1995.06.12 / Dieter Britz /   final result
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  final result
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:10:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello $700-voters,

last week, I took suggestions for what we should buy for the $700 and who
should get it. There is no need to vote on this: I got only a few votes,
unanimously appointing Scott Little as the recipient (even the other possible
candidate, Tom Droege, named Scott); and it is to be the Potapov gadget.
Scott Little is not only willing, he is eager to get his hands on it and is
willing to pitch in with more money if needed. So that's the final result,
Scott Little gets the money, with which to buy the Potapov gadget. Tom, your
potential tax problem is solved, just send Scott the money.

All that remains now is to find out how to get into touch with Potapov and
order his machine; I am working on that. If it is true that tens of thousands
have been sold in Eastern Europe and Russia etc, the man should be happy to
get a leg into the US market. If I were him (assuming that he does indeed have
a wonder machine) I'd send one cheap, just for the publicity. But let's see.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  Nicholas /  Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: nhill@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Nicholas Hill")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Books/ Information/ Demonstration of Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 13:31:24 GMT
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange

I am eager top see a cold fusion experiment in operation. I would like to 
see an already setup experiment in operation but failing this would be 
prepared to set one up.

Can anyone suggest where i could see such an experiment taking place, 
prefrably allowing me to take measurements. I am in London and would 
prefer a local sight. Alternatively, can someone point me to some reading 
matter which gives concise information how to set an experiment up?

Can someone clearly illustrate what the main claimed cold fusion 
experiments are and the differences between them?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennhill cudlnNicholas cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Richard Blue /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 14:45:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Perhaps it is time to give a brief summary of the arguments for
cold fusion.  It should be noted that there is a profound lack
of direct evidence for any nuclear reaction processes.  Generally
speaking there is not sufficient radiation emitted, and evidence
for the detection of "nuclear ash" is limited and contradictory.
The entire notion of cold fusion is based on the indirect inference
that nothing else can account for the experimental observations.
This is, by its very nature, a rather difficult argument to sustain.

Not only is there insufficient direct evidence to support the cold
fusion hypothesis, there is sound scientific reasons for saying that
it does not occur; and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that
cold fusion is not a commonly occuring process.  If you set out to
make a list of all the situations in which we can be rather certain
that cold fusion does not occur you would have a very long list.
Just forming metal hydrides doesn't, for example, routinely result
in cold fusion.

To carry on the assertion that certain processes do induce cold fusion,
but that the energy release can be detected only after it has been
degraded to the thermal energy of the system is highly suspect.  In
fact I believe there is a clear contradiction, a violation of
basic physical principles, that is being invoked here.  There are
certain other indications that the "excess heat" data is not
consistant with the types of processes that have been call on to
explain the results.

Now to get to my point concerning the Cravens demo.  The proof that
cold fusion is involved in this demo is based, as I said above, on
the elimination of every other possibility.  Unless and until every
other possibility is examined with great care the Cravens demo is
rather pointless.

I have suggested that certain unspecified chemical processes may account
of the Cravens observations.  Under cold fusion rules, if seems, there
is no need to specify the nuclear process, right?  So  I do not specify
the chemical process.

We can then begin to see what restrictions the actual data in hand place
on the possibilities for a chemical process or processes that result in
the observed heat transport from the cell.  John Logajan and Jed Rothwell
have each called certain evidence to our attention, but neither has addressed
all the possibilities.

Any assertion that heat from a chemical source could not be generated beyond
some specified time interval is based on the assumption that a fuel is being
consumed and an ash being produced in a way that could not be sustained that
long.  Suppose, however, the products of a chemical reaction within the
cell are simply recombined in the external loop or that the inverse occurs.
All I am suggesting is that something exits the cell in a lower energy state
than when it returns, the energy difference being roughly 0.1 J per Ml.
Nothing continues to be formed or consumed in the process.  It is all
recycled.  In that case it will not run out after some fixed time period.
Of course I would not, at this time, rule out the possibility that there
are other contributions of a chemical nature that do consume a fuel and
produce an ash.

Now Jed tells us that my notion is clearly wrong because the cell with
gold plated beads does not show this effect.  That would indicate that
part of my mystery cycle requires the beads to be plated with nickle,
palladium, and copper.  I don't see that as a putting a serious dent
in the possibilities, however.

I think the bottom line is that Cravens has to do some work to define in
detail the chemistry that is occuring.  When the chemistry has been pinned
down as well as the nuclear physics in some CF investigations we can give
this matter further consideration.  However, I still say that if you
claim to be investigating a nuclear reaction process you really ought
to seek direct evidence for the occurance of a nuclear process and stop
wasting time with insensative and crude measurements on the most degraded
possible signals.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Is Pd stable in hot water?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Pd stable in hot water?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:54:19 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 9 Jun 1995, Jerome Thorel wrote:

> According to a close French research source of M. Pons, the palladium 
> cathode is slowly degrading itself and must be replaced after a couple 
> of weeks (5-15 days). Does anybody could confirm this doubt?
> 
This could be because as Pd is charged with hydrogen (or deuterium) it 
expands by about 10% and cracks. A few charge/discharge cycles and I'd 
say the cracking is pretty extensive. This could explain the replacement. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: attn: Bryan Wallace. Final Results on the Farce Vote
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn: Bryan Wallace. Final Results on the Farce Vote
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:51:41 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 9 Jun 1995, Scott Little wrote:

> The final results of the vote are as follows:
> 
> 45 folks said they would like to see Farce posts disappear from spf.
> 
> ZERO folks said they would like to see Farce posts continue to appear in spf.

So, Bryan: your contention that there are people on spf who want you to post
here, falls down. You wouldn't want to post to a group where your postings
are not wanted, would you? So, please take this vote to heart and stop.
Thank you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Mikko Karttunen /  ANNOUNCE (WWW): Physics Around the World
     
Originally-From: karttune@luthien.physics.mcgill.ca (Mikko Karttunen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.med.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.phy
ics.fusion,fj.sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,bionet.biophysics,sci.phy
ics.electromag,can.schoolnet.phys.sr,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dyn
mics,sci.astro,fj.sci.astro,sci.astro.planetarium,sci.astro.amateur,sci.
haos,sci.engr.biomed,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.materials,sci.nonlinear,sci
space
Subject: ANNOUNCE (WWW): Physics Around the World
Date: 12 Jun 1995 14:34:13 GMT
Organization: Center for the Physics of Materials


PHYSICS AROUND THE WORLD
 -----------------------

has now a Netscape enhansed (HTML 3.0) version available at 

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/physics-services/physics_services2.html

and at

http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/physics-services/physics_services2.html

The previous version is available at their old URLs at

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/physics-services/

and at

http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/physics-services/

Both the old and the new versions contain the same data and will be updated
side by side, however the data is organized a little bit differently. 

