>   - deane

You just don't get it, do you, Dean? Let me spell it out for you: it's not
your call; it's Wallace's call. Your proper response, in an unmoderated
forum, to postings which you consider to be off-topic, is to simply not
read them. There is no reason for you to convey your wishes to Mr.
Wallace, because there is no reason for him to give a hoot in hell about
your wishes. IT'S HIS CALL, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. Do you understand?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Logajan /  Goon squad on the march
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Goon squad on the march
Date: 10 Jun 1995 03:27:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Well, this here goon squad member has begun the hostilities with the
first e-mail victim -- Mr. Wallace himself.  More victims to follow.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Yong-Feng Lu /  Re: Re position available
     
Originally-From: Yong-Feng Lu <eleluyf@leonis.nus.sg>
Newsgroups: ,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Re position available
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:10:31 +0800
Organization: National University of Singapore


> A postdoctorate fellow position is available in Nuclear Chemistry Lab, >
Riken, the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Saitama, Japan. >
The success applicant will be involved in a project to produce positron >
beam from cyclotron. The applicant must have a PHD degree, familiar with >
vacuum and electronics. The period is from one to three years. The payment
> is Jpn Yen 250,000 (around us$3,000) per month. For more details, please
> contact Dr. Y.F. Lu via Internet Email: eleluyf@leonis.nus.sg The >
applicant must be fluent in speaking English OR Japanese.  > > Best
regards, > Y.F. Lu from Japan.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeneleluyf cudfnYong-Feng cudlnLu cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Logajan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 05:55:02 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
: Let me spell it out for you: it's not your call; it's Wallace's call.

: There is no reason for you to convey your wishes to Mr. Wallace


This is asymetrical reasoning.  If Wallace has carte blanche to say
whatever it is he wants to say, how can you at the same time assert
that no one else has carte blanche to speak to and against Wallace,
to say whatever it is they want to say?

It is a glaring inconsistency.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 04:21:44 GMT
Organization: HTP Services

deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:

>The charter of this group is such that it is _not_ one of those groups where
>it makes any sense for Mr. Wallace's `Farce' postings to appear. The sole
>purpose of the vote is as a `sanity check' to ensure that the people
>reading this group do agree on the interpretation of the group's charter.

Did anyone else notice who failed this 'sanity check'? ;^)

-- 
Tim


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 /  VNONINSKI@fscv /  Plea for free speech
     
Originally-From: VNONINSKI@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plea for free speech
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 08:15:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Please, allow Wallace, Ludwig, Edward and anybody else to entertain his or 
her  right of free speech. This by no means implies that I agree with them 
or that I am advocating any of their ideas. "Strange" ideas will 
never cease to exist despite banning them or condemning them 
by majority vote. The very fact that there can be a majority vote for an 
idea is very depressing for the intellectual. There can hardly be 
anything more suppressive of the intellectual thought than the 
dictatorship of the majority.  You should notice also the fact that 
many readers find 
it necessary or maybe entertaining to answer such postings. Therefore, it 
appears that some netters feel the need for such postings and interference 
by the majority through voting in this "free market of ideas" is 
unwarranted. I will even go as far as to note that the assertion that 
Wallace's postings are off the topic of this group are hardly true. Although 
I by no means am supporting in any way any of the statements made in these 
postings because I have not followed the debate I note that their 
topic is theoretical physics and the 
connection between fusion and theoretical physics is as direct as 
can be. Let me mention also that, in principle, if there 
is agressive nonsense there is no "controlled media" that can stop it, even 
"peer-reviewed" media such as J.Phys.Chem., as the recent case 
with the exemplary bad paper by Steven Jones and collaborators indicates.

Truly,

Vesselin Noninski 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenVNONINSKI cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Prasad Ramon /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 08:36:47 GMT
Organization: via CompuServe Information Service

Dear Sir,

There is no need to include or exclude any postings provided they 
conform to legality. To do so is to introduce censorship which 
implies that the originator of the rule knows what is "right".

It is far better to allow the natual rise and fall (or rise and 
rise if that is what it is to be) to take place. This will harm 
no one, and allow tolerance its place.
      
My vote is against.

Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, 
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden530 cudfnPrasad cudlnRamon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Derek Ross /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net (Derek Ross)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:00:37 GMT

 
In article <3r9jik$smg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@new
.IntNet.net) writes:
> [deleted]...
>My posting does not cost you anything unless you read the file!  You have 
>a very limited understanding of Internet News.  You need to read the free 
>book, Cold Fusion is as much a Farce as many of the other areas of 
>research in modern physics. I read sci.physics.fusion every day and have 
>as much right to post in this group as you do.  If you don't like what I 
>have to say, don't read it!!!
>
>Bryan
>

I'm afraid it does directly cost me money, Bryan.  Let me explain in
a bit more detail.

I normally make a long-distance phone call from home to connect to
my service provider every evening to simultaneously upload and
download mail and news. This is transferred to and from my computer
via a UUCP file transfer over a long distance phone line in two big
lumps consisting of all my mail and the complete daily postings in
the particular newsgroups which I have asked my service provider to
send to me. Once the file transfer is complete, the phone hangs up
and I use my offline reader to browse mail and newsgroups.

This has the advantage of minimising my phone costs but the
disadvantage that I can only regulate what comes down the phone
line by my choice of the newsgroups I wish to read.  If I
subscribe to a particular newsgroup the service provider transfers
ALL the postings in it to me.  If I subscribed to a lot of
newsgroups or a newsgroup like alt.binary.sounds.midi the many
large postings each day would mean I'd have to pay for a 40 minute+
long-distance phone call every night whereas if I only subscribed
to uk.bcs.misc the UUCP transfer would only require a 20 second
phone call and thus my domestic phone bill would be that much
lower. 

As you can see it is my decision to read or ignore a particular
newsgroup which costs me money not my decision to read or ignore a
particular posting. Unfortunately since you started posting FARCE to
sci.physics.fusion my download time has doubled (8 minute phone
calls on average instead of 4 minute) partly because of the size of
some of the postings and partly because of the number of replies
they tend to generate.  This thread is a case in point.  That is
why I said that your crossposting is costing me money.

Don't get me wrong about your right to post in sci.physics.fusion.
I'm glad that you enjoy reading it as much as I do. I'm happy to see
you post large messages here when they concern hot or cold fusion.
I'm also happy to see you post messages about showbiz personalities
in alt.showbiz.gossip and happy to see you post messages about new
physical theories in alt.physics.new-theories.  I have enjoyed
reading both them in the past.  I only burst into tears when my
phone bill is increased by postings to one newsgroup that rightly
belong in another.  It must be because I'm an emotional Scotsman on
a limited budget :) Ah well...

Cheers

Derek 



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrossd cudfnDerek cudlnRoss cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / C Cagle /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:36:01 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3r7ebk$8ki@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:

> 
> So the vehemence of your post is both overdone and out of place.
> 
> If Mr. Wallace wishes to post about cold fusion, he is free to do so
> here. But broadly-based physical theories which do not deal with the
> specifics of cold fusion clearly have nothing to do with cold fusion and
> therefore belong elsewhere.
> =============================================================================

Dean,  specialization is for insects.  If Wallace has any valid points or
has anything which is correct or right (or more accurate than other
physical models) then his postings belong here as well as many other
places.  If he can make a case against field theory (which Einstein
himself, it seems, lived to regret) then it should have a profound effect
on fusion concepts inasmuch as quantum mechanics is steeped in field
theory. You cannot separate fundamental physics from anything that is
physically real.  One of the protesters to Wallace complained about his 20
cents and admitted he couldn't resist it.  Sounds like a personal
problem.  And whatever gave you the idea that majority rule has anything
to do with rectitude or moral right?  Lynch mobs operate on the same
principle.  Whoever said get rid of Wallace might as well have said "Get a
rope".  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your mean and petty
dispositions.

