1995.06.15 / Tim Mirabile / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: Tim Mirabile Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 15 Jun 1995 00:24:44 GMT Organization: HTP Services Dieter Britz wrote: >> By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups >> (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done. >> This is for those who don't know that. 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >And there you have it, folks: plain as the nose on your face. Dieter Britz >has apparently forcibly removed Mr. Wallace's posts without his consent, >via a cancelbot. What are you talking about? All he did was edit the newsgroup line when making his reply. The post that he replied is still there, on all of the crossposted groups, but only someone on s.p.f would see his reply. -- Tim cudkeys: cuddy15 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / David Baraff / Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Date: 15 Jun 1995 12:08:44 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon In article , wrote: >Like I said, get serious. Do science. Or shut up. Repeating theories that >you know are wrong does not constitute doing science. > >- Jed No, I can't. Its too easy... Oh, what the hell. Pot. Kettle. Black. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Alan M / Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Attention SPF readers: Your vote is needed Date: 15 Jun 1995 14:53:11 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <21cenlogic-1406950916540001@austin-2-5.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > What you really object > to is the fact that, in your opinion, his posts are off-topic in > sci.physics.fusion. Bottom line: this isn't about cross posting at all. It > is about whether Wallace has a right to decide where he posts, as I have > been saying from the beginning. I would also add, as an aside, that > cross-posting makes a more efficient utilization of system resources than > does manual posting, and is thus a good thing not merely from the > standpoint of the person doing the posting, but also from the standpoint > of everyone else. The difference between the Internet and a cocktail party is that if, at a party, you get cornered by the town bore, in extremis you can always say "You are boring and ignorant and stupid, and I don't want to spend any more time talking to you". And in response he will not hand you a 250-line reply telling you how you are violating key personal freedoms by saying that. Can I bill you for the costs I am incurring in downloading the 'Farce of Physics' thread whenever I visit sci.physics.fusion? -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 02:58:46 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rne5e$2d@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > > 3barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) is irrational and unscientific. He > > writes: > > > > "this new species of ``CF'' devices such as the Griggs device, > > etc, which work by stirring water, is quite interesting. Not because > > they really produce energy, but because its a challenge to figure out > > why folks are misunderstanding such a simple configuration." > > > .. > > > > Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the measurements are correct > > and the heat is real. > > > > > If there can be a hole, where is it Berry? If there are more than three > > parameters, what is the fourth one? I say put up or shut up! > > Do you assert the thermometers are not correct to within 1 deg F? > > Prove it! You can't. Your assertions are empty. > > > > I think you can recall my ``theory'' as to what is going on: > > Phase 1: the device starts up and stores heat, perhaps quite a bit of > it in the central cyclinder in particular, which is a large > mass of metal somewhat thermally insulated from the environment > by the vapor/liquid layer surrounding it. This phase lasts ~ 20 minutes > > Phase 2: the fluid in the device goes into a state that > has a reduced effective viscocity (given its a mutliphase flow, > this could easily result from a change in the percentages > or locations of the liquid, steam and vacuum phases). This results in > less torque on the rotor and thus a drop in the input power > to the motor. This phase lasts ~30 minutes > > Phase 3: device is shut down and remaining stored heat is realeased > back to environment. This phases lasts ~ 1 minute > > Now: the experiments you conducted, and others you described, only > did a energy balance for phase 2 and phase 3----you ignore the > energy stored in the system in phase 1. Thus you are missing a potentially > large stored energy (you have no way of knowing it, as you didn;t > measure power in during phase 1, and you can;t measure rotor > temperature). > > Further, calculations done in this group clearly show it is possible to > store enough heat in the rotor (without melting it) to produce > an apparent excess energy Phase 2 run of nearly an hour. > > > So: the ``fourth variable'' is simple the heat stored > in the device during start up. Surely you can see this > is a serious gap if you are trying to prove a new source > of energy, from stirred water, has been discovered. You will > also recal that I am not particulalry critical of your experiments, > except that they don't control phase 1. > > -- > Barry Merriman > UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center > UCLA Dept. of Math > bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) ***{Way to go, Barry! Your argument sounds rational and scientific to me! Clearly, it has to be answered by those who claim that the pump produces excess energy, and one way to answer it, as you said, is to measure the energy accumulation that takes place in phase 1. Moreover, similar arguments can be made about the Pons-Fleischman setup: they need to measure the energy input and loss during the early phase of the experiment, when the palladium is being "loaded." There is, however, a way to answer your argument without measuring the energy stored during phase 1: you simply run the device/experiment for a very long time in the excess energy phase. Eventually, if excess energy results from the finite quantity of energy stored during the early, unmeasured phase, then the stored energy will be exhausted, and the device ought to drop down out of the excess energy mode. Why not simply assume a worst case value for energy stored in phase 1 (e.g., assume that all the input energy was stored), and then run the device in the excess energy phase until the total of excess energy produced rises above that worst-case assumption? Would you, at that point, be prepared to admit that these guys are onto something? --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 