Physics Around the World includes:

* Links to preprint servers, journals, books & publishers
* Links to educational resources in physics and other natural sciences & maths
* Links to physics departments and institutions around the world
  (also non-university labs) geographically & topically  
* List of servers containing info about available JOBS (including
  summer jobs for students, and postdoc openings), also other 
  than physics
* Links to student societies & summer jobs
* Conferences and meetings 	
* Scientific visalization & computation, program archives, linux etc. 
* Government & funding offices & scholarships/fellowships, patents
* Physics news -listings, physics USENET newsgroup, mailing lists
* Physical (and related) Societies & Space Agencies Around the World
* Links to other physics resource lists, W3 Virtual Libraries & FAQs
* Search engine to retrieve information from the physics database together 
  with a collection of the most popular catalogs and search engines
  to help searching info about other topics.
* Companies producing instruments and components
* Student pages (also other than physics)
* Physical laws, data and tables
* History of science

We also provide two bulletin boards: 
   - Summer Schools and Workshops
   - Internet Market Place for Physicists: Buy & sell used instruments

Currently, the monthly access rate is >12 000 users -- we believe that
this is the right forum for you to announce your physics (and related) WWW
servers and services. The lists are updated regularily twice a week.

We hope you'll find this useful.

Suggestions, critcism and contributions are most welcome!

With Best Regards,

                     Mikko Karttunen (Author & maintainer)
 	             Guenther Nowotny (European maintainer)

URL:
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
               PHYSICS SERVERS AND SERVICES AROUND THE WORLD
    _____         
   /____/ \    American site: karttune@physics.mcgill.ca 
  |  __ \ /|   http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/physics-services/
  | |__) |/    
  |  ___/      European site: gnowotny@tph20.tuwien.ac.at
  |_|/         http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/physics-services/

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









cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkarttune cudfnMikko cudlnKarttunen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  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: Sun, 11 Jun 95 22:25:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>It's a Ni/Pd/Ni sandwich, isn't it?  Both the articles in "CF" and Infinite
 
That is correct. The one at the conference was the latest generation: Cu
flashing, Ni, Pd, Ni.
 
>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.
 
Well, I think the evidence is fairly clear that the Ni is that active metal
in this case. I think the Pd is acting only as a sponge and filter, just as it
does in the outer cathode in the Arata cell (where the Pd black on the inside
is shown to be the source of heat.) I have never heard of a Pd + light water
producing excess heat, and I don't think Patterson ever saw that either.
 
On the other hand, it is not like the Arata cell, or other double-structured
cathodes, insofar as you cannot put a probe in each layer of metal to see
which is getting hot. The Arata cell components are macroscopic.
 
>Are you saying that they are doing Ni only anomalous heat runs?
 
As I recall, he said that his early Ni only cells gave a very weak response,
with very low power density, which is similar to other Ni cells. I may be
wrong about that; I'll have to look over my notes carefully or call Jim and
confirm that.
 
Some people at ICCF5 suggested that the Ni - Pd interface would be an ideal
place to trigger a CF reaction. The reasons they think that are over my head.
I do know, however, that Pd makes a perfect sponge and filter to keep out
contamination and hold a large amount of hydrogen right at the Ni surface.
Perhaps that is a simplistic version of the hypothesis.
 
The outer layer of Ni may or may not be reacting, but it is definitely
needed for practial purposes, to make the beads stronger -- as you said.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: science power and religion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: science power and religion
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 95 22:26:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bravo Jean-Paul! Those remarks are right on target. I agree 100%.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Morrison's Article.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison's Article.
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 95 22:29:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
 
>Can anyone categorically state that EPRI has stopped funding CNF or that
>Pons has definitely left the field?
 
Those claims of Morrison's are bunk. Completely wrong. EPRI and Pons are
both still doing CF. Most of Morrison's other claims are also bunk. His
"informed sources" must be hallucinating. Or maybe he is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: 12 Jun 1995 02:25:01 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

In article <3r84eu$fc0@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>

>But we must remember the ZPF is very weak...

Actually it's not weak at all. Not a lot of folks seem to realize the full
magnitude of the ZPF.  It is, in fact, the most energetic "thing" in our
everyday experience.  

If the ZPF is responsible for establishing the ground state of electron
orbits around nuclei then you could say that the ZPF is responsible (and
necessary) for the existence of matter as we know it.

A wonderful new idea proposed by Puthoff, et al, is that inertia is due to
the interaction of the charges that comprise all matter and the ZPF.  The
theory is complex but I think it is close to consider the force one must
overcome when accelerating an object as a sort of radiation pressure that
arises when the ZPF distribution around an object is made unequal by
acceleration.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Scott Little /  Re: The Farce
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce
Date: 12 Jun 1995 04:33:34 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

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?
>

The karma decline! It's working!  Forget the FBI, Bryan, you're going to
have to go straight to the top on this one.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /   /  Re: What happened to Riggatrons?
     
Originally-From: jdavid2355@aol.com (JDavid2355)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What happened to Riggatrons?
Date: 12 Jun 1995 02:49:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I was a science reporter for the LA Times San Diego bureau back in the
early 1980s and I talked to Robert Bussard when he was still working on
the Riggatron. I was familiar with him because of his earlier imaginative
work on starship designs, etc. After they went under, I heard a rumor that
their bankroller -- Bob Guccione (of Penthouse!) -- may have had to pull
out because the funds were mishandled by a San Diego investor who later
went to prison. I recall that the J. David Dominelli scandal was hot in
San Diego about the same time; I have absolutely no idea if Dominelli was
Guccione's investor, though. I'd love to know what ever happened to
Bussard. I'll never forget an enjoyable afternoon with him, a handsome man
in a white suit with a thick shock of white hair: It was a typical
Southern California day, full of sunshine and high hopes that later
dissolved. 

Let me know if you learn anything more. You might call General Atomic (now
GA Technologies, in La Jolla) and ask if anyone there knows; maybe their
old boss Harold Agnew is still alive and around. 

-- Best,

 Keay Davidson, Science Writer, San Francisco Examiner 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjdavid2355 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio update
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio update
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Starry droogs,

There has been a bit of discussion of the forensic examination of the SRI
cell that exploded; Bruce Liebert was kind enough to alert me on the paper
in JFS, which then yielded the other reference in J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.
I contacted Tibor Braun, its Editor, and he kindly faxed me a copy. Before
this age of electronic to&fro, this would have taken a few weeks at least.

It seems that the team had a section in the original draft on their search
for radionuclides, but the journal's (i.e. J. Forensic Sci.) referee asked for
it to be excised. They submitted that part separately to the other journal
then. So actually the referee did them a favour, they got two papers out of it.
These papers are a bit strange in parts, or maybe I should say use terminology
that is unfamiliar to me. These chemists "interrogate" the samples, e.g. I am
told by someone hoping to become a forensic chemist that this is normal. I was
nevertheless amused that the team noted that there was no nitrate or nitrite
present, normally found after an explosion. Hm, well, I guess these people
are used to skullduggery and didn't want to exclude the possibility of a bomb
being planted in the cell. I find it a bit hard to believe that a sheen of oil
left on the inside of the steel container could set off the explosion; after
all, there was the PTFE inside lining separating that oil from the cell itself.
I still incline to the SRI theory, maybe without the blockage by a flap. I.e.
Riley picked up the assembly, tilted it, exposing bare Pd or Pt to the D2/O2
mixture, setting it off. I am not sure about the significance of the 54% weld
penetration. How about it, you engineers out there? Is this an indictment of
the welders, or is 54% normal? This is the weld that fastened the stainless
steel container to its base. When the base blew, the top of the cell took off
like a rocket, killing Riley.

