1995.06.11 / James Stolin /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 11 Jun 1995 17:51:49 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>
>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?

   You just don't get it, do you, Mitchell?  Let me spell it out for you: 
it's only >PARTIALLY<  Wallace's call.  What you call a proper response 
is to not read the notes but it has been explained more than once that 
this is NOT an available option for all.  Wallace should give a hoot in 
hell about others feelings about his behavior.  He is spamming the net 
and at some point his provider may excercise THEIR call and curtail his 
spamming.  It's happened before.

-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Fluke?
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 18:40:37 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


 Paul Stowe (pstowe@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

[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



	What is "impact quotient" ... rate of change of force?  What does
it mean?  It is still not clear why you want to redefine T to equal dF/dt.  
There is no need to do this.  The classical definition of temperature 
works just fine for measuring the "intensity of motion" of the
molecules - T is simply a measurement of their ENERGY. And, the 
connection between molecular Energy and Temperature is ... 
Boltzmann's constant!  Joules per Degree.  If you have a sample of gas at 
temperature T, the average K.E. of the molecules is 3/2 kT.

	If you are using a different temperature scale, you would use a 
different number for k to convert from Temperature to Energy.  The final 
point in my previous posting was that the degree Kelvin was related to 
the properties of WATER under SEA LEVEL conditions, and that if they were 
different our degree Kelvin would be different, totally independent of 
the MKSC(*) system of units.  So you would need a different number (k) to 
convert degrees K to joules.  But h, e, and c would not change, because 
none of those constants involve temperature.  So it really is just a fluke 
that k is very close to (but not equal to) h/ec .

	
* MKSC - Metre, Kilogram, Second, Coulomb



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / 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: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 13:42:14 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rchi0$pko@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:

> 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. 

***{I would word it a bit differently. I would say that the world is too
complex to be grasped by an intellect blighted by the effects of
coercive--i.e., government controlled--"education." But, interesting as
such a thread might be, it doesn't belong in this newsgroup, and so I am
making the individual choice, at this time and place, to go into it no
further. (Goon squad take note!) --Mitchell Jones}***

The manner
> in which we deal with this problem and make the world manageable is through
> specialization.

***{See above. --MJ}***
> 
> Do we need generalists? Yes. But we need specialists as well, and in general
> more of them.

***{See above. --MJ}***
> 
> 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?

***{There you go again. In an earlier posting, you said: "This is not
about censorship, it's about keeping the books on the right shelves,"
which is a more blantant version of the argument you are using now. I
ignored it the first time it appeared because the fallacy was obvious. But
now, since you refuse to back away from this position, I am going to
respond. Dean, the plain fact of the matter, apparent to anyone who cares
to see it, is that this is *not* about keeping the books on the right
shelves. It is, in fact, precisely about censorship. As I have already
noted, the insight which makes an unmoderated newsgroup possible is
recognition that most people, because they are motivated to get their
postings (their "books") read, make a good faith attempt to place them in
areas where they are relevant to the topic (which means: they try to place
their "books" on the "right shelves"). As a result, the vast majority of
the "books" are, as a matter of routine, going to be on the "right
shelves," without the need for any authoritarian "monitor" intervening to
decide what ought to go where and, in the process, succumbing to the
corruption of power and crossing the line into censorship. In those few
cases where individuals, due to ignorance, stupidity, or whatever, do in
fact place their "books" on the "wrong shelves," the penalty is imposed
automatically: individual readers in the newsgroup note that the postings
are off-topic and they, individually, each make the decision to ignore
that person's posts. Because this defense is available to all, and because
it constitutes a trivial inconvenience to efficient users of the system,
it is the only defense that is needed. Now, given that unmoderated forums
are possible--i.e., that they "work"--the question is why would anybody
want one? Here is the answer: the purpose of an unmoderated forum is to
not have a moderator! That is the immense value which such forums offer:
in them, millions of minds and millions of sources of information can be
brought to bear to unmask a lie. This occurs BECAUSE there is no
information daddy to "look out for our interests" by screening out the
uncomfortable information which we BABIES can't handle, and tuck us into
bed at night! And that brings us to the point: an "unmoderated" newsgroup
in which a self-appointed gang of majoritarian thugs employs bullying and
intimidation to decide who can and cannot post, is a contradiction in
terms. And don't try to tell me that a poll taking "goon squad," having
"fun" by sending "nastygrams" to people whose postings they do not like,
is employing persuasion. Persuasion involves the use of argument--i.e., 
evidence and logic--to change opinion. There is no argument involved in a
crude announcement that more people dislike the way someone is behaving
than like it. If you want to argue, you cite logic and evidence; you don't
count noses and announce the count. The difference is obvious. --Mitchell
Jones}***