03:15:16 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > > "I think you can recall my ``theory'' as to what is going on: > > Phase 1: the device starts up and stores heat, perhaps quite a bit of > it in the central cylinder in particular . . ." > > I am SURE you can recall that I observed the gadget generate excess heat for > hours, and others have observed it run for weeks. That fact shoots your > theory down. Ratatatatata!!! Boom! Crash and burn. > > What is the point of posting a message describing a theory which you know > is wrong? Why repeat it? I have already given you certain proof that what > you describe cannot be happening. > > And please don't tell me you don't believe my report that the machine runs for > hours. Either you believe me or you do not. You cannot pick and choose which > of my reports is true, and which is false. You cannot throw away the data which > happens to prove you are wrong. If you don't believe me when I say it works in > extended flow mode for hours, then why the heck do you believe anything at all? > Why believe the barrel test? I could make that up too. Either I have > credibility with you -- or I do not. If I do not then you don't need a theory > to dismiss me. All you have to do is declare you don't believe it. That would > be fine with me! That just means we have nothing to talk about, and I never > need to take your messages seriously or respond except to rattle your cage > and have a little fun bolixing a bozo. > > Like I said, get serious. Do science. Or shut up. Repeating theories that > you know are wrong does not constitute doing science. > > - Jed ***{Jed, maybe I am butting in without sufficient knowledge of the history between you two, but I really don't see how the fact (if it is a fact) that you told Merriman that the device ran for hours forces him to see the significance of that. I just posted a reply to him in which I explained why prolonged operation would demolish his claims, but unless you have already explained that to him in the past, it is not really fair to expect him to understand it. One can know a fact, without knowing why it is significant. --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / mitchell swartz / fusion and kwashiorkor Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: fusion and kwashiorkor Subject: fusion and kwashiorkor Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 14:12:40 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <3rnpv3$jgi@maze.dpo.uab.edu> Subject: fusion and kwashiorkor zp00121@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU (no name ) wrote: - "I was wondering if there might be a connection between the - fact that stars fuse up to Fe before - they supernova and the fact that the most credible hypothesis for - kwashiorkor, a disease of - malnourished children characterized by edema, skin lesions, -and bleached hair, signs that iron -catalyzed free radical reactions have gone haywire. -After all, iron's power lies in its ability to act - as an oxygen attractor. Perhaps, there is something in this -peculiarity of stars and people that -might lead to a better understanding of fusion?" to which mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) replied ="The fact that iron is the endpoint in stellar fusion is due to the details =of nuclear physics, to wit that iron is the most tightly bound nucleus. =The oxygen-attracting properties of iron are due to the details of atomic =and molecular physics." 1) What does kwashiorkor have to do with iron? kwashiorkor -- protein/calorie malnutrition - children get adequate calories but not adequate protein. Therefore, for survival, muscle breakdown does NOT occur (muscles can release amino acids so the liver can make de novo sugar thru a process called gluconeogenesis) and therefore their brains are starved of amino acids making them less than pleasant; and they appear with hepatomegaly (swollen liver). marasmus -- total starvation. neither protein nor calories. starving children, pleasant appearing, and there is no hepatomegaly, just total wasting. Both pathological states are classically defined by protein and calories. How does iron fit in? Do you have a reference? 2) React not attract, isn't it? Iron does not attract oxygen, but electrons; and it competes with oxygen to which it decisively loses. Oxygen is electrophilic. It removes the d-electrons from iron and places them in its own pi-* orbitals; and the homoatomic internuclear distance expands. Iron reacts with oxygen like other metals -- when the conditions are correct it oxidizes; in rare cases of clathrates it binds molecular oxygen reversibly. The former -- when in plates or volume is corrosion. Dieter Britz and Richard Schultz might send you reams of the most recent references on corrosion and oxygen-binding materials by e-mail if you asked them nicely about these slight -- but important -- oxidation vs. oxygenation differences. However, as for earlier references: I recommend you read Lavoisier's original paper on this matter (in French) which compares the activity of iron, lead, and mercury for oxygen ("acid-former") and in which he names oxygen. It is humbling to learn that scientists in that time (1770's) were able to investigate and measure calorimetry better than most TB-skeptics today, and then they were able to determine that the specific heat of venous blood differed from arterial blood. That led Lavoisier to postulate that blood turning "red" was from the binding of oxygen as the "red" also occured for iron (rust), mercury (mercuric oxide) and lead. Too bad he met the guilloitine, but then perirevolutionary society said that it never "needed scientists". 3) This thread has nothing to do with fusion, and appears to ignore a vast literature. (oh, if only the S/N was better) 4) zp00121@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU is correct in that "there is something in this peculiarity of stars and people that might lead to a better understanding of fusion", but perhaps kwashiorkor, mineral metabolism, and hepatic biochemistry are not that something. Best wishes on finding that "something". Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.14 / jedrothwell@de / Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 22:13:04 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: "I think you can recall my ``theory'' as to what is going on: Phase 1: the device starts up and stores heat, perhaps quite a bit of it in the central cylinder in particular . . ." I am SURE you can recall that I observed the gadget generate excess heat for hours, and others have observed it run for weeks. That fact shoots your theory down. Ratatatatata!!! Boom! Crash and burn. What is the point of posting a message describing a theory which you know is wrong? Why repeat it? I have already given you certain proof that what you describe cannot be happening. And please don't tell me you don't believe my report that the machine runs for hours. Either you believe me or you do not. You cannot pick and choose which of my reports is true, and which is false. You cannot throw away the data which happens to prove you are wrong. If you don't believe me when I say it works in extended flow mode for hours, then why the heck do you believe anything at all? Why believe the barrel test? I could make that up too. Either I have credibility with you -- or I do not. If I do not then you don't need a theory to dismiss me. All you have to do is declare you don't believe it. That would be fine with me! That just means we have nothing to talk about, and I never need to take your messages seriously or respond except to rattle your cage and have a little fun bolixing a bozo. Like I said, get serious. Do science. Or shut up. Repeating theories that you know are wrong does not constitute doing science. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Some Sensors Censor (was "Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-") Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Some Sensors Censor (was "Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-") Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 22:12 -0500 (EST) mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes: -> . You might get a book Marshall -- on the eye. I will be happy to do that, any suggestions? -> Then get a small penlight and your -> son and enough time to examine the blood vascular system which is in -> front of your eye's retina. It actually is scaffolded there in the -> stereoconstellation of the orbit ALL THE TIME but is never seen because it -> MOVES with your eye's retina and therefore disappears (except for the -> "floaters" or blood cells within the vascular tree which move and -> are therefore seen). [go read the classic texts on what the -> "frogs eye tells the frogs brain"; key names: McCulloch, Pitts, Lettvin] -> -> to see the vessels: -> The flashlight should be depressed gently between the eyeball -> and the skull above the central axis of the eye. Maybe a millimeter or -> two depression, and then if you move the flashlight back and forth so that -> the light is the vector fixed to the central retina, and so that -> the SHADOW of the vessels -- made by the penlight -- -> impact the retina, then the blood vessels will suddenly appear, and be seen -> disappear into your blind spot. When the penlight is stopped moving, -> they will disappear because the eye-brain does not see non-moving -> objects. Somehow I don't see how this known structure of the eye explains what I was questioning. Are you suggesting that the movement of the blood cells through these veins are what I am seeing? If so it sure is not obvious that is what you are trying to say. I certainly consider that a possibility and will see if I can come up with an experiment that will either support or disprove that hypothesis. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / John Logajan / Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific Date: 15 Jun 1995 03:18:52 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: : I think you can recall my ``theory'' as to what is going on: : Phase 1: the device starts up and stores heat ... : Phase 2: the fluid in the device goes into a state that : has a reduced effective viscocity ... : Phase 3: device is shut down and remaining stored heat is realeased : back to environment.... : Now: the experiments you conducted, and others you described, only : did a energy balance for phase 2 and phase 3----you ignore the : energy stored in the system in phase 1. : Further, calculations done in this group clearly show it is possible to : store enough heat in the rotor (without melting it) to produce : an apparent excess energy Phase 2 run of nearly an hour. I don't think the published data agrees with your scenario. Firstly, I don't recall an hour long heat reserve calculation. Secondly, we know from the cooling laws that the greatest rate of change of temperature is early on -- so if the core was cooling we would have seen the exponential decay evident in the measured temperature output. No decay was apparent or if the decay rate was so slow as to be unnoticed over 10-20 minutes, it would indicate a thermal mass far in excess of that available in a reasonable range of dimensions given for the device. As for numbers, recall that in each time constant, the temperature will decay about 63% between its non-equilibrium temperature toward its equilibrium temperature. This image you have of the cooling water being output at an apparently constant high temperature until all the remnant heat is extracted, and then instantly dropping to the equilibrium temperature is an erroneous over-simplification. We have a temperature signature that is inconsistent with thermal mass storage of reasonable dimensions. -- - 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: cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Bill Snyder / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) 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: 15 Jun 1995 05:23:32 GMT Organization: Internet America In article <21cenlogic-1306951330150001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones (21cenlogic@i-link.net) says... > >Bryan, they lost the argument, so now the velvet glove comes off to >reveal the iron fist below. Censorious scum, hell bent to suppress our >freedom of speech, will stop at nothing.... Interesting attitude. Have you considered psychotherapy? -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / / Re: fusion and kwashiorkor Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: fusion and kwashiorkor Date: 15 Jun 1995 02:50:23 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) The fact that iron is the endpoint in stellar fusion is due to the details of nuclear physics, to wit that iron is the most tightly bound nucleus. The oxygen-attracting properties of iron are due to the details of atomic and molecular physics. These two domains have pretty much nothing to do with each other, as the predominant force in the nucleus is the strong force whereas the predominant force affecting atomic and molecular structure is electromagnetic. Mark Richardson cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / David Davies / Re: a ZPF primer Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a ZPF primer Date: 15 Jun 1995 17:44:12 +1000 Organization: Australian National University barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: ... deletions >But counter to that, note the standard QM calculation of the