Then we have the Italian design of a neutron detector. I can't judge how this
compares to Steve Jones' design but it does look like they went to considerable
trouble.

Finally, the Bockris et al peripheral; I put it into that category because it
is a talk given at a conference, not a paper in a journal. It does repeat what
the Bockris team has said before, minus the contentious claim of fugacity
being equal to pressure INSIDE a gas, even though at the wall, it's less.
Bockris made this in another paper, but not here.

All these items are archived.

Journal Papers: Current count = 987
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Grant PM, Whipple RE, Andresen BD;  J. Forensic Sci. 40 (1995) 18.
"Comprehensive forensic analyses of debris from the fatal explosion of a 'cold
fusion' electrochemical cell".
** Discussion
This team of forensic chemists was charged with the detailed examination of
the debris left after the explosion of a cold fusion cell at SRI, in which
Andrew Riley was killed. Some of his tissues were in fact found left on the
steel of the cell. SRI had at this stage already examined the debris and
concluded that the cause of the explosion was a blockage, by a small PTFE
flap, of a pressure valve, resulting in a high internal pressure in the sealed
cell; and that when Riley moved it, he exposed the deuterium/oxygen mixture to
bare palladium.  Grant et al do not find any evidence of such a blockage, and
their main finding is of residues of oil on the inside of the steel mantle
around the cell. They appear to believe that this oil started a combustion
process with the pressurised oxygen, that then set off the gas mixture. The
steel container was deformed, indicating a peak pressure of about 300 atm.
They also found incomplete welds in the container bottom (54% weld
penetration), no doubt resulting in the rocket effect after the bottom blew
off. They conducted some elemental analysis but some of the results are
confidential, probably part of SRI's secret ingredients for 'cold fusion'.
They express some surprise at the absence of nitrate or nitrite, usually
present after explosions. They also performed some radionuclide measurements
but will publish the findings elsewhere, prevented by the referee from doing
so here.
#....................................................................... Jun-95
Grant PM, Whipple RE, Bazan F, Brunk JL, Wong KM, Russo RE, Andresen BD;
J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 193 (1995) 165.
"Search for evidence of nuclear involvement in the fatal explosion of a 'cold
fusion' experiment".
** Discussion
This is a second paper by the forensic team examining the debris left after
the explosion at SRI of a 'cold fusion' electrochemical cell, in which Andrew
Riley was killed. Part of the team's work consisted of a search for
radioactive products, and this part was suppressed by the referee of the J. of
Forensic Sci, where the main report was placed. The cell container itself and
brass fins from the heat exchanger were examined, about 3.5 months after the
explosion. Short-lived nuclides would therefore have decayed. The object was
to find evidence of neutron activation in the samples. They were placed in a
counting space for 3.78 days, then into another, high-sensitivity one for 6.67
days. Both sites had low background. No evidence of residual nuclides was
found.
#....................................................................... Jun-95
Stella B, Celani F, Corradi M, Ferrarotto F, Iucci N, Milone V, Spallone A,
Villoresi G;  Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A355 (1995) 609.
"A high efficiency, low background neutron and gamma detector for cld fusion
experiments".
** Experimental, neutron detector design, res0
Description of the design of a high-efficiency neutron detector, "FERMI". It
is built up on 7 BF3 plus 2 3He detectors, and a complex system of electronic
logic around them. Efficiency is between 40 and 80% in the range 0.1 - 20 MeV,
and when tested in the Gran Sasso tunnel, 1200 m underground, the background
was measured at 0.09 c/s. Gamma rays are also detected, by a large single NaI
crystal. Neutron multiple events ("bursts") can be handled. Dec-93/Feb-95
#....................................................................... Jun-95

Peripherals: Current count = 95
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Bockris JO'M, Minevski ZS, Lin GH;  Electrochem. Soc. Proc. 94-21 (1994) 410.
"Hydrogen in palladium: kinetics, material properties and fugacity".
** Yet another electrochemical study of the Pd/D2O system, and arguments about
fugacity. Here, however, no actual astronomic pressures are claimed, only the
conventional 10^4 or less. Tafel curves are shown, and they have a sharp break,
at an overvoltage of -0.4 V; this is not easy to accept but is explained as a
transition from one water reduction mechanism to another, i.e. at low current
density it is coupling of discharge with combination, while at high cd, fast
discharge and slow combination.
#....................................................................... Jun-95




How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: 12 Jun 1995 11:32:41 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Patrick De Visschere (pdv@elis.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: In article <3r9hsa$si1@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
: (Bryan Wallace) wrote:

: >M.D. O'Leary (mdo4@le.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: Wallace quotes Moyer to support his theory that c+v was used for light
: transit
: >: times, not gr. Conrad has checked up on the ref...
: >
: >: >This last quote is taken out of context.  Here is the same quote with a
: >: >little more context.  (The equation is in tex format.)  As you will see,
: >: >Wallace left out a key comment about the second term.
: >: >
: >: >     t_3(ET) - t_2(ET) = \frac{r_{23}}{c} + \psi_{23}        (A5)
: >: >

: >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!  As I've said in the book, much of SR and GR is 
: >correct but the modern observational evidence has gone against his first 
: >relativity and second constant speed of light for all observers 
: >postulates!  I expect your estimate of 80% of my book being quotations is 
: >your normal tendency for exaggeration, in any case much of the stuff 
: >quoted is my own published material!!!
: >
: >Bryan

: I have discussed this point with Bryan in the sci.physics group some
: months ago. Eventually I gave up convincing him of his mistake regarding
: the interpretation of Moyer's paper. I'm glad someone else did take the
: effort and did lookup the original paper.

: I just want to add that in the above equation the distance r_23 is given by :
: r_23 = |r_3(t_3) - r_2(t_2)|, where r_2(t_2) is the position of the light
: at the time of reflection (or retransmission if you like) t_2 and r_3(t_3)
: the position of the light at the time of reception t_3. It is obvious then
: that Moyer uses a velocity c independent of the velocity of reflector and
: receiver.

: In his book Bryan claims :

: "I made the startling discovery that the NASA Jet Propulsion
: Laboratory was basing their analysis of signal transit time in
: the solar system on Newtonian Galilean c+v, and not c as
: predicted by Einstein's relativity theory."

: which is thus manifestly not true.

: I note that in his reply Bryan doen't mention this point (c+v versus c)
: any more, or at least not so clearly any more.

: You still stand behind your quotation?