  that   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.

***{That's right, Dean. Behaving the way you are behaving right now
doesn't constitute censorship. Right now, you are arguing on the basis of
logic and evidence. Your logic is flawed, but there is nothing
inappropriate or censorious about what you are doing, and neither I nor
any of the other persons who have objected to your former gangsterlike
behavior have uttered a word to the contrary. It is perfectly appropriate
for you and others who think that Mr. Wallace's posts are off topic, to
argue with him about what he is doing. He obviously wants his postings to
be read, and when you explain to him why you do not read them, you are
doing something that is worthwhile. Both you and he cannot help but
benefit from such an exchange. However, the fact that your present
behavior is appropriate to an unmoderated forum does not mean that your
former behavior was appropriate. It is your former behavior that is at
issue here. It is a documented fact that you, Scott Little, and numerous
others, formed a poll-taking majoritarian gang which was self-described as
a "goon squad," the purpose of which was to discourage Mr. Wallace from
posting to the forum not by means of arguments, but by means of crude
references to your supposedly superior numbers. I and the others who
object to your attempts to moderate this forum by means of a
self-appointed "goon squad" are not arguing that the "books" ought to be
on the "wrong shelves." We are telling you that this ain't no goddamned
moderated forum, and that we object to your attempts to turn it into one!
--Mitchell Jones}***    

> 
> >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.

***{God, Dean, why don't you stop and think about the implications of what
you are sayin  before you post it! The fact that Mr. Wallace isn't posting
his stuff to rec.autos.tech, or comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, or
rec.aviation.military, or a thousand other forums where they would be of
no interest to anyone, proves that he is making a good faith attempt to
post his material where he thinks it will be read! Given that fact, one
would think that you would ask yourself why he is posting it in
sci.physics.fusion. The answer is obvious: he is posting it here because
he thinks that it is relevant here, that it will be read here, and
because, in an unmoderated newsgroup, IT IS HIS DECISION TO MAKE, NOT
YOURS!!!  And that is what really you, isn't it, Dean: the fact that you
don't have the power to force him to submit to your will! Indeed, that's
the ugly truth which underlies this whole "goon squad" thing, isn't
it--that you guys are a bunch of closet authoritarians who simply can't
abide the fact that somebody, somewhere, might be empowered to make a
decision that doesn't depend on your approval! --MJ}***   
> 
> 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?

***{See above. --MJ}***
> 
> >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.

***{There's no "guilt by association" here, Dean. You are being judged by
your behavior. See above. --MJ}***

> 
> 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.

***{So here we go again. First a library analogy; now a butcher shop
analogy! I've already dissected the library analogy, Dean, and I'm not
going to waste my time going through your new version of the same song.
The only fact of relevance is this: if sci.physics.fusion is a "library,"
most of the "books" are going to be "on the right shelves," and if it is a
"butcher shop," most of the material offered for sale is going to be
"meat." The portion that is out of place is going to be small, and we can
deal with it by ignoring it. We don't need no goddamned moderator, and we
don't need no goddamned self-appointed "goon squad" to perform the
function of a moderator. --MJ}***  
> 
> 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?