energy >levels of H is done assuming a vacuum background, while the experiment >done in the real world have the ZPF background, yet the two agree >with great precision. So, I fail to see the logic of saying the universal ZPF >determines these energy levels, when it plays no role in the >theoretical derivation. ... deletions Every mention of Puthoff on the net seems to generate derision but I suspect that a real refutation of the ideas that he and his co-authors have presented would be quite a substantial effort. His ideas re ZPE have a strong appeal to me and a certain beauty. They raise some very interesting issues. Fundamentally, what happens when you take ZPE into account in QM. In the case of hydrogen he seems to have provided a simple mechanism for explaining how an accelkerated electron does not radiate. Surely this should interest those who have been puzzled. Is there a better, conventional explanation these days or is it still just brushed aside? dave cudkeys: cuddy15 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 11:51:59 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rp6l7$bnt@elvis.vnet.net>, jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) wrote: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > [Discussion of stored heat hypothesis of Griggs steam run.] > > jedrothwell@delphi.com replies: > > I am SURE you can recall that I observed the gadget generate excess heat for > > hours, and others have observed it run for weeks. That fact shoots your > > theory down. Ratatatatata!!! Boom! Crash and burn. > > You are confusing the hot water mode of the Griggs' devise with the > steam mode. These are completely different and unrelated modes > of operation. > > In the hot water mode the device can run for months, but produces low > levels of excess heat. In the steam mode the device can produce much > higher levels of excess heat, but it only does so briefly. > In the hot water mode the input power does not drop during excess heat > production. In the steam mode the input power drops, while the output > power remains high. > > The stored heat hypothesis explains all known data about the steam mode. > The hot water mode has a completely different explanation. > -- > jnw@vnet.net John, I don't know what to make of your statement. Jed said, "I observed the gadget generate excess heat for hours." Merriman said that phase 1 lasts approximately 20 minutes. Are you saying that enough energy is stored in the device during that 20 minute interval to generate excess heat that lasts for hours? That would be possible if the amount of excess heat claimed were small, but I seem to recall that the amount was large (40% above breakeven comes to mind, though I can't put my hands on the article at the moment). Is this incorrect, or do you maintain that the dumping of the heat stored in the initial 20 minutes could somehow produce excess heat that lasts for hours even at this rate? If the latter, then I must say that it mathematically makes no sense to me. Please explain. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Richard Schultz / Re: fusion and kwashiorkor Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: fusion and kwashiorkor Date: 15 Jun 1995 16:20:49 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes: > Dieter Britz and Richard Schultz might send you reams of >the most recent references. . . As opposed to, say, Mitchell Swartz, who has a policy of not answering *any* question asked of him, no matter how politely it is phrased. > Too bad he [Lavoisier] met the guilloitine, but then perirevolutionary >society said that it never "needed scientists". Actually, I suspect Lavoisier's having been a tax-farmer had more to do with his fate than his having been a scientist. Or rather, if you were to rephrase the comment "I don't care how smart you are, you committed a crime and you are going to pay for it," his fate at the hands of the revolution is easier to understand, if not to justify (at least for us). But, as you say, this has little if anything to do with fusion. >3) This thread has nothing to do with fusion, and appears to > ignore a vast literature. (oh, if only the S/N was better) Well, you could do your bit for improving S/N by answering questions posed to you instead of posting obfuscations and irrelevancies. -- Richard Schultz "You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Matthew Kennel / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 15 Jun 1995 17:32:04 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : But, as I said, it does not make a dime's worth of difference where the heat : comes from, just as long as you can buy a terrajoule of it for a penny and : sell it for a hundred dollars. What matters is m-o-n-e-y: the bottom linem : profit, scratch, moola, the big jack. That is MUCH more important than : physics. You think you'll be able to make a terajoule for a penny without having the faintest idea how it works? : Really, I cannot imagine why anyone gives a darn what causes CF energy. : Scientists seem obsessed with that issue to the exclusion of all practical : concerns. One might say you are obsessed with financial issues to the exclusion of all other human concerns. I personally think an advantage of a wealthy civilization is that we have the luxury to explore fascinating things like how the world works. OK to put in crass money terms: If you figure out how it really works you'll make MO' MONEY! You'll have the high voltage 3-phase AC patents while everybody else is dicking around with 12 VDC. Tesla knew How It Worked better than Edison, who admitted to be a master tinkerer. It's that silly theory thing again. If you figure out how it really works you'll come up with new different things to do with the principles you discover and maybe you'll cure cancer. MO 'MONEY. If you don't figure out how it really works (assuming it does really work for a real reason) then somebody else *WILL* and make MO' MONEY and you will be MO' BANKRUPT! : "BTW, since it's not the electromatic force (chemistry) or the strong : force (fusion), what is it? The weak force? Gravity? Must be one or the : other." : : Who knows? Who cares? The history of contemporary science and technolgy has shown that if there seems to be no even half-assed reasonable explanation why something works and experimental evidence to back it up, it's almost always totally wrong. (I said 'almost' becuase maybe there's an exception but I can't think of any) To put it bluntly, you might end up OUT O' MONEY. It's not the 18th century any more. Question: has any cold-power-cell conclusively been shown to generate net thermodynamic _work_---i.e. the stuff you want to sell for dough? Say lots of *boiling* water running off a couple of D cells and nothing