: -- 
: ______________________________________________________________________
: Patrick De Visschere                            tel: +32 (0)9 264 3376
: University Gent - ELIS                          fax: +32 (0)9 264 3594
: St. Pietersnieuwstraat 41
: B-9000 Gent, Belgium                                pdv@elis.rug.ac.be
: ______________________________________________________________________

   In a recent late night private telephone conversation with a JPL radio
astronomer, I've learned that my interpretation of Moyer's paper with regard
to his use of the term "Newtonian light time" is correct.  The radio data
evaluation is based on the speed of light being c relative to the transmitter
and then corrected by the Fox version of the Ritz emission theory. (reference
[68] of my book)  The Fox version of the Ritz theory advances it with the
extinction of the primary radiation and its replacement by secondary radiation
at speed c relative to intervening electrons by scattering in the forward
direction.  For visible light in air at sea-level pressure the extinction
distance is estimated to be about 0.2 mm, and the distance in interstellar
space is calculated as one light year.  On page 403 of the Abraham Pais book
`Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Pais
wrote:

     In his discussion of Eq. 21.5, Einstein stressed that `the current
  theory of radiation is incompatible with this result.' By current theory,
  he meant, of course, the classical wave theory of light.  Indeed, the
  classical theory would give only the second term in Eq. 21.5, the `wave
  term' (compare Eqs. 21.5 and 21.3).  About the first term of Eq. 21.5,
  Einstein had this to say: `If it alone were present, it would result in
  fluctuations [to be expected] if radiation were to consist of independently
  moving pointlike quanta with energy hv.'  In other words, compare Eqs. 21.4
  and 21.5.  The former corresponds to Wien's law, which in turn holds in the
  regime in which Einstein had introduced the light-quantum postulate.
     Observe the appearance of a new element in this last statement by
  Einstein.  The word pointlike occurs.  Although he did not use the term in
  either of his 1909 papers, he now was clearly thinking of quanta as
  particles.  His own way of referring to the particle aspect of light was to
  call it `the point of view of the Newtonian emission theory.'  His vision
  of light-quanta as particles is especially evident in a letter to
  Sommerfeld, also dating from 1909, in which he writes of `the ordering of
  the energy of light around discrete points which move with light velocity'
  [E4].

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 12 Jun 1995 16:08:21 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <xC9-F9E.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>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.

Remind me again -- in which countries besides France were N-Rays ever taken
seriously?  As I recall, Blondlot and coworkers derided the inability of
German and British scientists to reproduce their results as the the 
consequence of too much beer drinking on the part of the former, and the
adverse effects of the foggy climate upon the eyesight of the latter.
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
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
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Subject: Goon squad on the march
Date: 12 Jun 1995 12:51:55 -0400
Date: 10 Jun 1995 03:27:36 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
: : John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : : A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
: : : have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.
: : : ...
: : : 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?


: I wouldn't and I couldn't interdict your e-mail reading.  Nor have I nor
: will I complain to your internet provider.

: However, if you believe that the posting of things to places you don't like
: is "harassment", well then, physician heal thyself.

: --
:  - 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    -

Old two-face John Logajan posted the following in 
sci.physics.fusion  under the topic "Goon squad on the march."

Bryan

From news.IntNet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohi
-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com
zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!skypoint.com!jlogajan Mon Jun 12 12:32:48
1995
Path: news.IntNet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.oh
o-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.co
!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!skypoint.com!jlogajan
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.
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <3rb3f8$io6@stratus.skypoint.net>
Reply-To: jlogajan@skypoint.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mirage.skypoint.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

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:
cuddy12 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 12 Jun 95 17:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

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

>   In a recent late night private telephone conversation with a JPL radio

In the literature a private conversation is referenced as:
Name, (year), private communications.

Since you have distorted references in the past, I believe you are doing
so here.  Can you offer any independent verification?

>astronomer, I've learned that my interpretation of Moyer's paper with regard
>to his use of the term "Newtonian light time" is correct.  The radio data

JPL scientists have presented the derivations of their equations from
general relativity in refereed journal articles.  The articles I have
read do not make any obvious mathematical mistakes.  Why should I
believe your interpretation, which implies that they are lying?  Can
you prove that their equations are inconsistent with GR?  I will again
remind you that GR predicts Newtonian mechanics will work very well in
the solar system, and only require very small relativistic corrections.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  Conrad /  cmsg cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu>
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 17:48:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion

This article was cancelled from within NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Fluke?
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke?
Date: 12 Jun 1995 15:12:11 GMT
Organization: HTP Services

mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) wrote:
	
>* MKSC - Metre, Kilogram, Second, Coulomb

This is just a technicality, but my sources give the ampere as a base unit,
with the Coulomb derived from it.   The other base units given are the Kelvin,
mole, and candela.

-- 
Tim


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 20:47:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9506121444.AA15595@pilot04.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes

- "Perhaps it is time to give a brief summary of the arguments for
-cold fusion.  It should be noted that there is a profound lack
-of direct evidence for any nuclear reaction processes.  Generally
-speaking there is not sufficient radiation emitted, and evidence
-for the detection of "nuclear ash" is limited and contradictory."
    
  There you go again, Dick.  "profound lack of direct evidence"?

Here is some of  the data which shows a profound lack of
reading on someone's part.   Although I am not closely
familiar with the system in question in other configurations
these phenomena do "work".
[I do NOT include the Griggs device, or the P device
in the following discussion of systems despite the intermingled
threads here, since we've seen no evidence of any 
nuclear  reactions in those systems.  Not yet at least
to my knowledge].

Generally speaking, helium-4 is made in the palladium
systems, although other products occur if the samples
are of lower purity or coherence length.
Despite your claims of, perhaps feigned, ignorance,
many materials have now been successfully loaded with 
deuterium and excess heats have been achieved.
Now this time why dont you read the papers
and answer the question below.   

Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA reported 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM"   has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product.  *****   Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  10^11  4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product. "

.   The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
above background.
   
==>   Comments on that, Dick? They used metal, and calibrated
for the diffusion in, and the background.
     And what might be some implications?

  Miles' well-controlled autoradiography work stands to document
the ionizing radiation, albeit not the spectrum beyond suggestive
evidence that it probably includes photons in the photoelectric range
over some areas of the active electrode.   In fact, despite the
touting here, he did very reasonable controls.

==>   Comments on that, Dick?  The autoradiography corroborates
others findings.    And what might be some implications?
  Or will you attempt to dismiss it with a "conspiracy" or
 "inadequate technique" wave of your wrist.


Given a 12 sigma signal, why would anyone focus solely on
neutrons which are not emitted or are so in neutronpenic amounts?
How about focusing on the signal for a change.   Ash is a good place.


Now about estimates of ash.
With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of He4)
this data would put the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering. 

====>     If you do not agree, why not, Dick?
     And what might be some implications both of the repeated
demonstrations of this, including calibration with other inert air gases
[as was suggested here years ago] and the power-associated
quantities.

   Why do the TB-skeptics spend so much time saying CF does not
exist instead of focusing in on the data and making some 
information out of it?   

    Best wishes, 
       Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std.com]


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Paul Stowe /  Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
     
Originally-From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke? How many flukes does it take?
Date: 12 Jun 1995 20:58:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom

     "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 temperature was ENERGY, then the equation PV = NRT with R (the ideal
gas constant) having the definition R = kAo (k, Boltzmann's constant
and Ao Avogadro's) would not be necessary. We could simply say:
PV = NAoT thus accounting for all the individual molecule's energy
 directly.  The fact that R is not such a dimensionless quanity and 
temerature can never be used without R, or its cousin's k, present to 
define energy, seems to demand that temperature, although directly 
related to energy, is not in units of energy.  I chose to consider
impact 
the most probable quanity measured by temperature because pressure is
transmitted by molecular impacts.


     "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."