C. Cagle

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Kondis /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 95 20:56:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

I didn't want to get into this thread again, but there are a few 
misconceptions that should be cleared up here...

singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:

>deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:

>> So the vehemence of your post is both overdone and out of place.
>> 
>> If Mr. Wallace wishes to post about cold fusion, he is free to do so
>> here. But broadly-based physical theories which do not deal with the
>> specifics of cold fusion clearly have nothing to do with cold fusion and
>> therefore belong elsewhere.
>> =============================================================================

>Dean,  specialization is for insects.  If Wallace has any valid points or
>has anything which is correct or right (or more accurate than other
>physical models) then his postings belong here as well as many other
>places.  

No.  Specialization makes the world go around.  And it is at the base 
of why insects as well as humans survive.  Bryan Wallace's points need to 
be brought up in one or more of:

     sci.physics
     alt.sci.physics.new-theories
     soc.history.science

...which, if memory serves correctly, he has indeed posted to.  Fusion 
is simply not the topic of his work.  General, broad, physical 
discussions or discussions about the practitioners of astrophysics 
belong in groups other than s.p.f.  There is no question of that.

>If he can make a case against field theory (which Einstein
>himself, it seems, lived to regret) then it should have a profound effect
>on fusion concepts inasmuch as quantum mechanics is steeped in field
>theory. You cannot separate fundamental physics from anything that is
>physically real.  

This is very much besides the point.  With this rationale, philosophical 
problems against mathematical models such as space-time manifolds would 
also belong in here.  So would EPR and Everett discussions.  So would the 
posts by the guy who believes 4+4=7.  But, they don't belong here.  Each 
has its place.

As an aside, I recently coordinated a group creation.  The process 
takes a long time, and it really impresses upon one the need for a 
well-defined charter.  The whole purpose of the Usenet *hierarchy* is 
that proper discussions can be placed in the proper slots, to make it 
easier for the Internet user (especially the new user) to tread through a 
given group.  It really sucks when someone who hasn't even learned how to 
use his newsreader (much less killfiles) has to wade through unrelated 
topics before finding stuff that he really wants to read or that 
interests him.  Since this *is* s.p.fusion, cold fusion discussions 
belong here, as they are on-topic, regardless of the philosophical or 
other problems any users might have with it.  But again, "Farce of 
Physics" posts do not belong here, unless they are made relevant to 
fusion. 

The charter of a group is important.  It exists to keep some semblance of 
sanity among the groups.  FAQ's serve the same end.  If a topic does not 
fit in with a group's charter, but other newsgroups serve the particular 
topic, then no, the topic does not belong in that particular group.

>One of the protesters to Wallace complained about his 20
>cents and admitted he couldn't resist it.  Sounds like a personal
>problem.  

This is totally the wrong attitude.  We all have to pay for the articles 
that get posted, one way or the other.  Some internet providers do in 
fact download all unread articles when a Usenet session is requested for 
a certain group.  Regardless, as users, we all need to cooperate with 
each other.  When articles are off-topic, they should not be posted.  I 
really thought it was disgusting when Bryan Wallace said: "I'm gonna keep 
posting here no matter what anybody says." or something to that effect.

>And whatever gave you the idea that majority rule has anything
>to do with rectitude or moral right?  Lynch mobs operate on the same
>principle.  Whoever said get rid of Wallace might as well have said "Get a
>rope".  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your mean and petty
>dispositions.

And you ought to be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Cagle.  Demanding proper 
usage of Usenet is no different from bemoaning the "white-coated-welfare- 
queens" who waste your hard-earned (tax) money.  It is, after all, a 
waste of everyone's money and resources when off-topic articles are 
posted.  And a waste of countless individual's time and money when they 
have to pay, one way or another, for articles that don't fit a group's 
charter.  This is the same reason that spam is a serious breach of 
Internet ethics.

As a second aside, I should remind the reader that there was a recent 
vote to reorganize sci.physics.fusion.  One of the groups, as many will 
recall, was to be moderated, mostly so that people interested in "hot" 
fusion could have a forum for themselves, undisturbed by cold fusion 
enthusiasts.  The vote did not pass, but it did not fail overwhelmingly.  
I did not vote myself, but if a vote came up just to moderate s.p.f, I 
would certainly vote for it, to keep articles here on-topic.  The recent 
"Farce" threads have no business here, unless Bryan wants to discuss 
fusion.  

A final aside.  People seem very anxious to choose sides on this issue, 
and I noticed the tendency is that CF proponents side up with Mr. 
Wallace.  Bryan also seems to incite division, by quoting from magazines 
what horrible things the establishment physicists have to say about CF.  
Also, those with "alternative theories", regardless of how goofy, seem to 
want to side up with Wallace.  But please remember, regardless of 
personal background, the discussion here is about posts being relevant to 
a group.  It is clear that "Farce of Physics" threads do not belong in 
s.p.f, because they don't show relevance to fusion issues.

...j/k

[hi, Mr. Cagle...  :]
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Kondis /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jun 95 22:08:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:
[...]
>In Chapter 3 of my book I wrote:


>  On page 467 we find that near the end of his life in 1954, Einstein wrote
>  to his dear friend M. Besso:

>    I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
>    concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
>    my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the
>    rest of modern physics.

When are you going to quit pulling up the same old quotes???  On top of 
that, Einstein here says "it is quite possible that..." which does not 
mean he actually believed it.  Third, all of your dense text is very 
confusing for me to read, and I suspect this confusion exists with other 
readers as well.  If you want to convince me, for one, that there is a 
problem with GR, you should try putting your points in Plain English.  I 
am not pretending to be the all important person here, but surely you 
could be more clear for everyone else who may have problems.  This is 
reasonable since most of your supporters seem to have a rather poor grasp 
of GR theory, as far as I can tell.

As an aside, it seems like your arguments have two veins.  One that 
attacks the constant speed of light principle in SR and the other that 
attacks the useability (and therefore reality) of GR spacetime 
solutions.  I know that SR principles are ported to GR, but it would be 
nice if you could separate your discussions when talking of one or the 
other.  SR is a local theory and does not depend on the intricacies of 
GR.  GR just twists spacetime, and SR is expected to hold in local 
frames with little twist.

...John
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Fluke?
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 23:07:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Paul Stowe (pstowe@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3r7etl$s75@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe)
: writes: 

: I asked the question, "Is this a Fluke?"

:         k = h / ec = 1.38E-23 [MKS system]

:         Where:   k = Boltzmann's constant (1.38E-23 J/mol-øK)
:                  h = Planck's constant    (6.63E-34 J-sec)
:                  e = elemental charge     (1.60E-19 Coulombs)
:                  c = speed of light       (3.00E+08 m/sec)

[stuff deleted]

: Consider the following:

: Temperature is considered a measure of the intensity of motion
: of the molecules in a substance.  If this is in fact the case,
: temperature should in some sense measure the momentum of the
: molecules.

: I propose that temperature is in fact dF/dt, the impact quotient of
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                  
: the molecules. This would give temperature T the units of:

:                Nts/sec or Kg-M/sec^3 in the MKS system.

:                R and k then resolves to M-sec

:                and e then becomes:

:                e = kc/h or units of Kg/sec (MKS)
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

			
: We will now revisit the unitary shift problem.  First, changing
: from MKS to CGS for temperature we find:

:                PV = RT

:                T would shift from Kg-M/sec^3 to gm-cm/sec^3
:                a factor of 100,000 (1000 gm/Kg x 100 cm/M), and
:                thus R and K must be adjusted upward by 100,000

: Shifting elemental charge from MKS to CGS we get:

:                Kg/sec to gm/sec which is a factor of 1000 (e =
: 1.60E-16)

:                thus:

:                h/ec in CGS would be: 1.38E-21

:                (6.63E-27)/([1.60E-16][3.00E+10])

:                adjusting for temperature (MKS to CGS) we get:

:                1.38E-21 x (100,000) = 1.38E-16 ...which is correct!
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: So what do you think???