else. Yes that would convince me. A little bit of slightly warmed water running through a big apparatus? That's much less impressive. : - Jed cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Bill Snyder / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 15 Jun 1995 18:46:00 GMT Organization: Internet America In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com (jedrothwell@delphi.com) says... > >> "Would be nice to have one of these "working" setups donated to some >> reputable researchers with the challenge to explain what is going on." > >No, it would be a waste of time. Most "reputable researchers" at >academic locations don't know what they are doing. "Reputable >researchers" at the DoE are crooks and liars. "Reputable researchers" >at most energy companies have orders not to find things like CF. No, >the only people who can deal with this properly are corporate R&D scientists >and rich inventors like Patterson and Potapov. And this weaselling comes to you courtesy of the guy who just demanded, "Come on, tell me why you don't believe in my pet crackpot gadgets, and don't weasel." Gutless, dumb, mean-spirited, and totally inconsistent -- in other words, Jed, you're up to form. -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Michael Condict / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 15 Jun 1995 18:42:53 GMT Organization: Open Software Foundation Matthew Kennel writes: > OK to put in crass money terms: If you figure out how it really works > you'll make MO' MONEY! You'll have the high voltage > 3-phase AC patents while everybody else is dicking around with 12 VDC. Tesla > knew How It Worked better than Edison, who admitted to be a master tinkerer. > It's that silly theory thing again. Boy, you really left yourself wide open there. How many electricity companies are there today with "Tesla" in their name? Where are the heirs to the Tesla fortune? Why don't we read about them in People magazine? [Sorry, couldn't resist. Slap, slap! Won't happen again.] -- Michael Condict condict@osf.org OSF Research Inst. (617) 621-7349 11 Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142 cudkeys: cuddy15 cudencondict cudfnMichael cudlnCondict cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / James Stolin / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 15 Jun 1995 19:39:09 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Tim Mirabile wrote: > >Dieter Britz wrote: > >>> By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups >>> (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done. >>> This is for those who don't know that. > >21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > >>And there you have it, folks: plain as the nose on your face. Dieter Britz >>has apparently forcibly removed Mr. Wallace's posts without his consent, >>via a cancelbot. > > > >What are you talking about? All he did was edit the newsgroup line when >making his reply. The post that he replied is still there, on all of the >crossposted groups, but only someone on s.p.f would see his reply. Tim, I think that we may be fighting a lost cause until our "opponents" educate themselves about the newsgroups and Internet in general. Mr Wallace and his champion knight in armor, Mitch Jones, display a lack of knowledge about the newsgroups in their postings. Mr. Wallace either is ignorant of or ignores newsgroup netiquette and this newsgroups's charter. He then misunderstands the spoof about a "goon squad". We have a glitch in Wallace's EMAIL and he's screaming about telling the FBI that someone has sabotaged him. Mitch Jones is rather mixed up also. On one hand, he complains about a mass of EMAIL making it difficult for Mr Wallace to distinguish what is important or not. Then he gets upset when we complain about Wallace's spamming doing the same thing to the newsgroups. He also declares that someone has cancelbotted Wallace when all they did was edit their header so as to reply in only one newsgroup. Perhaps a portion of the $700 fund could be used to purchase these two gentlemen books on the Internet. Special attention would need to be paid to content on netiquette, spamming and newsgroup charters. Does anyone have a suggestion for a title? - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / BILLC / Re: comments on the Crave Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: comments on the Crave Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 10:19:00 -0500 Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136 RAB>Any assertion that heat from a chemical source could not be generated beyon RAB>some specified time interval is based on the assumption that a fuel is bein RAB>consumed and an ash being produced in a way that could not be sustained tha RAB>long. Suppose, however, the products of a chemical reaction within the RAB>cell are simply recombined in the external loop or that the inverse occurs. RAB>All I am suggesting is that something exits the cell in a lower energy stat RAB>than when it returns, the energy difference being roughly 0.1 J per Ml. RAB>Nothing continues to be formed or consumed in the process. It is all RAB>recycled. In that case it will not run out after some fixed time period. RAB>Of course I would not, at this time, rule out the possibility that there RAB>are other contributions of a chemical nature that do consume a fuel and RAB>produce an ash. Doesn't your posited cycle imply a chemical version of "perpetual motion"? The only source of energy is electric if not chemical process occurs. What bonds are broken/formed to liberate the heat of reaction? If such a process occurs what is the source of the eqivalent amount of energy required to close the cycle. I think your proposal violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! --- ž SLMR 2.1a ž Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / BILLC / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 10:19:00 -0500 Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136 MJ>Is there anyone out there who doubts, at this point, that these people are MJ>exactly what I have been saying they were from the beginning? Is there MJ>anyone out there who cannot see that if this can be done to Wallace, it MJ>can be done to any of us? Is there anyone who fails to see that, MJ>regardless of whether we agree with Wallace, we now must stand behind him? I'd be more sympathetic to your position if I could see some way to protect my right not to have my phone bill run up. --- ž SLMR 2.1a ž Old Chemists never die! They just reach Equilibrium. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / David Baraff / Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Date: 15 Jun 1995 20:14:33 GMT Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon In article <3rpohs$2ru@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >For example, if Jones gets 3 pages in C&EN, then >pro-fusioners ought to have equal space and pages in the same journal, >provided we care to. Sure. And let's not forget to give the Flat-Earth-Society people equal time too while... In fact, maybe I should have equal time to show why all that work on N-rays was right all along... cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Bill Snyder / Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid Date: 15 Jun 1995 12:29:38 GMT Organization: Internet America In article <3rkbbm$gm@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) says... > >I don't think anyone ever claimed it was a hoax. It was more along the >lines of delusion. If you thought they existed, you saw the effect. >If you did not belive, you saw nothing. This was a result of the fact >that all observations were made in the dark under conditions where >various vision artifacts can make you think you see things (the reason >particle detection with scintillators and 'telescopes' could only be >done for 10 minutes or so at a time). In _Error and Deception in Science_ Rostand mentions that toward the end the N-Ray enthusiasts were gloating over their ability to at last produce objective evidence: photographs -- "not of the N-Rays themselves, but of their effects." (quote from memory, probably not exact.) Anyone have more information on this? -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Barry Merriman / Re: science power and religion Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: science power and religion Date: 15 Jun 1995 20:50:24 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE > In article <3rao7f$5lm@overload.lbl.gov> > Jean-Paul Biberian writes: > > > >Science Power and Religion > > >Another interesting comparison between science and > >religion is their inability to accept changes. > Uhh, come again? Lets see, it took the catholic Church 400 years to begrudgingly admit they were wrong about Galileo. In the mean time, science had progressed all the way to general relativity, inflationary universes, and all manner of exotic theories. I'd say the time constant to fully accept a fundamental change in scientific thinking is ~ 30 years. For religions, it seems to be ~ 1000 years. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Cary Jamison / Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:34:07 +0900 Organization: TRW ASG In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote: > This brings up something which caught my attention about a month ago. I read > somewhere that if you stare at the blue sky you can see "orgone energy" as lots > of little tadpole or sperm like things zooming all over the sky. I had never > noticed this and not believing in orgone energy I dismissed it. However about > 3 days later after jogging, I laid down on my back to rest and rested my eyes > while looking at the blue sky, and behold there they were. I almost jumped out > of my skin. Playing with the focusing of my eyes they appeared to be about 40 > feet away. It's just crud floating in your eyeballs. I've noticed them since I was quite young. As I got older I see more, and they have joined together (they used to be separate dots, now they're strands). I used to wonder what they were until I read about it in one of my science classes. -- Cary Jamison cary@svl.trw.com cudkeys: cuddy15 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mike Jamison / Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters Date: 15 Jun 1995 18:11 EDT Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center In article , Dieter Britz writes... >On 7 Jun 1995, Scott Little wrote: > [snip - "nasty" post] Well, it's been awhile since I've been "in" s.p.f., but, to add yet another non-fusion post... > >Not bad. I'll add that some people (like me) don't have the kill-file >facility, and I'll take out the specific reference to Farce, probably make >it more general, so I can use it for any other similar stuff. Thanks, Scott. > >As John has hinted, though, be prepared for very rude responses! I have tried >this. There are some real short-fused mouth frothers on the net - not >only in this group... Wouldn't it just be much easier to send the posted messages directly back to the perpetrator[s]? Don't even bother with signing your name, just do a 'R' [at least that's what it is on the system I use]. I'd guess that it will take these people more time to delete all their new mail each - without reading it - than they have. My suspicion is that they would not be *able* to post as frequently as they are. > >-- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk > Mike Jamison "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but thinking what no one else has thought" -A. Szent-Gyorgyi cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Barry Merriman / Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways? Date: 15 Jun 1995 23:54:55 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3rmoua$e8h@boris.eden.com> little@eden.com (Scott Little) writes: > > Most interesting...Off the subject a bit, why do folks think that putting > D into a Pd lattice would enhance the opportunities for fusion, then? > > Well, Steve Jones can articulate his own motivating factors for his work, though my impression was that he was looking for surface chemistry means of catalyzing d+d fusion, to explain excess T observed in volcanic releases of gas. Given that you want surface chemistry, metals that absorb H are a good place to start... However, Pons & F in their original paper said their principle intuition---aside from a never-elaborated-on comment on past anomolous observations in electrolisis cells (anyone remember that?)---was that the fugacity of H gas near palladium was equivalent to a pressure of some enormous number of atmoshperes, and thus they would achieve fusion simply by pushing the hydrogen together. I could never really understand this reasoning. I'm not clear on what fugacity is exactly, but its some measure of the energy a molecule gets by going from one phase (gas H, say) to another (absorbed into Pd, say). Now, any such chemical process will have an energy drop of at most 1 eV per atom or so, and if one converts that into a pressure naively ( pressure = energy/volume = 1 eV/ atomic volume = 10^-19 J/ (10^-10 m)^3 = 10^11 J/m^3 = 10^6 atmoshperes ) you do get a large pressure number that could induce some (really, not a lot) of fusion as SJ's diamond anvil compression experiments show. However, this pressure number really doesn;t seem to describe any true compression process that is going on. In fact, since energy is released as H is absorbed, energy density is being lowered and you have a better argument