***{As already noted, ad nauseam, it isn't your place to test, FOR
WALLACE, the theory that there are people in sci.physics.fusion who are
interested in seeing his theories posted here. If you want to "test" such
a theory FOR YOURSELVES, that's fine. But you didn't set out to test it
for yourselves: you set out to test it FOR WALLACE. Since you don't seem
to comprehend the difference, let me spell it out: Wallace didn't ask you
to test this theory for him, and he gave you no indication that he was
interested in your opinion on the matter. This means you are out of line
when you bombard him with your opinion poll results. (Yes, it would be
appropriate for you to bombard him with arguments. However, as I have
noted repeatedly, opinion poll results are not arguments.) In essence, you
are failing to mind your own business. But, of course, you have no idea
why it is none of your business, because you don't comprehend the
functioning of unmoderated newsgroups on even the most elementary level.
In an attempt to rectify this state of affairs, therefore, let's get down
to basics: why do you think people post articles to newsgroups? The
answer, in virtually all cases, is this: they want people to respond to
what they posted. The response is the reward. If you post an article and
nobody responds, either via e-mail or by posting a reply, then there is no
reward. What do you do? First, you analyze what you posted, to see if you
did something wrong. Maybe you inadvertently committed a faux pas, and
turned everybody off. If so, you change your post to eliminate the
mistake, and post again. But then, if you still get no response, and if
you can't find anything else that you did wrong, and if you are sane, then
you conclude that the readers of that group aren't interested in that
topic, and you stop posting there. Nobody has to force a sane person to do
this. If a post doesn't produce a response, or enough response, then there
is no reward, and you go somewhere else. What this means, in all
likelihood, is that Wallace doesn't need your poll results. That's
probably why he didn't ask you to conduct your poll, and why he has
responded to your bullying by telling you to go stick your head in a
bucket: in all likelihood he is posting in sci.physics.fusion because when
he does so, he gets rewarded--i.e., people respond to him. He certainly
doesn't need you, or Scott Little, or your idiotic "goon squad," to tell
him whether people are responding to his posts here: he has their
responses, for Christ's sake! Indeed, the absurdity of you guys trying to
tell him that he isn't getting any responses is compounded by the fact
that his sources of information for forming such a judgment are superior
to yours: all you can do is read the replies to his posts--you don't have
access to his e-mail. So who in hell are you to tell him anything about
this matter? You are simply not in a position to judge it. Furthermore,
not merely is it none of your business to test FOR WALLACE the question of
whether anybody here is interested in his stuff, it is also insulting. The
reason: when you try to tell him that nobody who reads this newsgroup is
interested in his stuff, you are essentially saying that he is
insane--because only a certifiable lunatic would continue posting to a
group from which he gets no responses! --MJ}***    
> 
> >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.

***{Dean, the ladies sewing circle, like the library and the butcher shop,
is irrelevant! To repeat: this is not about whether postings ought to be
properly classified: it is about who makes the call, and, apparently,
about whether the idea of an unmoderated newsgroup--i.e., true freedom of
speech--is a valid concept at all. You guys believe that a newsgroup which
doesn't have a formally appointed and empowered information czar deciding
what can and cannot be posted is inherently defective, and that to rectify
said deficiency, a gang of self-appointed bully boys--i.e., you--must step
in and decide what the rest of us infants are to be allowed to read! You
are, however, apparently so fogbound in your thinking, or else so
fundamentally dishonest, that you are unable even to comprehend your own
motivations! What a goddamned joke you all are! None of you deserve free
speech, and I will be disturbed when you lose it only because those who
are better than you will lose their freedom as well! You all obviously
want to be slaves, so why don't you move to Cuba. Fidel will be happy to
slap manacles on your ankles and make you feel right at home! --MJ}***
> =============================================================================
>   - deane

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Alan M /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 11 Jun 1995 02:47:57 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <3r9jik$smg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>  wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
> 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!!!
> 

OK Dieter (and others), who thought we could expect a reasonable response
from Bryan. 'Fraid so, but 'I told you so'.

So what do we do now?

(He has already been kicked off one service through refusing to moderate
his cross-postings.)

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Compression Stability
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 04:27:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3q3hma$ar0@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:


[snipped] but interesting points.  