	All you have done here is to redefine the value of charge, e, such 
that e = h/kc, and then proceeded to show that under these conditions, k 
= ec/h !  Of course it's going to work!

	The fact that you have redefined the degree Kelvin to be equal to 
dF/dt (whatever that might mean) has nothing to do with making the 
equation work.  You simply end up with some crazy unit for e (such as 
Kg/sec).  You could just as easily have redefined the unit for 
temperature as kg^5 m^7/sec^8 or something as ridiculous, and k 
would still equal ec/h using your method - you'd only end up with an 
equally ridiculous unit for e.

	At any rate, going back to the equation ec/h = k (Boltzmann's 
const), k is simply the ratio of energy to temperature, i.e.,
k = joules/degree K.  But the units for e, c, & h have nothing to 
do with temperature, therefore, a different temperature unit would 
result in a different number for k but the same numbers for e, c 
& h.  The degree Kelvin is 1/100 of the temperature difference 
between boiling and freezing water, at SEA LEVEL, on EARTH.  Suppose 
sea level pressure was 20.3 psi instead of 14.7 psi (so that the boiling 
point of water was higher), or we had 8 fingers instead of 10 (so that 
instead of 1/100 it's 1/64 because people count using octal numbers)?  
Any of these things would have caused our degree Kelvin to be different, 
but wouldn't have necessarily changed the meter, kilogram, or second.


	So it really *is* a fluke.  Isn't the universe crazy, though?

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Misinformation about Pd
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Misinformation about Pd
Date: 8 Jun 1995 16:14:42 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <USE2PCB705432599@brbbs.brbbs.com> 
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:
> 
>-> Then there is Ca with a spread of 8 (40 to 48, 6 isotopes) for a relative
>-> spread of 8/43 = 18.6% -- and even Mg (2/25 = 8%) is as big as Pd.
> 
>Ca48 is not stable, although it has a very long half-life.  

10^{18} years, millions of times longer than the age of the universe. 

That is considered a stable nucleus in nuclear physics.  Besides, it is 
naturally occurring, which is the *only* thing that should matter when 
considering the question posed. 

>                                                           When you drop it
>out of the set, you are left with Ca40 through Ca44, a spread of 4. 

You left out Ca-46 for no particularly good reason.  


-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / C Cagle /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 17:45:02 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, 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.
 
 
 ___X_ I like the Farce of Physics posts being in s.p.f.
 
 
__X__ other, please explain:  Go away Scott Little!  Go away!  Get thee hence!

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: Farces of Farces, 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: Farces of Farces, RE The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jun 1995 07:54:39 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

ray (ray.lundquist@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: At least science gives the ability to disprove an invalid hypothesis. 
: Religion has no such ability.

: Disprove this one:  If it quakes, it must be Bryan Wallace.

Modern physics has become a farce because it has lost this ability!  As I 
state at the end of Chapter 1 of my book, the stationary 
ether/space/vacuum has become the God of most physicists, and they refuse 
to question the existence of their God!!  If NASA was a legitimate 
scientific organization, they would have published a dramatic 
comprehensive objective comparitive analysis of the wave and particle 
models for the transit of light signals in space!!!  Spending billions of 
dollars per year to fund NASA is equivalent to pouring money down an open 
sewer!!!!

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / C Cagle /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 05:08:00 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov>, Jean-Paul Biberian
<jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Science Power and Religion

 <big snip here>
> 
> This essay is maybe a little harsh, the three categories 
> are not clearly cut, and there are grey areas between 
> them. Some people might change categories with time and 
> maturation. 

Not harsh at all.  Good job, Jean-Paul!  Excellent, in fact!

Best Regards,

C. Cagle

singtech@teleport.com

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / C Cagle /  Re: Plea for free speech
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plea for free speech
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 05:14:35 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <950610034018.668@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu>,
VNONINSKI@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Please, allow Wallace, Ludwig, Edward and anybody else to entertain his or 
> her  right of free speech. This by no means implies that I agree with them 
> or that I am advocating any of their ideas. "Strange" ideas will 
> never cease to exist despite banning them or condemning them 
> by majority vote. The very fact that there can be a majority vote for an 
> idea is very depressing for the intellectual. There can hardly be 
> anything more suppressive of the intellectual thought than the 
> dictatorship of the majority. 
> Truly,
> 
> Vesselin Noninski 

Right on! If there were more people with your attitude, science would
progress ever so much faster and we might have portable fusion reactors in
our cars and homes and boats and planes and ships and factories by now.

Is that your real name?

Best Regards,

C. Cagle

singtech@teleport.com

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Gene Preston /  Re: Farces of Farces, RE The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: gene.preston@access.texas.gov (Gene Preston)
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: Farces of Farces, RE The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jun 1995 15:17:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <3rc15v$ooj@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net 
says...

>ether/space/vacuum has become the God of most physicists

>dollars per year to fund NASA is equivalent to pouring money down an 
>open sewer!!!!
>
>Bryan
>

You sound like some kind of nut.  How are we going to feed the world 
without a lot of good new physics in all areas of business and world 
economy?  The NASA projects are saving the world from destroying itself 
as I speak.  How can you be against all the good things the NASA projects 
have delivered over the years.  How could you be against the wonderful 
Hubble telescope that is making major new discoveries every single day!  
You disgust me .....  flame flame flame!!!!!!

...gene preston

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpreston cudfnGene cudlnPreston cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / John Logajan /  Topic about off-topic is off-topic
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Topic about off-topic is off-topic
Date: 10 Jun 1995 15:23:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Since the topic about being off-topic is itself off-topic, I will post
no more about it.

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Paul Stowe /  Fluke?
     
Originally-From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fluke?
Date: 10 Jun 1995 15:37:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3r7etl$s75@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe)
writes: 
>
>The following equation is accurate to .083%
>
>                k = h/ec where: k = Boltzmann's constant
>                                h = Planck's constant
>                                e = elemental charge
>                                c = light speed

I asked the question, "Is this a Fluke?"

        k = h / ec = 1.38E-23 [MKS system]

        Where:   k = Boltzmann's constant (1.38E-23 J/mol-øK)
                 h = Planck's constant    (6.63E-34 J-sec)
                 e = elemental charge     (1.60E-19 Coulombs)
                 c = speed of light       (3.00E+08 m/sec)

The response was YES it is a Fluke because if one changes unitary
systems such as from MKS to CGS (or from øK to øR) the relationship
does not hold.

Example (MKS to CGS conversion):

         in the CGS system we have:

                 k = 1.38E-16 (Dynes/mol-øK)
                 h = 6.63E-27 (Dynes-sec)
                 e = 1.60E-19 (Coulombs)
                 c = 3.00E+10 (cm/sec)

         and

            h / ec = 1.38E-18 (DOES NOT EQUAL) 1.38E-16

We immediately note that e HAS NOT altered its value.  The reason
of course is that Coulombs are an arbitrary unit used to denote a
quantity that is currently unknown in terms of MLt
(Mass,Length,time).

The unit of Coulomb was derived to satisfy the force equation:

        F = K (Q1Q2 / d^2)

and was originally derived for the MKS system (Newtons).

So unless charge "is" dimensionless, it use in unitary systems
other than the one used to establish it, skews the results obtained.
This of course is not a problem if constants of proportionality are
adjusted to remain self consistent.

In thermodynamics, the situation is further complicated by the fact
that temperature (T) itself is an arbitrary unit.

The ideal gas equation:

       PV = RT

        Where:   P = Pressure (Nts/M^2)
                 V = Volume   (M^3)
                 R = Ideal Gas Constant (8.31E+00 J/Mole-øK)
                 T = absolute Temperature (øK)

Boltzmann's constant is defined as:

                 k = R / Ao

        Where:  Ao = Avogadro's number (6.02E+23 mol/Mole)

We see that again, if we change unitary systems temperature (T)
DOES NOT change.  So if T does have MLt units, R must be adjusted
to compensate for the shift.