The problem here is that of energy.  Energy, by its very definition
intimently tied to both h and c.  You will find if you research how
kinetic theory evolved, and how R, k, and Ao were defined (one ref.
pg 84, Vol 2 of "The History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity"
by Sir Edmund Whittaker discusses Planck's determination).  Ao has been
determined by other method's involving charge, x-ray defraction,
and others, are all tied these intimately with our unit of kelvin. 
From what I could determine researching your question, it was this
evolution that gave us the inital relationship k = h/ec.

To illustrate just a few other seeming conicidental relationships that 
can be found using charge in units of Mass per unit time, we find
these:

   R_y = sqrt(e/2h)      :R_y is Rythberg's term (accurate to 0.2%*)

   m_e = sqrt(2he)/ca^2  :m_e is the mass of the electron (0.2%)
                                      a is the fine structure constant

     E = sqrt(he/2)c/n^2 :Stable electron energy states for hydrogen
                                     where n is the quantum state

     T = hv/3k and v = e/m_e = 2.8 Degrees K (does this look familar?)

the equations above DO WORK, and only work, if e has MLt units of 
Mass per unit time, and these are just a few examples of known 
relationships, there are many more:

If charge has MLt units how does this relate to the Coulombic
barrier???

How many Flukes does it take to no longer be a Fluke

* this variance can be explained

I AM TRYING TO HELP AND GET HELP.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpstowe cudfnPaul cudlnStowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Sylvia Wong /  Lonely Lily - Still Alive!
     
Originally-From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Sylvia Wong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lonely Lily - Still Alive!
Date: 12 Jun 95 17:48:55 HKT
Organization: Asia On-Line Limited, Wanchai, Hong Kong.



Rumors of Lily's demise are greatly exagerated.  

As I said before,  my friend Lily lives in Hong Kong,
like me.  She loves to receive phone calls from foreign
men. She does not have computer, so I am sending 
this message for her.

If you want to call her and you are in the United States 
the number is  011 852 1747 3094.  Callers 
from other countries need to put the international 
code then 852 1747 3094.

No e-mail please.

Sylvia Wong


PS.  Lily sends her love to all the boys at new@pobox.com

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenclewis cudfnSylvia cudlnWong cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Jon Sala /  Re: Cold Fusion the Musical
     
Originally-From: jsala@skynet.uah.ualberta.ca (Jon Sala)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion the Musical
Date: 12 Jun 1995 22:16:54 GMT
Organization: Clinical Engineering, U of A Hospitals

Go see this show. Definately worth it's weight in dark matter.

--
Jon Sala
jsala@skynet.uah.ualberta.ca



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjsala cudfnJon cudlnSala cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Sylvia Wong /  cmsg cancel  <3ri4rl$c3c@news.asiaonline.net>
     
Originally-From:  clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Sylvia Wong)
Newsgroups:  sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel  <3ri4rl$c3c@news.asiaonline.net>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 18:44:20 EDT

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenclewis cudfnSylvia cudlnWong cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: 12 Jun 1995 11:32:41 -0400
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Patrick De Visschere (pdv@elis.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: In article <3r9hsa$si1@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, wallaceb@news.IntNet.net
: (Bryan Wallace) wrote:

: >M.D. O'Leary (mdo4@le.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: Wallace quotes Moyer to support his theory that c+v was used for light
: transit
: >: times, not gr. Conrad has checked up on the ref...
: >
: >: >This last quote is taken out of context.  Here is the same quote with a
: >: >little more context.  (The equation is in tex format.)  As you will see,
: >: >Wallace left out a key comment about the second term.
: >: >
: >: >     t_3(ET) - t_2(ET) = \frac{r_{23}}{c} + \psi_{23}        (A5)
: >: >

: >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!  As I've said in the book, much of SR and GR is 
: >correct but the modern observational evidence has gone against his first 
: >relativity and second constant speed of light for all observers 
: >postulates!  I expect your estimate of 80% of my book being quotations is 
: >your normal tendency for exaggeration, in any case much of the stuff 
: >quoted is my own published material!!!
: >
: >Bryan

: I have discussed this point with Bryan in the sci.physics group some
: months ago. Eventually I gave up convincing him of his mistake regarding
: the interpretation of Moyer's paper. I'm glad someone else did take the
: effort and did lookup the original paper.

: I just want to add that in the above equation the distance r_23 is given by :
: r_23 = |r_3(t_3) - r_2(t_2)|, where r_2(t_2) is the position of the light
: at the time of reflection (or retransmission if you like) t_2 and r_3(t_3)
: the position of the light at the time of reception t_3. It is obvious then
: that Moyer uses a velocity c independent of the velocity of reflector and
: receiver.

: In his book Bryan claims :

: "I made the startling discovery that the NASA Jet Propulsion
: Laboratory was basing their analysis of signal transit time in
: the solar system on Newtonian Galilean c+v, and not c as
: predicted by Einstein's relativity theory."

: which is thus manifestly not true.

: I note that in his reply Bryan doen't mention this point (c+v versus c)
: any more, or at least not so clearly any more.

: You still stand behind your quotation?

: -- 
: ______________________________________________________________________
: Patrick De Visschere                            tel: +32 (0)9 264 3376
: University Gent - ELIS                          fax: +32 (0)9 264 3594
: St. Pietersnieuwstraat 41
: B-9000 Gent, Belgium                                pdv@elis.rug.ac.be
: ______________________________________________________________________

   In a recent late night private telephone conversation with a JPL radio
astronomer, I've learned that my interpretation of Moyer's paper with regard
to his use of the term "Newtonian light time" is correct.  The radio data
evaluation is based on the speed of light being c relative to the transmitter
and then corrected by the Fox version of the Ritz emission theory. (reference
[68] of my book)  The Fox version of the Ritz theory advances it with the
extinction of the primary radiation and its replacement by secondary radiation
at speed c relative to intervening electrons by scattering in the forward
direction.  For visible light in air at sea-level pressure the extinction
distance is estimated to be about 0.2 mm, and the distance in interstellar
space is calculated as one light year.  On page 403 of the Abraham Pais book
`Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Pais
wrote:

     In his discussion of Eq. 21.5, Einstein stressed that `the current
  theory of radiation is incompatible with this result.' By current theory,
  he meant, of course, the classical wave theory of light.  Indeed, the
  classical theory would give only the second term in Eq. 21.5, the `wave
  term' (compare Eqs. 21.5 and 21.3).  About the first term of Eq. 21.5,
  Einstein had this to say: `If it alone were present, it would result in
  fluctuations [to be expected] if radiation were to consist of independently
  moving pointlike quanta with energy hv.'  In other words, compare Eqs. 21.4
  and 21.5.  The former corresponds to Wien's law, which in turn holds in the
  regime in which Einstein had introduced the light-quantum postulate.
     Observe the appearance of a new element in this last statement by
  Einstein.  The word pointlike occurs.  Although he did not use the term in
  either of his 1909 papers, he now was clearly thinking of quanta as
  particles.  His own way of referring to the particle aspect of light was to
  call it `the point of view of the Newtonian emission theory.'  His vision
  of light-quanta as particles is especially evident in a letter to
  Sommerfeld, also dating from 1909, in which he writes of `the ordering of
  the energy of light around discrete points which move with light velocity'
  [E4].

Bryan

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: 12 Jun 1995 16:08:21 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <xC9-F9E.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>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.