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

Basically "Yes", unless we choose really small ones (less than 10 cm radius).  
The problem with small ones is due to lack of linear scaling with overall
size for certain parameters such a pressure, mean free path, wall thickness, 
bounding mag pressure, etc. and also there can be shape distortion due to 
plasma current dynamics related to faster radii of curvature.  

>--
> - 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    -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Scott Little /  Oops! I closed the voting too soon.
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops! I closed the voting too soon.
Date: 11 Jun 1995 03:59:09 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

OK, folks.  There have been a number of additional votes received
after I posted my "Final returns on the Vote", including a few votes
FOR continuing to have Farce posts on spf!

I'll continue to collect votes until four or five days have gone by 
without any action and then I'll post a final final tally.



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Olivier Zendra /  PhD in Nuclear Physics seeks a job
     
Originally-From: zendra@loria.fr (Olivier Zendra)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: PhD in Nuclear Physics seeks a job
Date: 11 Jun 1995 14:49:38 +0200
Organization: CRIN & INRIA-Lorraine - Nancy - FRANCE


Hi. 
I'm posting this for a friend.

Please reply to: samib@eiffel.fr

=========================================================

Claude MASSE
8, rue du Dr. Hutinel
21400 CHATILLON S/ SEINE
Phone : (+33) 80 91 33 28
Born on the 5th June 1963 
Single man

Training (in France)
 -------------------

1994 : PhD from Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg, nuclear physics 
       speciality, with honnor.
1987 : Postgraduate diploma in experimental nuclear physics, from the ULP, 
       Strasbourg.
1986 : Military Service.
1985 : Master's degree in physics, University of Dijon ( solid physics, 
       optics).
1981 : High school diploma, mathematics and industrial techniques serie, 
       with honnor.

Experience 
----------

- Experimental research on heavy ion nuclear reaction mecanisms at the CRN, 
  Strasbourg, and GANIL, Caen.
	. Development of simulation and calibration software for particle 
          detectors.
	. Nuclear phenomenon modelisation.
	. Data analysis on statistical processing.
- Tutoring mathematics and physics at the undergraduate level.

Skills 
------

- Particle detectors, radiation-matter interactions, neutronics.
- Numerical analysis, MONTE CARLO method, Probabilities and statistics.
- Programming languages FORTRAN and C, operating systems MVS, UNIX and 
  MS-DOS.

Foreign languages
-----------------

- French : fluent.
- English : good.
- German : fair.

Sports and leisure
------------------

- Biking : regular practice.
- Bridge card player.

Miscellaneous
-------------

- Accept to relocate.
- Avalaible now.

============================================================

Please reply to: samib@eiffel.fr


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzendra cudfnOlivier cudlnZendra cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / 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: 11 Jun 1995 09:33:23 -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    -

Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
harrassment, the FBI?

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  Nicholas /  Re: Questions about Potapov from Parsec and Dunsmuir
     
Originally-From: nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nicholas Hill")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions about Potapov from Parsec and Dunsmuir
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 14:31:15 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

I have tried to contact VIZOR inc but British Telecom say Maldavian 
directory of enquiries have no record of the company.

I would be interested in seeing the machine work. I would be inclined to 
contact the company, ask for specifications and prehaps take a detour on 
route to Romania to inspect and/or purchase one.

I would be happy to have it inspected by anyone wishing to come to London 
with a keen interest in the subject. 

Regards


Nick
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennhill cudlnNicholas cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  Nicholas /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nicholas Hill")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 14:31:16 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

I agreee cross-posting activity is undesirable for the net.

I would typically not respond to cross-postings as a matter of principle. 
In this instance, i had headers switched off so it was'nt obvious the 
message had been cross-posted.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennhill cudlnNicholas cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / John Logajan /  The Farce
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Farce
Date: 11 Jun 1995 15:31:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.
: : Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
: : offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(

: Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
: post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
: not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
: harrassment, the FBI?

Call me goofy, but I don't think the FBI is the proper agency to deal with
e-mail reader problems.