So why then does the proposed equation work in the MKS system.
The answer is: "because all the terms on the right side are self
consistent in the MKS system".

I expected to recieve the comment that e is in units of Coulombs
and thus the equation k = h/ec DOES NOT resolve to the proper
units for Boltzmann's constant.  In fact they do not, however, if
there is a coorelation, the equation provides a significant clue
as to the MLt units of charge.


Consider the following:

Temperature is considered a measure of the intensity of motion
of the molecules in a substance.  If this is in fact the case,
temperature should in some sense measure the momentum of the
molecules.

I propose that temperature is in fact dF/dt, the impact quotient of
the molecules. This would give temperature T the units of:

               Nts/sec or Kg-M/sec^3 in the MKS system.

               R and k then resolves to M-sec

               and e then becomes:

               e = kc/h or units of Kg/sec (MKS)

We will now revisit the unitary shift problem.  First, changing
from MKS to CGS for temperature we find:

               PV = RT

               T would shift from Kg-M/sec^3 to gm-cm/sec^3
               a factor of 100,000 (1000 gm/Kg x 100 cm/M), and
               thus R and K must be adjusted upward by 100,000

Shifting elemental charge from MKS to CGS we get:

               Kg/sec to gm/sec which is a factor of 1000 (e =
1.60E-16)

               thus:

               h/ec in CGS would be: 1.38E-21

               (6.63E-27)/([1.60E-16][3.00E+10])

               adjusting for temperature (MKS to CGS) we get:

               1.38E-21 x (100,000) = 1.38E-16 ...which is correct!

I think you will find that with these adjustments, the equation
k = h/ec will provide proper results for all unitary conversions.

This has a powerful advantage in physics.

It:

       ù provides a definition of temperature consistent with
         current theory

       ù provides units for charge and temperature that are not
         arbitrary

       ù provides relationships that were heretofore unknown

       ù is in all respects consistent with current understanding


So what do you think???


Next question.  If e has units of kg/sec (MKS), what does the charge
                to mass ratio represent?

      Example:  given E = 3kT and E = hv and setting hv = 3kT

                         m_e = mass of the electron (9.11E-31 Kg)
                         m_p = mass of the proton   (1.67E-27 Kg)
                           v = Frequency

                assume for instance v = e/m_e

                what is T for the electron, the proton

                Does theses value correlate to any known measurements?


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpstowe cudfnPaul cudlnStowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's comments on Cravens
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 12:02:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
 
>  The use of smaller quantities is for SAFETY.
>Do not push for large electrodes without warning
> individuals of the potential danger, sir.
 
Mitch is quite right, and this is an important point. People working with
Pd should use small samples for SAFETY. However, let me point out that this
is not an issue with the CETI Patterson cell. They did, in fact, make larger
cells years ago, and they worked fine. They plan to make more of them in the
near future. The only reason they scaled down a little bit was for convenience.
Larger cells reached boiling, so they required pressurization. The cells got
so hot that the plastic cell materials cracked and melted, when the C.O.P.
reached 300% to 400%. That is impressive performance, but it is not
convenient for a travelling demonstration, like the one they brought to France,
so the depressurized it, scaled it down a bit, and they did not push it up to
high power performance levels.
 
Scaling up again will require specialized, temperature resistant cell
materials. (Maybe pyrex glass or something, I am not sure.) The cells and
hoses have to be firmly attached or they spew boiling electrolyte around.
I guess that does constitute a safety hazard, just as Mitch said. But I think
he was referring to the problems with run-away reactions and large heat-after-
death. You don't get them with Ni cells, fortunately. Just a little heat-after
death, I think. Control and throttling is *much* better with Ni. Frankly,
I cannot imagine why anyone is still working with Pd, given all the problems
they encounter.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 12:08:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) attempts to come to grips with
Morrison's "regionalization" theory, with a forgiving attitude. He should read
more of Morrison's poison, in some of his earlier papers. Merriman writes:
 
     "I don't know anything about regionalization of CF results, but it is
     certainly true that in the past certain ``scientific'' results/theories
     have been regionalized: consider, for example Lysenkoism in the Soviet
     union, N-Rays in France, Creationism in the US, etc."
 
Except for N-Rays, these are invalid counter-examples. N-Rays were one of
history's few examples of a genuine, widespread, honest scientific mistake.
The others don't count: Lysenkoism was ideology enforced by death squads. A
person who will be sent to gulag for publishing the wrong conclusion cannot do
real science in any sense. Creationism is a form of religion.
 
 
     "Is it racism to point out these examples of regionalized (and, probably
     not coincidentally, spurious) sciences?"
 
No it is not. But CF -- whatever else it may be -- is certainly a form of
experimental science, done by honest, credible scientists according to the
usual standards, published, occasionally, in the usual journals. It is nothing
remotely like creationism, which is fake paleontology. There are not many
examples of fake laboratory science based on religion. I suppose faith healing
and quack medicine are the closest things. Do the tobacco companies perform
laboratory studies with rats to prove cigarettes don't cause cancer? A
scientist in that situation -- who knows he will lose his job if he reaches
the wrong conclusion -- cannot do science either.
 
 
     "It should be pretty obvious why this sort of regionalization _can_
     occur  (again, I don't know if it is occurring with CF) . . ."
 
Why don't you know? Look at a map. You will see at a glance that it is not
occurring with CF. Morrison says it is, but he lies. He throws away all
experiments in Northern Europe, and then he automatically classifies the rest
of the world as "pathological science territory." I mean every place: Russia,
Italy, Japan, Florida, New Mexico, California, China . . .  He does not give
any reason, he declares in advance that all experiments everywhere else in the
world are pathological, just because they are in the rest of the world.
 
 
     "``science'' . . . can be sustained when it resonates with the
     beliefs/desires/hpes of a certain culture, even if it is in contrast to
     otherwise accepted facts. (The former Soviet union was well know for
     trying to synchronize its science with perceived communist ideals, and
     similarly with Nazi Germany in trying to avoid ``Jewish science'')."
 
Again, the Jewish science stuff is like Creationism; it does not count as any
form of science. It is like book "The Bell Curve." It is a crude caricature of
sociology. Incidentally, the methodology and conclusions are similar to
Morrison's "regionalization" theory. First you decide what you are going to
"discover." Then you throw away all the data from places like MIT that prove
you are wrong. Then you arbitrarily reassign all the other data to some make-
believe up category, and voila! -- you reach your conclusion. That is how
Morrison manages to prove that all cold fusion experiments are pathological,
and that dark skinned people cannot measure the difference between water at 20
deg C and water at 30 deg C.
 
 
     "In the case of CF, one can see some obvious possible regionalizing
     influences: national pride in an initial positive result . . ."
 
That is incorrect. That is not an obvious influence. CF was discovered in the
U.S., yet few countries are as hostile towards it as the U.S. It is now mostly
done in countries that had nothing to do with the initial positive results.
 
 
     "Personally, I think you are grasping at straws to try and take down
     Morrison, whose anti-CF activism you don't like."
 
No, I am not grasping at straws. I am quoting the man's own words, which he
has repeated time after time, with utmost seriousness. Morrison honestly,
seriously believes that he can ignore all temperature readings, all tritium
counts, all material sciences work, and all other science outside of a few
elite institutions in northern Europe (and N.E. U.S.). He believes that in the
entire human race, only a handful of people are capable of doing science --
including basic laboratory science like calorimetry. He has said and he
believes that we can automatically discount, ignore, and throw away results
from other countries because we know in advance that the people in those
countries do "pathological science." He has numbers, maps and statistics to
prove it. So did Goebbels. So does "The Bell Curve." Anyone can take a foul
lie and dress it up to look like science, but that does not make it science.
 