Remind me again -- in which countries besides France were N-Rays ever taken
seriously?  As I recall, Blondlot and coworkers derided the inability of
German and British scientists to reproduce their results as the the 
consequence of too much beer drinking on the part of the former, and the
adverse effects of the foggy climate upon the eyesight of the latter.
--
					Richard Schultz

"French bread makes very good skis" 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace)
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
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
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Subject: Goon squad on the march
Date: 12 Jun 1995 12:51:55 -0400
Date: 10 Jun 1995 03:27:36 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
: : John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: : : A vote was taken and in a massive landslide, sci.physics.fusion readers
: : : have decided that Farce cross-postings are inapproriate in that newsgroup.
: : : ...
: : : 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?


: I wouldn't and I couldn't interdict your e-mail reading.  Nor have I nor
: will I complain to your internet provider.

: However, if you believe that the posting of things to places you don't like
: is "harassment", well then, physician heal thyself.

: --
:  - 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    -

Old two-face John Logajan posted the following in 
sci.physics.fusion  under the topic "Goon squad on the march."

Bryan

From news.IntNet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohi
-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com
zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!skypoint.com!jlogajan Mon Jun 12 12:32:48
1995
Path: news.IntNet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.oh
o-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.co
!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!skypoint.com!jlogajan
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.
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <3rb3f8$io6@stratus.skypoint.net>
Reply-To: jlogajan@skypoint.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mirage.skypoint.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

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:
cuddy12 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  Conrad /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 12 Jun 95 17:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

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

>   In a recent late night private telephone conversation with a JPL radio

In the literature a private conversation is referenced as:
Name, (year), private communications.

Since you have distorted references in the past, I believe you are doing
so here.  Can you offer any independent verification?

>astronomer, I've learned that my interpretation of Moyer's paper with regard
>to his use of the term "Newtonian light time" is correct.  The radio data

JPL scientists have presented the derivations of their equations from
general relativity in refereed journal articles.  The articles I have
read do not make any obvious mathematical mistakes.  Why should I
believe your interpretation, which implies that they are lying?  Can
you prove that their equations are inconsistent with GR?  I will again
remind you that GR predicts Newtonian mechanics will work very well in
the solar system, and only require very small relativistic corrections.
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  Conrad /  cmsg cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu>
     
Originally-From: conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu (Conrad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 1995 17:48:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

cancel <conrad.802976494@skid.ps.uci.edu> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion

This article was cancelled from within NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)
--
 //===============================\\
||  Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu  ||
||   You have to decide to live.   ||
 \\===============================//
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenconrad cudlnConrad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Fluke?
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fluke?
Date: 12 Jun 1995 15:12:11 GMT
Organization: HTP Services

mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) wrote:
	
>* MKSC - Metre, Kilogram, Second, Coulomb

This is just a technicality, but my sources give the ampere as a base unit,
with the Coulomb derived from it.   The other base units given are the Kelvin,
mole, and candela.

-- 
Tim


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:37:50 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rb26j$hod@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) wrote:
> : John, you apparently don't know what persuasion is. Persuasion involves
> : argument--i.e., the use of evidence and logic to change opinion.
> 
> I know an ad hoc definition when I see one.
>
***{Yeah, and I know smoke when it is blowing in my face. If you will look
in the dictionary, you will find two basic senses of the word
"persuasion." One refers to changes of behavior, irrespective of whether
they are accomplished by changing the person's opinion; the other refers
to changes of a person's opinion. You conveniently failed to state the
sense which *you* intend. Therefore, since you raised the issue, I
challenge you to explain the difference between your version of
"persuasion," and social pressure--i.e., majoritarian bullying and
intimidation. It is obvious to me, and to others, that you guys weren't
attempting to convince Mr. Wallace; instead, you were attempting to bully
him into acting against his convictions. You even described yourselves as
a "goon squad," for Christ's sake! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> : You are merely conveying your preferences to Mr. Wallace
> 
> Indeed, and I never claimed otherwise.  It was you who insisted that
> such a statement of preference on our account was equivalent to the
> tyranny of Hitler and Stalin.

***{As noted above, you were not attempting to change his behavior by
changing his opinion: you were attempting to bully him into silence. If
you insist on calling it persuasion, it is beyond dispute a low and
reprehensible form of persuasion. A pile of crap by any name still smells
the same. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> : ... they will tell you what you apparently want to hear: that
> : the momentary whims of ill-defined majorities ought to supercede
> : individual rights in all areas of human endeavor, and that nobody ought to
> : be permitted to do anything on his own--i.e., without obtaining the
> : permission of some authoritarian lord and master.   
> 
> All this from asking someone to post his thoughts in a newsgroup 
> category more relevent to his topic?
> 
> Wallace suffers from several sins, that when taken in combination,
> multiply their annoyance.
> 
> He is off topic for the forum.

***{Highly debatable. The central purpose of sci.physics.fusion is to
discuss "cold fusion," a phenomenon that, according to the precepts of
mainstream physics, cannot exist. Thus this forum. by its nature, lacks a
proper theoretical base. If "cold fusion" is real, then something is wrong
with mainstream physics at a very fundamental level, and alternatives to
mainstream physics are relevant here. There is nothing in the charter of
this group which limits discussion to experimental physics. It is
appropriate to post experimental designs and results here, but it is also
appropriate to investigate alternative physics here, because this is a
field in which there is a crying need for a theoretical foundation. This
means that the discussion of alternative systems of physical theory is
relevant to this topic, even if the words "cold fusion" are never
mentioned in that discussion. As I noted in another post, nobody can
predict what will trigger a revolutionary insight in a person's mind. It
may very well be that the explanation for "cold fusion" will be discovered
by someone who is struggling to make sense out of Wallace's ideas!
--Mitchell Jones}***

> He is cross-posting to a bizarre array of newsgroups.

***{Baloney. He is cross posting to the following ten newsgroups:
alt.alien.visitors, alt.paranet.ufo, alt.philosophy.objectivism,
misc.books.technical, sci.energy, sci.misc, sci.physics.electromag,
sci.physics.fusion, sci.physics.particle, and sci.research. In my view,
his material is somewhat relevant in all of them, and I am not disturbed
by the fact that, if the decision were mine, I might trim a couple of
groups off of the list. I recognize that it's not my call and, unlike
"goon squad" members, I can live with that. --Mitchell Jones}***  

> He is generating a never ending thread.

***{Gee, how terrible! People are interested in his stuff, and are
responding! Boy, we better move quick to put a stop to this! --Mitchell
Jones}***

> 
> He can resolve this problem by adapting his postings to be on-topic.

***{Right. He can resolve his "problem" by submitting to your will--i.e.,
by accepting that it is John Logajan, not he, who gets to make the call.
John Logajan, after all, is king of the universe and information daddy to
us all, whether we like it or not! --Mitchell Jones}***

> That implies the end of cross-posting, which by its nature, forces
> off topic postings into some newsgroups. 

***{Right. Cross posting ought to be banned because, "by its nature," it
"forces" off-topic posting! Gee whiz, and I thought it was possible to
cross-post material into newsgroups where it was relevant! Silly me!
--Mitchell Jones}***

 Whether his topic is never
> ending is not necessarily bad if it is on topic for the forum.