--
 - 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:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  Rhame /  Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like
     
Originally-From: rhame@aol.com (Rhame)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like
Date: 11 Jun 1995 12:13:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


Regarding halo nuclei, the discoverer of the Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM)
and the Periodic Table of Beta
Stable Nuclides will have an article dealing with the structure of such
nuclei in the
upcoming issue of Infinite Energy.  He has written a 40 page paper, "The
Nucleon
Cluster Model and the Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides," which is
available
from R.E. Brightsen, Clustron Sciences Corporation, 1917 Upper Lake Drive,
Reston, VA 22091;
Telephone Number: 703-476-8731 and Fax: 703-827-4066.  The amount of $5.00
is
requested to cover copying and postage.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrhame cudlnRhame cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Scott Little /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 11 Jun 1995 16:28:47 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <1995Jun9.120025.2272@acoust.byu.edu>, jonesse@acoust.byu.edu says:

>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.)

Steven, I think there is a good chance that what we call the "wave nature"
of the electron is simply a descriptive rule for the 
interaction between the electron and the ZPF.  (there are theoreticians
who maintain that, just as the ZPF is required by QM (i.e. lowest
allowable energy level is 0.5h*nu, not zero), QM...or at least its rules..
are a direct result of the existence of the ZPF!) 

Therefore, if you could
place the H atom in a cavity with a lower-density ZPF, the orbit would 
shrink, letting the electron drop to a LOWER energy state than normal.

I agree that if you tried to force the orbit to shrink without altering
the ambient ZPF, you'd have to put energy into the system.

Do you know if the heat of formation of PdH for example is positive or
neg?  That is, is heat liberated when Pd and H get together?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Alan M /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
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: 11 Jun 1995 18:03:47 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <3rerb3$l9v@xcalibur.IntNet.net>  wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
(Bryan Wallace) writes:
> Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
> post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
> not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
> harrassment, the FBI?
> 
You have just been touched by the Curse of Jed. Go away or it will
get much worse!

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / James Stolin /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 11 Jun 1995 17:41:41 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote:

>My posting does not cost you anything unless you read the file!

>You have a very limited understanding of Internet News. 

Bryan,

   WRONG!  It appears that YOU have a very limited understanding of 
Internet News.  Some people do not have the option of selecting notes by 
subject.  Those receiving sci.physics.fusion via listservers get ALL 
notes and pay whether they read them or not.

>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.

   Nobody NEEDS to read your free "book".   Some may WQANT to and you 
would have sufficient exposure in just a few groups.

> 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!!!

   You DO have a right to post.  However, please try to keep your posts 
related to the subject of the newsgroup.  It's not necessary to spam your 
"info" in so many newsgroups.  Finally, it might benefit you to remember 
simple netiquette.  I seem to remember that your posts were curtailed at 
a previous site due to your incessant spamming.

-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Tom Droege /  Re: The Farce
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce
Date: 11 Jun 1995 19:17:12 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3rf286$a30@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
>: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
>: : Please delete sci.physics.fusion from your follow-ups to this topic.
>: : Thanks for your cooperation.  Further notices will be via e-mail to
>: : offenders -- and much more nasty.  :-(
>
>: Shortly after I crossposted a reply that included sci.physics.fusion to this 
>: post, I could no longer read my mail!  It would appear that Logajan was 
>: not making an idle threat!!  Who should one contact to stop this type of 
>: harrassment, the FBI?
>
>Call me goofy, but I don't think the FBI is the proper agency to deal with
>e-mail reader problems.
>
>--
> - 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    -

Good work, John, I knew your computer job would come in handy some
day.  ;^)

To those of you that have no sense of humor, this is not a serious
post.  It is not meant to indicate that I have any knowledge that 
John could or would do such a thing even though I think he should. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 9 Jun 1995 10:06:20 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <R6xe9u+.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>Actually, I cannot make head or tail of the "Farce" and I ignore it. But
>Mr. Wallace has as much right to post messages as anyone else, and Mr.
>Little is wa-a-a-y out of line telling him not to. I cannot imagine what
>harm his postings could cause, no matter how incorrect they might be.