Naturally, I despise Morrison's anti-CF propaganda. If he would confine
himself to technical discussions then I would be pleased, because his critique
of P&F showed that he is incredibly incompetent. He routinely makes astounding
errors, five orders of magnitude off. He mixes up power and energy, he
contradicts himself, he has no idea of concepts like limits of chemistry, or
elementary thermodynamics. If he would just keep publishing that kind of
crazy, mixed up, technically inept material, I would appreciate him, just as I
appreciate Dick Blue. I get a kick out of reading Dick's mistakes. They are
are so obvious and so easy to knock over, it is like shooting fish in a
barrel. Morrison seldom writes technical critiques, because he knows he is
incompetent. At ICCF5 he admitted that he could not even analyze the Cravens /
CETI demo, he would need Tom Droege. (A case of the blind leading the blind!)
The Cravens calorimeter was baby food: anyone who cannot deal with that level
of science is utterly unqualified to make any comments about any aspect of
cold fusion. No, what I don't like about Morrison is this filthy racist
ideology, plus all these absurd rumors about EPRI and Pons, which are all
wrong.
 
Morrison's attitudes towards society are the basis of all of his attacks on
CF. He does not dare to talk about the technical issues anymore, because he
knows he will make a fool of himself if he tries to write another paper like
his Critique.
 
He delivered one attack against CF which I thought was hilariously funny. I
was in stitches, it was about the silliest thing I have ever seen. It is part
of his ICCF5 travesty. He attempts to do a business cost/benefit analysis of
CF based upon statistics from theoretical plasma physics. This is kind of like
writing an insurance policy with an actuarial table based on studies of e-coli
DNA exchange. E-coli might, conceivably, have some theoretical connection with
human aging processes, but an insurance policy must be based on real actuarial
studies of the customer's age group, and upon real data from a medical exam of
that customer (and not of someone else with a similar name in another city.) I
have no way of judging Morrison's ability to do theoretical physics. That
subject is completely over my head. Perhaps he is some kind of idiot savant,
who has skills in that one area. But I sure as heck do know how to make a
business decision, and how to do a cost/benefit analysis. Morrison's version
was the most hilarious parody of one I ever hope to see. It reminded me of the
business letter scene in the Marx Brothers movie "Animal Crackers." Morrison's
critique of the paper by Pons and Fleischmann was also full of uproarious
mistakes. I guess that was about equally stupid. As I said, stuff like that is
fun for me -- like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
By the way, anyone who wants a copy of that critique should contact me.
Perhaps we should run it here every year, just to show people how utterly
inept Morrison is, and to prove that he has no business talking about cold
fusion. Also because it is good for a laugh even when you have already seen it
six times. Kind of like "Animal Crackers."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / 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: 10 Jun 1995 16:15:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: death. You don't get them with Ni cells, fortunately. Just a little heat-after
: death, I think. Control and throttling is *much* better with Ni. Frankly,
: I cannot imagine why anyone is still working with Pd, given all the problems
: they encounter.

It's a Ni/Pd/Ni sandwich, isn't it?  Both the articles in "CF" and Infinite
Energy say so.  The Ni is allegedly used as means to strength the Pd against
loading deformation -- that's why the are willing to pay the loading delay
penalty through the Ni to get to the Pd.

Are you saying that they are doing Ni only anomalous heat runs?

--
 - 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:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / james dolan /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: jdolan@math.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 10 Jun 1995 11:25:28 -0700
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

jed rothwell writes:

>He has said and he
>believes that we can automatically discount, ignore, and throw away results
>from other countries because we know in advance that the people in those
>countries do "pathological science."


we all know by now that when rothwell says "person x believes
statement y" it generally means that person x believes statement z
which only by some bizarre thought process of rothwell's own could
possibly be misinterpreted as statement y; we've seen this on probably
hundreds of occasions by now.  i wonder though if this is just a
deliberate (though of course wildly ineffective) rhetorical device, or
is it really some sort of defect in rothwell's grasp on reality?  of
course we all hold other people responsible to some extent for not
just the things that they believe but also for what we think are the
logical implications of the things that they believe, but rothwell
seems unusual in not seeming to understand the difference.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / 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: 10 Jun 1995 15:11:53 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.

: A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
: have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.

: Sci.physics.fusion is run through an e-mail gateway and those users can
: end up with transport bills for non-topic related material.

: Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
: offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(

: --
:  - 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    -

   I have received a large number of book requests, posts, and related
correspondence from people who read and post in sci.physics.fusion, and I read
this newsgroup every day.  I have as much right to post in this group as you
do, and I have no intention of stopping.  The harassment I have received from
you and several other people has only increased my resolve to post in this
group.  I suspect that the real reason you and the others want me to stop
posting is the "The Farce of Physics" name of my topic thread.  Most of the
posts in this group are related to "cold fusion," and it is becoming
increasingly evident that this research is consistent with Irving Langmuir's
"Symptoms of sick science" arguments as quoted in Chapter 1 "Pathological
Physics" of my free electronic book "The Farce of Physics."  To demonstrate
this point I will quote the following material that was published by William
Brown in an article titled "Frosty reception greets cold fusion figures" on
page 6 Volume 138 Number 1871 of the 1 May 1993 issue of the British journal
NEW SCIENTIST:

  THE MEN who told the world four years ago that they had discovered cold
  fusion will next week publish the most detailed account yet of their
  experiments.  The two chemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who
  now work in the laboratories of a French company, IMRA Europe, say the
  paper shows conclusively that their test-tube experiments generate energy
  as intense as that found in nuclear reactors.
     But scientists who have attempted to replicate their work say the new
  data show that the chemists are not generating energy.  They say if the two
  have discovered anything, it is no more than a minor chemical phenomenon of
  no practical use.
  ...
     Vigier has not allowed Fleischmann and Pons to use the word "fusion" in
  their paper.  But even Fleischmann is now more circumspect about whether
  fusion is taking place.  "I do not know," he says.  "I am very cautious." 
  He does not rule out some new form of fusion, but thinks it may only be
  part of the story.
     This explanation makes the case even less believable, says Douglas
  Morrison, a physicist at CERN, the European centre for particle physics
  near Geneva, who writes a skeptical newsletter on cold fusion.  "Originally
  they claimed one miracle," says Morrison.  "Now it is many."
  ...
     "It is natural to hope that Fleischman and Pons are not completely
  wrong," says Morrison.  "But the more careful the experiment, the smaller
  the effect which has been found.  And the really careful experiments find
  absolutely nothing."

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / 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: 10 Jun 1995 15:16:16 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Guy T Ferguson (fergusg@ucunix.san.uc.edu) wrote:
: To all interested,

: 	I was wondering about something in this thread that stuck out, and
: seems to run contrary to what I've read about General Relativity. I under-
: stand <Mr.? Dr.?> Wallace holds that Einstein's theory is an aether theory.
: From what I understand, the aether was simply shown to be irrelevant in the
: equations, not dealt with because it could neither be proven nor disproven.
: In this case, it seems to be more an application of something I was intro-
: duced to in a metaphysics course. Ayers <or was it Quine? Memory slips :)>
: stated something along the lines of "if it isn't provable as true or not
: true, it is nonsense," namely it exists outside the realm of logic and
: reason, and therefore what we can state about it has no relevance in a 
: rational discussion. While I understand this was an introduction course,
: and the arguments were somewhat simpler in nature than what is hardcore
: philosophy, I gather it is adequate for my point, and would love to have 
: this clarified if it is too simplistic for the discussion at hand. 
: 	If the aether is simply nonsense by the above statement, than a
: refusal to deal with it is not a proposition that it exists, but simply 
: that the concept is not useful to the discussion at hand, and should be
: removed from the discussion, as I understand the G.R. equations treat the 
: aether. As a result, G.R. is rather _anti_ aether in that standpoint,
: holding that it shouldn't even be considered. I welcome any input to
: clarify this point. Thank you in advance.