***{Right, on-topic as decided by John Logajan. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
>  - 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:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:47:18 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rb2rn$idd@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

> Bryan Wallace (wallaceb@news.IntNet.net) wrote:
> : 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!!!
> 
> All we are asking is that you observe the charter of this particular
> forum and keep your remarks relevent to the specifics of fusion.

***{Wrong. You are asking that he let you decide what is and is not
relevant to the charter of this particular forum. He thought this was an
unmoderated forum, but you are saying it is moderated by you and your
"goon squad." --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Sci.physics.fusion is also e-mail gatewayed (courtesy Scott Hazen Mueller
> at zorch.sf-bay.com) and some people have to pay transport costs for
> off-topic articles they are not interested in.  

***{Yes, some people are inefficient users of the system. Some people
don't even own a computer. They pay someone who has an internet connection
to print the contents of newsgroups and mail it to them, and they don't
bother to request that postings related to Wallace's stuff not be
included. Result: they pay for Wallace's stuff, either because they don't
ask for it to be deleted, or because they don't shop around until they can
find a source which has the killfile capability necessary to do such
deletions. And, to save expense for people like this, you expect the rest
of us to submit to your censorship? Get real! --Mitchell Jones}***

Others have to page
> through dialog in their e-mail digests to get to the stuff they are
> interested in.

***{How sad: some guy at a university computer system who prints up a huge
file at taxpayer's expense, without bothering to learn how to not print
the portions he doesn't want, is inconvenienced by having to flip past
said material! My heart bleeds! Gee, I'm eager to give up my freedom of
speech, now that I realize that there are good, solid reasons like this!
--Mitchell Jones}***

> 
> Just asking for a little common courtesy, no more, no less.  There
> are appropriate forums for your general topic, and should there be
> any specific relevence of it to the topic of fusion, then your posts
> in that specific regard are welcome here.

***{That's right. John Logajan is God almighty. All praise be to him on
high! We don't get to decide what and where we post. He gets to decide!
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
>  - 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:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / 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: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 17:52:19 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <137@arbroath.win-uk.net>, rossd@arbroath.win-uk.net (Derek
Ross) wrote:

>  
> In article <3r9jik$smg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, Bryan Wallace
(wallaceb@news.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. 

***{Here is my advice to you, Derek: accept the fact that, for efficient
users of the system, skipping over posts from unwanted authors is a
trivial inconvenience, and accept that you can become an efficient user if
you are determined to do so. I'm not going to tell you how to do it,
because I'm not familiar with the specifics of your situation. I will,
however, tell you this: your inefficient use of the internet is your
problem, and it is appropriate that you bear whatever costs that, in your
situation, are associated with it. Don't expect the rest of us to give up
our freedom of speech and submit to the exactions of a "moderator" (or a
"goon squad") to save you a few bucks. We ain't gonna do it! --MJ}***

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. 

***{Not if you regard it as a problem and take action to solve it. See
above. --MJ}***

 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.

***{If you are so greedy and short sighted that you are willing to trash
everybody's free speech rights, including your own, to save a few bucks,
then so be it. You are entitled to be a fool. However, don't expect the
rest of us to join in your folly. --MJ}***
  
> 
> 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.

***{Good: that gives you the incentive to improve yourself and become a
more efficient user of the system. You should respond to that incentive by
shopping around and looking for better providers and better software,
thereby joining the rest of us in the process that drives technological
progress. By threatening to take your business elsewhere, you pressure the
system to improve, and you become a positive force for the betterment of
the human condition. But if, on the other hand, you  continue to beg for
handouts paid for by limiting the rights of others, you joint the forces
of evil, and push mankind toward destruction. The choice is yours.
--MJ}***

> 
> 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...

***{Derek, I was about to give you a withering blast, until I saw your
happy face at the end of the line! The point I would have made, less
nicely, would have been that sob stories are no longer sufficient to
persuade us to surrender our rights. More and more people are beginning to
see that the person who loses rights to save a few bucks is, in the net, a
loser, and fewer and fewer people have any sympathy for teary-eyed people
with their hands out. --MJ}***
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Derek

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / Carl Ijames /  C&EN article on Steve Jones vs Miles
     
Originally-From: ijames@codon.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: C&EN article on Steve Jones vs Miles
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 19:08:19 -0500
Organization: National Institutes of Health

There is a 3.5 page article (with two pictures of SJ) in the June 5, 1995
issue of Chemical & Engineering News (the weekly news magazine of the
American Chemical Society), entitled  "Cold Fusion Believer Turned Skeptic
Crusades for More Rigorous Research."  I'm not going to type it in :-),
but it details Steve's criteria for believable fusion (as described here
many times) and specifically talks about his critique of Miles' work.  I
also references the discussions on sci.physics.fusion several times:

[begin quote]
     [much text skipped]
     Since Miles's research findings had been published, Jones freely
discussed the work - and the deficiencies he saw in it - in the Internet
news group that deals with cold fusion (s.p.f).  Miles became upset, and
in June 1993, he fired off an angry letter to the president of BYU,
charging that Jones was "aggressively attacking" and mis-representing his
work, and coming "dangerously close to accusing me of fraud."  Miles also
challenged Jones "to take his allegations regarding my work to a refereed
scientific journal," adding, "I hope this matter can thus be resolved
without any further actions."
     Jones and his BYU chemistry colleague Hansen accepted Miles's
challenge.  They decided to publish their critique of Miles's work in the
Journal of Physical Chemistry because Miles had used the same journal last
year to criticize the work of three highly regarded labs that had found no
excess heat during D2O electrolysis [J. Phys. Chem., 98, 1948 (1994)]. 
The null results of those three groups (at Caltech, MIT, and Harwell)
played a major role in turning scientific opinion against cold fusion.
     In his JPC paper, Miles argued that the experiments conducted at
those three labs "contain serious calorimetric errors that undermine their
reports of no excess power."  But Hansen, a calorimetry expert who has
designed and built commercial calorimeters, tells C&EN that the studies
"were far better than Miles's studies as far as the way the calorimetry
was done."
     The Jones-Hansen paper [J. Phys. Chem., 99, 6966 (1995)] does not
discuss Miles's criticisms of the earlier null results.  Rather, it
examines Miles's own published research on cold fusion, particularly his
claims of a direct correlation between excess heat and helium-4 production
in Pd/D2O cells.
     The BYU scientists find much to criticize in Miles's work.  They say,
for example, that Miles and coworkers used "crude" and "unreliable"
methods to perform calorimetry and detect nuclear products.  [text
skipped]  In short, they conclude:  "The juxtapostiion of several poor
techniques and inconsistent data does not make a compelling case for cold
fusion."
     [two paragraphs about recombination skipped - basically Jones says it
can lead to large apparent excess powers, Miles says Jones works at 1-8
milliamp while he works at 500 milliamps where even if it happens it will
be less significant]
     Miles says two additional checks in his experiments make him
confident that recombination is not occurring.  "We'd be very foolish if
we had been doing this for years and did not think recombination had to be
very carefully watched. ...And I think I can easily respond to all [of
Jones's criticisms].  Maybe our radiation claims are a little shaky, but
I'm not an expert on radiation and I never make any big claims about
radiation."
     [more text skipped including reference to Jones recombination paper,
J. Phys. Chem., 99, 6973 (1995).]
     "It' not really my job to prove [other researchers] wrong," Jones
tells C&EN.  "My job is to say, 'Have you checked this?  Have you checked
that?'"  If the answer is no, "then I say, 'You haven't got a compelling
result yet.'"
     [description of sonofusion and E-Quest claims skipped]
     In a message posted on the s.p.f news group in April, Jones made the
following comments:  "So what is all this talk fo the helium level in the
E-Quest experiments being much greater than the atmospheric
concentration?  Rather, one must ask:  What was the helium concentration
in the lab during the experiments?
     "I asked this of Russ George (not a Ph.D. scientist, incidentally),
and he replied that the helium concentration in the lab during the
experiments was not measured.  I gather that they have not measured the
helium levels in the lab at all."
     "I claim therefore that George and Stringham ... cannot rule out
helium contamination.  Until they measure helium levels in the lab during
their experiments, their results will remain inconclusive and
questionable."
     [more skipped]
     George previously did accept Jones's offer to bring a portable X-ray
detector to E-Quest to check their "sonofusion" experiment, but the
instrument could not be used because of technical problems.
     In any case, George says Jones's criticisms of the E-Quest helium
results are "absurd" and expresses concern that Jones's "Internet snipes"
will be getting a wider venue through this C&EN article.
     [rest skipped]