So, Jed, as one of the people who pays to get the bytes posted in this 
newsgroup, you would not mind if I posted an ultra-high resolution 
gigabyte MPEG constructed from a video shot while driving around 
town, uuencoded and posted in a zillion parts with different subject 
lines?  Anyone with net access can post to a newsgroup, but netiquette 
(enforced in some cases by the rules of the access provider, and in 
extreme cases by the net itself against the provider) says the posts 
should be appropriate to the group.  

This group has as its subject fusion (hot and cold) and fusion-related 
subjects, a situation established by a democratic vote under Usenet rules 
and recently reinforced by a newsgroup creation vote.  The "Farce" posts 
do not fall in this category.  They *do* fall in a number of other 
categories with newsgroups, and Wallace has a perfect right to post 
them in *those* groups.  It is as inappropriate here as it would be 
in rec.gardening. 

-- 
 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:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 11 Jun 1995 19:40:10 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3rf5k0$1u5@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

> In article <1995Jun9.120025.2272@acoust.byu.edu>, jonesse@acoust.byu.edu says:
> 
> >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.)
> 
> Steven, I think there is a good chance that what we call the "wave nature"
> of the electron is simply a descriptive rule for the 
> interaction between the electron and the ZPF.  (there are theoreticians
> who maintain that, just as the ZPF is required by QM (i.e. lowest
> allowable energy level is 0.5h*nu, not zero), QM...or at least its rules..
> are a direct result of the existence of the ZPF!) 
> 
> Therefore, if you could
> place the H atom in a cavity with a lower-density ZPF, the orbit would 
> shrink, letting the electron drop to a LOWER energy state than normal.
> 
> I agree that if you tried to force the orbit to shrink without altering
> the ambient ZPF, you'd have to put energy into the system.
> 

Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused.  I was under the impression that zero
point energy (that energy remaining in a molecule at absolute zero
temperature) and the ZPF (zero potential fluctuation ???) were different
critters entirely.  ZPE can be described as that energy which keeps the
electron from falling into the nucleus.  

Or, it can be described as a consequence of the uncertainty principle, due
to the restriction of the motion of the electron:  If there is a
constraint placed upon the position of the electron, due to being in an
orbital of the system, then there must be some uncertainty in the momentum
of the electron.  It cannot, therefore, be precisely zero all the time,
and hence must have some energy.

Thirdly, ZPE can be viewed as the lowest allowable energy level from the
Schroedinger eq'n.  The n=0 state is disallowed under parity
restrictions.  My understanding of this description is very rusty.

However, above Scott Little associates ZPE with ZPF.  Can someone point me
to a decent description of ZPF, and suggest why the two entities might be
related?

Thanks,

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 9 Jun 1995 13:24:23 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21cenlogic-0806950020290001@austin-1-10.i-link.net> 
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>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 "vote" is really a poll to inform Mr. Wallace of the views of this 
newsgroup concerning the interpretation of its charter, a charter 
approved under the standard practices of Usenet.  Egregious violations 
of approved charters have, in the past, led to the revocation of an 
account.  After all, as you may not know, there is a procedure for 
removing an entire site from the internet if it violates network rules 
or tolerates same.   

>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 do I, but we pay a fixed annual price for net access and we can 
afford the disk to get lots of newsgroups.  Others have to pay to 
get all those bytes *before* they can filter it out.  They have a 
legitimate complaint when mass quantities of off-topic posts appear. 

>                         It's people like you, driven by your insatiable
>desire to control and intimidate others, who are the impetus behind the
>move for government control of the internet. 

"The government" cannot control the internet because the internet 
transcends political boundaries.  Actually, the impetus for government 
controls comes from folks who think the long-standing system of self-
policing of Usenet is not effective, particularly now that so many 
minor children have access to it. 

I have seen no evidence that anyone here wants to "control" Wallace. 
They want him to conform to the charter of this newsgroup.  That is 
hardly a significant constraint given the options available to him. 