: 	Guy

   Before he died, Einstein realized that the fundamental first postulate that
gave the name to his relativity theories, was false.  In an article by I.
Bernard Cohen titled "An Interview with Einstein" that starts on page 69 of
the July 1955 issue of the journal Scientific American, Cohen wrote:

  ... Einstein said, he thought that Newton's greatest achievement was his
  recognition of the role of privileged systems.  He repeated this statement
  several times and with great emphasis.  This is rather puzzling, I thought
  to myself, because today we believe that there are no privileged systems,
  only inertial systems; there is no privileged frame--not even our solar
  system--which we can say is privileged in the sense of being fixed in
  space, or having special physical properties not possible in other systems. 
  Due to Einstein's own work we no longer believe (as Newton did) in concepts
  of absolute space and absolute time, nor in a privileged system at rest or
  in motion with respect to absolute space. ...

   In Chapter 3 of my book "The Farce of Physics" we find that near the end of
his life in 1954, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso:

  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
  concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
  my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest
  of modern physics.

   In Chapter 7 of my book, I presented Einstein's former research associate
Peter G. Bergmann's argument with regard to the first postulate:

  In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle of
  relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by way of
  emphasis.  One can construct local frames of rest also by averaging over
  the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies; the field of
  direction obtained by this procedure will not deviate grossly from the one
  gained from observing the background radiation.  Either way, permitting
  large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the breakdown of
  the principle of relativity.

One must realize that in 1905 when Einstein wrote his first published paper on
relativity, it was long before we knew the true nature of galaxies or had any
evidence of the background radiation.  It was before the age of modern
electronic technology and space flight, and our ability to send light signals
through empty space over large distances from fast moving spacecraft.

   In Chapter 3 of my book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become
famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his
special chair in Leiden.  In the address he states:

  The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
  mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and
  electromagnetic events.

If Einstein's ether argument was true, and light was a wave in the ether, we
would expect that there would be very large differences in the transit time of
one way light signals from spacecraft moving relative to the ether.  Because
there is no evidence that modern radio astronomers evaluate their data based
on motion relative to the ether, this must be considered as evidence that
Einstein's ether argument is not true!  As I explain in Chapter 4 of my book,
At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr. of
JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all
the interplanetary data, and that they were forced to use empirical correction
factors that had no theoretical foundation.  He made a very dramatic plea for
help on this matter, and after he was finished I talked with him and found
that they had received very little cooperation from the MIT group.  I
explained to him my own research on this matter and how I had found the
velocity of light was c+v.  I could see from his reaction that he realized
that this was the answer he was looking for, and he thanked me profusely.  In
Chapter 4 I also explain that T. D. Moyer of JPL has published a paper that
used c+v calculations for the transit time of light in space.[36]  The key
sentence is on page 46 of his paper where he states: The "time tag" associated
with each range observable is the known reception time t3(TAI).  The one way
light distance from a satellite to an observer would be DG = t(c+v) - tv = tc
at the reception time for the c+v theory.  The left hand side of his (A5)
equation is t3(ET) - t2(ET) and is the transit time t from the satellite to
the observer.  The principle first term on the right-hand side of the equation
is r23/c and is called the Newtonian light time, with r23 being equivalent to
DG or the distance from the satellite to the observer in the c+v theory.  So
t3(ET) - t2(ET) = r23/c is equivalent to t = DG/c which translates to DG = tc
for the distance from the spacecraft to the receiver at the time the signal is
received in the Galilean/Newtonian/corpuscular/c+v theory.  In the References
section of Moyer's paper he references a paper published by E. M. Standish,
Jr.  The GPS is also using empirical correction factors that have no
theoretical foundation.  I suspect that a more objective evaluation of the
modern space data would result in more legitimate scientific theory that would
result in explaining the small unexpected discrepancies that continue to
plague the operation of the GPS!

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / 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: 10 Jun 1995 15:21:34 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:
: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes:

: [snip]
: >: >	t_3(ET) - t_2(ET) = \frac{r_{23}}{c} + \psi_{23} 	(A5)
: [snip]
: >I don't question the Gr added relativistic corrections to the "Newtonian 
: >light time" used by Moyer at JPL.  The main point is that light behaves 
: >as a Newtonian particle with additional GR corrections.  Since you read 
: >Moyer's article you should have mentioned that all orbits are based on 
: >Newtonian Mechanics with added GR corrections.  GR is only equivalent to 
: >Newtonian Mechanics for the single body  problem.  To  calculate useful 
: >orbits in the solar system you must use Newtonian Mechanics and Newtonian 
: >particle c+v light time! [snip]

: If you look at equation (A5), you see a Newtonian term followed by a GR
: correction term.  This equation was explicitly derived from GR, and it
: is clearly consistent with the constant speed of light postulate.
: Note, the first term is not $\frac{r_{23}}{c+v}$.

: Your claim that "GR is only equivalent to Newtonian Mechanics for the
: single body problem." is wrong.  In the small-velocity low-mass limit,
: GR reduces to Newtonian mechanics for any number of bodies.  I have
: given you several references that show this including a recent rigorous
: derivation.  I have not seen any evidence from you that shows otherwise.

: To belabor the point, GR predicts that the dynamics of the solar system
: are approximately Newtonian.  As a consequence of this prediction, one
: should be expect that it is possible to calculate orbits using Newtonian
: mechanics with GR corrections.  However, this is inconsistent with your
: claim that "To calculate useful orbits in the solar system you must use
: Newtonian Mechanics and Newtonian particle c+v light time!"  Moyer
: obviously does not follow your prescription for calculating orbits.

: Finally, "Newtonian particle c+v light time" is not consistent with
: standard Newtonian mechanics, so your claims about how the solar system
: works differ from Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and the
: observations.
: --
:  //===============================\\
: ||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
: ||   You have to decide to live.   ||
:  \\===============================//

With regard to your first paragraph, In Chapter 5 of my free electronic book
"The Farce of Physics" I wrote:

  Dr. T. D. Moyer of the JPL, in his 1981 Celestial Mechanics paper[36]
  evaluates the distance at the time the signal returns to the transmitter,
  does not include the -tv/2 term that would make the evaluation relativistic
  in the Einstein c sense, renames the terms and rearranges the equations,
  adds the smaller corrections due to time dilation, gravity, and the
  troposphere and charged particles in the beam path, and correctly
  identifies his major term as the Newtonian light time.  What Moyer does not
  do is clearly explain the enormous implications of his mathematics, or
  explain how the transit time of light signals in the solar system is the
  ultimate test of the Einstein wave in ether c model and the Newtonian
  particle c+v model of light.  The fact that he does not present an analysis
  that compares the results of the c and c+v models tends to maintain the
  illusion that there is nothing wrong with the Einstein general relativity
  model!  I have sent Moyer reprints of the articles I've published that
  present the argument that his mathematics is relativistic in the c+v sense,
  and he has not chosen to rebut this argument either by correspondence or
  publication.

In answer to your second paragraph I wrote the following in Chapter 6:

  I also mentioned that the prominent British astronomer Dr. G. C. McVittie
  in both publication and correspondence has indicated that he has had the
  same sort of problem in trying to obtain meaningful information from
  Shapiro, and in a 1970 letter writes that the secrecy with which Shapiro
  surrounds his methods and his observational results makes him wonder
  whether there is something to be concealed.  In McVittie's paper, he points
  out the fact that:

    in the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, an exact solution for the
    gravitational field of a set of discrete bodies is possible only when one
    of the bodies is of finite mass whereas the rest are of infinitesimally
    small mass.  This is in contrast to the Newtonian theory of gravitation
    in which an exact solution for the field of two massive bodies is
    possible, complications arising only when three or more bodies are in
    question...[81]

  The fact that Moyer's equation (3) is the "Newtonian" approximation to the
  n-body metric, should be considered as evidence against Einstein's general
  relativity equivalence principle.[36] ...