that you have _removed_ that much pressure from what was previously applied.... -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Barry Merriman / Re: Definition of "heat beyond chemistry" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Definition of "heat beyond chemistry" Date: 15 Jun 1995 23:58:39 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > It may turn out that these distinctions are somewhat artificial, because the > Coulomb barrier is apparently not all that it has been cracked up to be. As > Bockris put it: "A great law that we all used to believe in, that nuclear > reactions can only take place at huge temperatures, is not true. This is a > shibboleth we have only just got over." > I don't know why Bockris just got over it---Steve Jones and others (Alvarez?) before him demonstrated this with muon catalyzed fusion going back 10--20 years ago. (Not to mention that fission is spontaneous at room temperature...) -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Barry Merriman / Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares? Date: 16 Jun 1995 00:01:47 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3rpuvd$cag@paperboy.osf.org> condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) writes: > > Boy, you really left yourself wide open there. How many electricity > companies are there today with "Tesla" in their name? Where are the > heirs to the Tesla fortune? Why don't we read about them in People > magazine? > I can think of one---it's called Westinghouse? Is that big enough? (Tesla sold (eventually gave) most of his good stuff to Westinghouse). -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / A Plutonium / Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Date: 16 Jun 1995 00:00:28 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <3rq4b9$jp1@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff) writes: > In article <3rpohs$2ru@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, > Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > >For example, if Jones gets 3 pages in C&EN, then > >pro-fusioners ought to have equal space and pages in the same journal, > >provided we care to. > > Sure. And let's not forget to give the Flat-Earth-Society people > equal time too while... In fact, maybe I should have equal time > to show why all that work on N-rays was right all along... Well let me clarify my position. It is well known that cold fusion is controversial. So why would a journal only present one side of the issue. Surely C&EN have some smart editors and so why give Jones 3 pages so he can squack about cold fusion. A better approach would have been to give 1.5 pages to Miles and 1.5 to Jones. Is that not more equitable and serves objective science better? No the damage has already been done but in the future, journals should place some thought behind printing up controversial issues of importance. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Barry Merriman / Shrinking Hydrogen---Any QM ways? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Shrinking Hydrogen---Any QM ways? Date: 16 Jun 1995 01:26:52 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE SJ mentioned his experiments to compress H with a diamond anvil to mega-atm pressures and so induce (a tiny) bit of fusion that way. Any possibiliy such compression could be done with electromanetic radiation pressure, or perhaps electrostatic field pressure? The trick would be to avoid ionizing the H in the process. Perhaps one could take H2 molecule, hit is with an appropriate laser pulse, and induce a fusion? ( really H2 = D2). Or perhaps one could do some electrostatic compression? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Jim N / Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like Originally-From: fusion@access.digex.net (Jim N) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Scientific American discusses neutrons as revolving like Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:33:52 GMT Organization: RTW rhame@aol.com (Rhame) wrote: [stuff gone ...] >Cluster Model and the Periodic Table of Beta Stable Nuclides," which is >available >from R.E. Brightsen, Clustron Sciences Corporation, 1917 Upper Lake Drive, >Reston, VA 22091; >Telephone Number: 703-476-8731 and Fax: 703-827-4066. The amount of $5.00 >is >requested to cover copying and postage. The internet is free. If the information is valuable, I'm sure you'll get some subscriptions out of the deal. And don't worry about bandwidth (nobody is this group does 8^b .... cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenfusion cudfnJim cudlnN cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: a ZPF primer Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a ZPF primer Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 03:51:55 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote: > Since it is probably highly pertinent to both HF and CF, I thought I > would offer to this forum a brief description of the zero-point field > (ZPF). Those of you who have never really considered it before should > brace yourselves. > > taken from "The energetic vacuum: implications for energy research" by H.E. > Puthoff: > > To understand just what the significance of zero-point energy is, let > us begin with a simple harmonic oscillator. According to classical > theory, such a harmonic oscillator, once excited but with excitation > removed, will come to rest (because of friction losses). In quantum > theory, however, this is not the case. Instead, such an oscillator > will always retain a finite amount of "jiggle". The average energy > (kinetic plus potential) associated with this residuum of motion, the > so-called zero-point energy, is given by E=hw/2 where h is Planck's > constant (1.054 * 10^-34 joule/sec) and w is the frequency of > oscillation. The meaning of the adjective zero-point is that such > motion exists even at a temperature of absolute zero where no thermal > agitation effects remain. Similarly , if a cavity electromangetic > mode is excited and then left to decay, the field energy dies away, > again to a minimum value E=hw/2 (half a photon's worth), indicating > that fields as well as mechanical systems are subject to zero-point > fluctuations. It is the presence of such ZPF "noise" that can never > be gotten rid of, no matter how perfect the technology, that sets a > lower limit on the detectability of electromagnetic signals. > > If we now consider the universe as a whole as constituting a > giant cavity, then we approach a continuum of possible modes > (frequencies, directions) of propagation of electromagnetic waves. > Again, even in the absence of overt excitation, quantum theory has us > assign an energy E=hw/2 to each mode. Multiplication of this