[end quote]

Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@codon.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 / MATT BOYAN /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: matt@brbbs.brbbs.com (MATT BOYAN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 18:37 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> Remind me again -- in which countries besides France were N-Rays ever taken
-> seriously?  As I recall, Blondlot and coworkers derided the inability of
-> German and British scientists to reproduce their results as the the
-> consequence of too much beer drinking on the part of the former, and the
-> adverse effects of the foggy climate upon the eyesight of the latter.
 
I have been seeing references to N rays a number of times.  In each case it
appears that the posted does not believe they exist.  I am confused by all
this.  N (neutron) rays not only exist, but I have designed equipment
when I worked in Oak Ridge to measure them.  One only has to take a neutron
source and the appropriate equipment to determine that they are real, and
can be measured.  Or are we talking about something else????
 
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmatt cudfnMATT cudlnBOYAN cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 20:33:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

James Stolin <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> writes:
 
>   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.
 
I get s.p.f. via a listserver, but if I see it is a big file I just kill it.
Why download everything? I don't read every section of the Sunday newspaper
either. If you start to download one and it looks pretty boring, you just
abort the transaction and kill the file. Or if you see it is about this
"Farce" business.
 
You can always go in directly if you need to.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / R R /  Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
     
Originally-From: "R.R. Butte" <rrb@locus.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers:  Your vote is needed
Date: 13 Jun 1995 00:21:28 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation

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

-	Less heat, more light.		
--
rrb@locus.com

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrrb cudfnR cudlnR cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Chris Phoenix /  Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: chris@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Same old same old...
Date: 13 Jun 1995 01:41:44 GMT
Organization: Electronics for Imaging, San Mateo, CA


I followed sci.physics.fusion for a couple of years after cold fusion
first made the news.  I eventually stopped following it because I
realized that it hadn't changed in the past year: it was composed of
the same topics.  Change the names and dates, and you couldn't tell
which year a day's postings were from.  When I realized this, I
realized that the field was going absolutely nowhere--at least as
reported in the newsgroup.

     I just dropped in today because I was curious if the old group
was still there.  It is, and aside from a higher flame content, the
posts are *still* exactly the same as they were.  A little
conventional fusion physics; an experiment or two; the same questions
about the experiments; the same responses to the questions; the same
searching, both well-informed and highly-speculative, for a theory to
explain how CNF could happen; the same arguments about the philosophy
of science and the suppression of ideas.
     I'm writing this because I'm struck by the futility of it all.  I
can see why the believers are still posting--if you believe in CNF,
then it's clearly worth spending a bit of time to try to convince
others that it works.  But you skeptics--why are you still here?  This
isn't a rhetorical question--I really want to know.
     Try a new way of looking at it for a moment.  Think about the
content of the arguments two years ago, and compare that with what's
being said today.  Is there *anything* new?  I don't mean new
experiments--there were new experiments two years ago too.  Is there
any form of posting that could not have been posted two years ago, fit
right in, and not caused a stir?  If you find yourself agreeing with
my observation, then wonder for a moment whether there will be
anything new two years from now, or five, or ten.  If that seems
unlikely, when looked at from this perspective, then why not
unsubscribe from the group for two years, or five, or ten, and check
back in every few years (like I did) and then unsubscribe immediately
(like I will).
     If my argument convinces you to unsubscribe, please let me know.
I would like to know that I've saved someone many hours by posting
this.  If you plan to stay with the group, I'd appreciate you taking
the time to mail me a quick answer: Why are you here?  Do you expect
anything to change?  Your answer will help to abate a major itch of
curiosity that's developed from seeing the same people here after so
many years.

Thanks,
Chris Phoenix     chris@efi.com

-- 
Chris Phoenix, chris@efi.com, 415-286-8581         
"Yet money is a faithful _mirror_ -- for the more he works, the more he is
paid; the better he works, the better he is paid ... except that more and
better, _in_ the mirror, flatten to the same thing." -- Samuel R. Delany
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchris cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.13 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Subject: Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 01:52:37 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-1206951747180001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>In article <3rb2rn$idd@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

	[ ...deleted..]

>> John Logajan writing:
>> Just asking for a little common courtesy, no more, no less.  There
>> are appropriate forums for your general topic, and should there be
>> any specific relevence of it to the topic of fusion, then your posts
>> in that specific regard are welcome here.

> Mitchell Jones writing:
>***{That's right. John Logajan is God almighty. All praise be to him on
>high! We don't get to decide what and where we post. He gets to decide!
>--Mitchell Jones}***
>

For the information of the casual observers:

Extracted from "How to find the right place to post (FAQ)"

[Quote]

[...Other topics deleted...]

Subject: Crossposting to multiple newsgroups

Think very carefully before crossposting to more than one, or perhaps 
two, newsgroups.  It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast
your message to a wide selection of newsgroups merely to have more people 
read it.  Note also that many people automatically ignore articles posted 
to more than two or three groups.  Follow the general rules of Netiquette 
(Usenet etiquette) described in the news.announce.newusers postings above.

Often, even when an article is appropriate for multiple newsgroups, it
is desirable to redirect all followup discussion into one particular
newsgroup.  You can do this by adding a Followup-To header line that
lists the single newsgroup where further discussion will go.  (You should
also mention in the body of the article that you have redirected
followups to that group, so that people interested in following the
subject can find it.)  For example:

   Newsgroups:  rec.pets.cats,misc.consumers.house
   Followup-To: rec.pets.cats
   Subject: Need product to remove cat odor from carpets

   [Followups redirected to rec.pets.cats]

   Text of article

[End quote]

John is right. It is a simple matter of courtesy. When the exercise of 
"rights" is tempered with consideration for others, we all win. When anarchy 
rules, we all lose.

In case you skipped the relevant part. Here it is again:

[Quote]

It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast your message to a wide 
selection of newsgroups merely to have more people read it.

[End qoute]


Good Posting Seal of Approval:
	This article has been posted
	to a single newsgroup: s.p.f
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 13 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