Since the planets do not have infinitesimally small mass, GR *can't* be used
by JPL to calculate useful orbits in the solar system!  Your forth paragraph
is a pathological argument, see Chapter 2 for Irving Langmuir's colloquium on
"pathological science."  In Chapter 4 of my book I stated Einstein's argument
on light speed as follows:

    With reference to the question of double stars presenting evidence
  against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin University Observatory
  astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the following:

    "I am very curious about the results of your research...," he wrote to
    Freundlich in 1913.  "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
    the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
    theory of gravity is false."   [38 p.207]

In Chapter 3 of my book I wrote:


  On page 467 we find that near the end of his life in 1954, Einstein wrote
  to his dear friend M. Besso:

    I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
    concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of
    my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the
    rest of modern physics.

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Junkyard Dodge /  Re: Farces of Farces, RE The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wreck@falcon.ic.net (Junkyard Dodge)
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: Farces of Farces, RE The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jun 1995 21:05:31 GMT
Organization: ICNET... Your Link To The Internet... +1.313.998.0090

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
>Modern physics has become a farce because it has lost this ability!  As I 
>state at the end of Chapter 1 of my book, the stationary 
>ether/space/vacuum has become the God of most physicists, and they refuse 
>to question the existence of their God!!

Modern physics does not have a concept of stationary at all, much less
a stationary space/vacuum.  There is only the concept of relative motion
and the single motion on which all observers agree is lightspeed.

You might as well have written a book on the Apollo project beginning from
the premise that the moon is made of green cheese.  Your conclusions would
hold just as much water and be just as worth reading.

Followups are directed out of newsgroups devoted to reality.
--
That which does not bore me makes me stranger			wreck@ic.net
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwreck cudfnJunkyard cudlnDodge cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 12:34:08 -0400
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <singtech-1006950436010001@ip-salem1-01.teleport.com>,
C. Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <3r7ebk$8ki@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
>deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
>
>> If Mr. Wallace wishes to post about cold fusion, he is free to do so
>> here. But broadly-based physical theories which do not deal with the
>> specifics of cold fusion clearly have nothing to do with cold fusion and
>> therefore belong elsewhere.
>
>Dean,  specialization is for insects.

Tell that to all the doctors, engineers, physicists, truck drivers, chemists,
machinists, programmers, accountants, die makers, etc out there. The world is
too complex to be grasped in its entirety by a single human mind. The manner
in which we deal with this problem and make the world manageable is through
specialization.

Do we need generalists? Yes. But we need specialists as well, and in general
more of them.

Have you ever used a library, Mr. Cagle? Do you really think that its utility
would be enhanced by placing books on the shelves at random?

>If Wallace has any valid points or
>has anything which is correct or right (or more accurate than other
>physical models) then his postings belong here as well as many other
>places.  If he can make a case against field theory (which Einstein
>himself, it seems, lived to regret) then it should have a profound effect
>on fusion concepts inasmuch as quantum mechanics is steeped in field
>theory. You cannot separate fundamental physics from anything that is
>physically real.

Indeed. Physics is fundamental to the operation of the internal combustion
engine as well. Is Mr. Wallace posting to rec.autos.tech? It's essential to
the operation of solid state devices. Is Mr. Wallace posting to
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips? Military aircraft have always been at the
cutting edge of technology, which is often driven by advances in physical
theory. Is Mr. Wallace posting to rec.aviation.military?

No, of course he isn't, because his posts do not deal _directly_ with those
topics. If they did, then he would be perfectly justified in assuming that
the readership of those groups would be interested in them. Otherwise, not.

If Mr. Wallace wants to post a message to this group saying: "I've got this
great new theory, and here are its implications for cold fusion." then I
will welcome the message.

To be perfectly frank, I have only read a portion of the "Farce" postings as
I have neither the time nor the background to properly evaluate them. It is
quite possible that, buried somewhere in the mass of postings, there actually
are points relevant to cold fusion, but if so then Mr. Wallace has done
himself a disservice by burying them amid the rest of his generalizations.
Had I the interest and training to properly contribute - or even follow - the
discussions of new physical theories, then I would subscribe to
alt.sci.physics.new-theories and expect to find Mr. Wallace's posts there.

>And whatever gave you the idea that majority rule has anything
>to do with rectitude or moral right?

Nothing. Whatever gave you the impression that I held such a belief?

>Lynch mobs operate on the same
>principle.  Whoever said get rid of Wallace might as well have said "Get a
>rope".  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your mean and petty
>dispositions.

And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for using such a discredited
debating technique as `guilt by association', although you at least avoided
the time-worn tactic of dredging up the Nazis.

No one has said "Get rid of Wallace" (or at least not that I have responded
to). He has simply been asked to eliminate the irrelevant posts. He is
welcome to stay and post relevant material. The purpose of the `vote' is
to determine whether, indeed, his "Farce" postings constitute relevant
material.

We are all customers standing in a butcher shop, eyeing the meat, when in
walks a fellow with a sackful of wool who starts describing the various
grades and prices. The customers, perplexed, look around and ask each other
if anyone had come to the butcher shop with the intention of purchasing
wool. If a significant number say "yes", then the others will shrug and
go back to their meat purchases. If everyone says "no", then they will assume
that the fellow is confused and point out to him that the wool shop is just
up the block. The fact that the wool came from the same lamb whose shanks
are on sale in the butcher shop is irrelevant.

Alternatively, you can view the `vote' as the scientific method in action.
Mr. Wallace has proposed a theory: that there are people in s.p.f who are
interested in seeing his theories posted here. Mr. Little has proposed an
experiment to test this theory: he has asked if, indeed, anyone _does_ want
to see these posts in s.p.f. Mr. Little will then present the results of his
experiment to Mr. Wallace who may adjust his theory accordingly.

Now, to what aspect of that process do you object?

>C. Cagle
>
>-- 
>"It is dangerous to be right in
> matters on which the established
> authorities are wrong."
>
>Voltaire

Oddly enough, Voltaire never published any of his discourses in books on
needlepoint.
=============================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / Dean Edmonds /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 10 Jun 1995 12:41:06 -0400
Organization: Teleride Sage Ltd.

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950609083822.16807B-100000@kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz  <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>I am a bit unhappy at the way this has gone. It started with Scott collecting
>votes, the results of which were to be presented to Wallace, to try to 
>persuade him to stop posting here. Somewhere along the line, the assumption
>arose that he is not reasonable, and we have to mail bomb him to make him
>stop. Should we give up on his good will quite so soon? Maybe he'll agree to
>stop when he sees the result, and we'll save ourselves a lot of trouble.

I agree completely. The purpose of the vote is to provide Mr. Wallace with
objective input (or at least as objective as we can get) as to the perceived
relevance of his posts to the s.p.f charter. What he does with this
information is up to him.
=============================================================================
  - deane
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendeane cudfnDean cudlnEdmonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 /  jonesse@acoust /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 9 Jun 95 12:00:25 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

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, the question becomes: is there any way to shrink---i.e. reduce
> the radius of the electron orbital---nuetral hydrogen (by menas
> consistent with QM, given that QM is known to be pretty accurate in 
> describing atomic physics; this is unlike Mill's et al theory in
> which they alter QM to suit their purpose).

Right.  In order to shrink the electron orbital, energy must be put into
the system, that is, the ground state is a minimum energy state.  
("Planetary" models of the atom fail to take into this fundamental fact,
which derives from the wave nature of the moving electron.)

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

Yes, there is another way.  I suggested using very high pressures, as in
a diamond-anvil cell, to my colleague Clint Van Siclen in 1984-85.  This
resulted in a paper which was submitted 12 June 1985 to J. Phys. G: Nucl.
Physics, and published there in March 1986 (vol. 12 pp. 213-221):
"Pizeonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules."