>                                             The logic is simple: at
>present, Wallace and other victims of attempted majoritarian intimidation
>have the option of simply telling the busybodies to kiss off. 

Wallace is not a victim.  If anything, his actions have inflicted 
unnecessary costs on others, victimizing them.  I will defend his 
right to post his ideas in sci.physics but they do not belong here. 

I also defend his right, as a fellow member of the APS, to "publish" 
his ideas in the Bulletin and present them at meetings, as he has 
done for many years.  

>And, of course, once the penalties with teeth are in place, they will be
>used to silence newsgroups such as this one, where a majority vote will
>beyond a shadow of a doubt conclude that "cold fusion" is a crackpot
>notion that ought to be suppressed! You guys need to pull your heads out
>of your behinds and look at the implications of what you are doing!

You need to inform yourself about how Usenet functions.  This group 
could be shut down today (well, not today, it takes months to carry
out the CFD and CFV process) by the existing mechanisms.  The same 
process that creates a group can shut it down.  Of course that only 
applies to the non-alt groups, but many places do not carry alt groups.  

-- 
 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:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /   /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: 11 Jun 1995 17:58:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It's rather amusing to read all of the justifications given in this thread
concerning the lower number of posts to moderated newsgroups. I submit
that if one simply counts the number of posts which contribute materially
to the subject and ignore all the truly ignorant pseudo-science
"contributions" (which are in the vast majority on this newsgroup, for
example), then one would probably find parity between moderated and
unmoderated newsgroups (controlling for the level of interest in the
topic).

A simpler way of putting this is that the silly stuff doesn't make it past
the moderator.

I suggest that a moderated newsgroup concerning fusion be created. Then I
could read useful and serious communications. If I occasionally wanted to
take a walk in fairy-tale land, I could read the unmoderated group.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /   /  Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CETI device was publicly scrutinzed by scores of experts
Date: 11 Jun 1995 18:03:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Bill Snyder writes:

"Do speak up again any time they under-medicate you and you start feeling 
restless, Jeddikins.  With all the trouble in the world, it's nice to 
know there's *somebody* who is always good for a laugh."

It's good that someone has finally figured out what drives Mr. Jed! Or at
least someone who takes Jed's words for exactly what they are worth.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /   /  A proposed symmetry
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A proposed symmetry
Date: 11 Jun 1995 18:45:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Is Jed Rothwell actually Bryan Wallace's twin? Or perhaps they are the
same person?

We should honor him (them?) with their own personal newsgroup. The
signal/noise on the newsgroups to which they post would increase
significantly.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / David Wyland /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: dcwyland@ix.netcom.com (David Wyland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: 12 Jun 1995 01:30:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-1106951342140001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
>
>In article <3rchi0$pko@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
>deane@excalibur.net5c.io.org (Dean Edmonds) wrote:
>
>> 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.

a really big snip .....

Sigh.  Flame off please.

Censorship is Bad.  OK.  Being rude on the net is bad.  Also OK. Being
rude about the rudeness is at least as bad, or should be, I think.  

Taking a poll of the readers of the newsgroup and sending it to Mr.
Wallace as information for _his_ evaluation should not be bad.  Maybe
he would like to know the distribution of interest in his various
newsgroup postings, beginning with this one.  If he is not getting any
interest here but is only irritating people in this group, the
information may be useful to him.  He may even change his postings.  Or
not. It is his call. 

Some readers think Mr. Wallace is being rude by posting long comments
on his theories.  For me, the problem is not the length and frequency,
but the uni-directional, broadcast nature of his postings.  (Speaking
for myself only.) If Mr. Wallace entered into an intercative dialog
with the readers of this newsgroup on his theories, the "problem" would
cease to exist.  It would probably degenerate into one of the many,
_but informative_, ongoing flame wars about fusion/physics/CF.  

Now, what were we talking about?

Dave Wyland

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendcwyland cudfnDavid cudlnWyland cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 12 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