Note that this paper was *published* 2.5 years before we even heard of
Pons & Fleischmann.  Our related experiments began (using electrolysis cells
and other methods of introducing deuterium into metals, which metals were
then subjected to high pressures) in April 1986.  *We did not get these
ideas from P&F!*

Anyway, most of you know the history here, although I occasionally here rumors
that we "stole" our ideas from P&F -- nothing could be further from the truth.
We have detailed logbooks going back to 1985 on our work, including the
use of electrolysis (not our only method!), along with the published paper
in J. Phys. G.  Yet some have chosen to ignore these facts, to my bewilderment.
It's not that P&F have anything worth stealing -- rather it's the accusation
that we stole something (made by, well, guess who).

Anyway, Barry, I refer you to our 1986 paper on use of ultra-high pressures
to increase fusion rates.  We found that in the laboratory, pressures could
indeed increase fusion rates, but not to values that would yield practical
fusion yields -- not by many orders of magnitude.

There is a related idea that I would still like to test, although the theory
does not suggest practical fusion yields here either.  The idea is to achieve
sufficiently high pressures (approx. 2-3 megabars) to cause hydrogen isotopes
to form *metallic* hydrogen.  Then the electrons are shared -- molecular
pairings break down.  We calculate here that the deuterons (say) are still
too far apart for significant fusion rates, at room temp., in metallic
deuterium.  But if deuterons occupy interstitial sites in the lattice, as
would likely be the case since the lattice is unlikely to be perfect, then
*these* deuterons are close enough to lattice deuterons to undergo measurable
fusion reactions, given the motion of the deuterons in the metal.

This is hand-wavy, I hasten to say.    We have not found anyone who
would get into a full-blown quantum-mechanical treatment including calculations
of fusion rates in metallic hydrogen isotopes.  Indeed, there is
not much work yet on metallic hydrogen that I know of, beyond quantum monte-
carlo work by Bernie Alder et al. at LLNL, on the theoretical side, 
and work of Carnegie Institute physicists on metallic hydrogen experiments.
(Whether metallic hydrogen has actually been produced is still controversial,
I understand.  Any news, anyone?)  

Fun stuff, I think -- needs a push.
Question is, is it worth the effort?  I think so, but that may not count for
much these days...

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.10 / A Plutonium /  NP10Jun95, COLLEGE Bowl, 1971 Caltech vs. Earle Jones College
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NP10Jun95, COLLEGE Bowl, 1971 Caltech vs. Earle Jones College
Date: 10 Jun 1995 21:11:39 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  For newbies, NP is my ongoing satire of the science and math
communities as I perceive them. NP stands for Neanderthal Park, my
ongoing satires or parodies on those communities. I dedicated
Neanderthal Park to Alexander Abian as a spoof on Jurassic Park, only
instead of dinosaurs, it is people in science and math who are the ones
so-to-speak behind the cages and fences to look at and laugh at. Abian
writes often on the slow-too-change science community and called those
practitioners thereof as Neanderthal thinkers. That is what gave me the
idea of writing science spoofs and titling it after Jurassic Park, only
instead Neanderthal Park.
  
  For an introduction to this spoof. Earle Jones posted four articles
in a row to sci.math  saying this:
In article <3r8j3f$h5t@worm.hooked.net>
ejones@worm.hooked.net (Earle Jones) writes:

> ============= 
>  
> To put the math in terms that even Dartmouth students will understand: 
>  
> CalTech 1 
> Dartmouth 0 
>  
> ============= 

 I followed-up contending that Earle was in no position to understand
the math, let alone judge it. That is what motivated me to create this
spoof.

  A second introduction. I must say something about that old TV show or
else most of you would not get the humor out of this spoof. Perhaps
some of you readers remember the old College Bowl shows on TV in the
late 60's and early 70's. Some TV's did a show on High Schools
competing but this one I am caricaturing was the "College Bowl" Show. I
enjoyed watching some of those TV shows and I vaguely remember some
College-- was it in the South? such as  (Fordham???). Anyway, I
remember one College Bowl team which had a captain who had perhaps a
photographic memory and was well read, perhaps, and I am guessing that
this gentleman of this College had a photographic encyclopedic memory?
I am straying too far afield.
  But to make the following spoof funny, if you had not seen any of
those College Bowls on TV, understand that the contestants 

were very very quick 

to press their buzzers before the question was even out of the mouth of
the HOST of the College Bowl.

-------------

College Bowl 1971

Caltech vs Earle Jones College

HOST of College Bowl is Mr. Jed Rothwell

Judges of all questions and answers are Messr. Scott Little and John
Logajan. Show a nice picture of these three persons seated behind their
personal computers with pictures of their families on their desks. This
is shown every week on the COLLEGE BOWL opening shots of the program.

Jed: This weeks contestants are Caltech. Here we have the Caltech team
of 

   Douglas Zare          Dr. David Goodstein       David Dixon-Bozo

 (Okay, they looked normal enough except for the guy in the middle who
was wearing a tuxedo and the guy on the end with his harpo marx
brothers nose-glasses and wearing only a bra for a shirt.)
 
  Now, Host Mr. Jed Rothwell introduces the team from EARLE JONES
COLLEGE. And it is a tradition of College Bowl to show a 1 minute blurb
of new Colleges on the show. Jed usually shows the campus with some
buildings and students walking. Jed shows some footage of Earle Jones
College science lab where the movie THE FLY was done and still doing
pioneering work on fly abortions. People in their homes in 1971 quickly
call up the station horrified that they would show such on TV.

  Jed now introduces the team from Earle Jones College.

     Earle Jones         Edward "Plasmoid" Lewis        Dieter Britz

(Nothing out of the normal with these young and smart College students.
Dieter is wearing a miniskirt but it goes well with his heavy foreign
accent.)

  Dingggggalllingggga  ding,  clock tells us that the

Opening bell, contest starts




HOST Jed : "40 point question. He was born in the year of neon in the
new calendar and the old calendar that year would be 1950..."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Jed: "Caltech Dr. Goodstein"

Dr. Goodstein fingering his tie as he gazes out of his Navy issue black
plastic glasses: "Archimedes Plutonium"

Jed: "Correct for 40 points."

Jed: "Two part question, 20 points each."


Jed:  "He proved Fermat's Last Theorem that a^n + b^n = c^n and th.."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Jed: "Earle Jones College, Earle Jones."

Earle Jones: "Dieter Britz."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ goes Caltech buzzer before Jed can even say
"wrong"

Jed: "Caltech Douglas Zare."


Douglas Zare: Archimedes Plutonium. And the method was counterexample
from Naturals = Adics = Infinite Integers, proving Naturals are the
Adics.

Jed: "Doubly correct for 40 points."


Interruption the Host announces that  Earle Jones College disputes the
answer. Here Mr. Little and Logajan come on the scene and pronounce
that both the question and answer were above-board and that Earle Jones
the captian of the Earle Jones College team had been reading too many
Bryan Wallace's smut   literature "Farcity Fart de Fart of Psychics".
Jed now steers the action back to the contest at hand.

Jed: "The score now after 20 minutes of time is Caltech 2800 points and
Earle Jones College -40 points. Oh well some days we are just not
cookin. So back to the game."

Jed: "40 point question. He.."


BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 

Jed: "Caltech, Dr. David Goodstein,  FOR FLU.FFING   OUT LLOUD  , LET
ME FINISH THE   FFRIGIN   QUESTION ....."

Dr. David Goodstein:  "Archimedes Plutonium."

Jed: "Jimmenny crickets,, how did you know that ?? That is correct for
40 more points and it brings the score to Caltech 2840 and Earle Jones
College minus 40
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 11 04:37:04 EDT 1995
------------------------------