energy > by a density of modes factor then yields an expressioin for the > spectral energy density that characterises the vacuum electromagnetic > zero-point energy > > r(w)dw = (hw^3)/(2pi^2c^3)dw joules/m^3 > > There are a number of properties of this zero-point energy > distribution that are worthy of note. First, the frequency behavior > is seen to diverge as w^3. In the absence of a high-frequency cutoff > this would imply an infinite energy density. As discussed by Feynman > and Hibbs, however, we have no evidence that QED remains vaild at > asymptotically high frequencies (vanishingly small wavelengths). > Therefore, we are justified in assuming a high-frequency cutoff, and > arguments based on the requirements of general relativity place this > cutoff near the Planck frequency (~10^-33 cm). Even with this > cutoff, the mass-density equivalent of the vacuum ZPF fields is still > on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. This caused Wheeler to remark that > "elementary particles represent a percentage-wise almost completely > negligible change in the locally violent conditions that characterise > the vacuum...In other words, elementary particles do not form a > really basic starting point for the description of nature. Instead, > they represent a first-order correction to vacuum physics." As high > as this value is, one might think that the vacuum energy would be > easy to observe. Although this is true in a certain sense (it is the > source of quantum noise), by and large the homogeneity and isotropy > of the ZPF distribution prevent naive observation, and only > departures from uniformity yield overtly observable effects. > > Contributing to the lack of direct observability is a second feature > of the ZPF spectrum; namely, its Lorentz invariance. Whereas motion > through all other radiation fields, random or otherwise, can be > detected by Doppler-shift phenomena, the ZPF spectrum with its cubic > frequency dependence is unique in that detailed cancellation of > Doppler shifts with velocity changes leaves the spectrum unchanged. > > The paper goes on to explore various ramifications of the ZPF but I > will stop quoting here and lay on a few of my favorite stunning > conclusions: > > 1. The ZPF is not weak! It is the unimaginably dense "fabric of > space" in which matter as we know it exists as nearly insignificant > perturbations. > > 2. The ZPF is responsible for the existence of atoms. The reason > electrons don't spiral into the nucleus is that they are in > equilibrium with the ZPF in their ground states. > > 3. Interactions between matter and the ZPF are responsible for the > mysterious phenomena we call "inertia". The force that resists > acceleration arises because of a radiation pressure exerted by the ZPF > against the accelerating body. ***{Gee, and yet all those old guys who believed in the ether were wrong, weren't they? Why were they wrong? Because space isn't filled with ether, it's filled with ZPF! Duh! --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Richard Schultz / Re: a ZPF primer Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a ZPF primer Date: 15 Jun 1995 13:39:12 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <3roocc$e0k@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes: >In the case of hydrogen he seems to have provided a simple mechanism >for explaining how an accelkerated electron does not radiate. Surely >this should interest those who have been puzzled. Is there a better, >conventional explanation these days or is it still just brushed aside? Umm, the "conventional explanation" is that an accelerated electron *does* radiate. I suggest you look up (for example) "Brehmsstrahlung" in your handy dandy CRC Handbook. And all of those people that use synchrotron radiation to do all sorts of neat experiments would be extremely surprised to find out that the electrons weren't radiating! What QM explains (as others have pointed out, *without* any need to invoke ZPF) is why the electron in a hydrogen atom doesn't go spinning into the nucleus, radiating as it goes. This problem was one of the motivations for Bohr's original quantized hydrogen atom. He simply postulated that the electron was already in its lowest possible energy state and was thus prevented from crashing into the nucleus. Later workers (de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, etc.) showed that one can derive the stability of the hydrogen atom from more fundamental first principles. -- Richard Schultz "_Cro_, the Children's Television Workshop's attempt at a commercially appealing science cartoon show, will be cancelled in September by ABC TV. . . . In _Cro_'s time slot will go _Dumb and Dumber_, a cartoon about two moronic louts, derived from the movie of the same name." -- _Science_, 3 March 1995 cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: a ZPF primer Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: a ZPF primer Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 04:04:34 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) wrote: > In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote: > > > Since it is probably highly pertinent to both HF and CF, I thought I > > would offer to this forum a brief description of the zero-point field > > (ZPF). Those of you who have never really considered it before should > > brace yourselves. > > > > taken from "The energetic vacuum: implications for energy research" by H.E. > > Puthoff: > > > > To understand just what the significance of zero-point energy is, let > > us begin with a simple harmonic oscillator. According to classical > > theory, such a harmonic oscillator, once excited but with excitation > > removed, will come to rest (because of friction losses). In quantum > > theory, however, this is not the case. Instead, such an oscillator > > will always retain a finite amount of "jiggle". The average energy > > (kinetic plus potential) associated with this residuum of motion, the > > so-called zero-point energy, is given by E=hw/2 where h is Planck's > > constant (1.054 * 10^-34 joule/sec) and w is the frequency of > > oscillation. > > REPEAT THREE TIMES AFTER ME: > > 1) In the quantum theory of the simple harmonic oscillator there are > zero-point *fluctuations* (ZPF) and zero-point *energy* (ZPE). The > zero-point fluctuations are associated with the quantum-mechnical theory > of the position, or motion, of the oscillator and NOT its energy. The > zero-point energy is associated with the quantum-mechanical theory and > prediction of the energy in the oscillator. These are NOT the same thing > in the quantum theory of the harmonic oscillator, even if they are in the > classical theory, and are NOT directly related by any straightforward > relationship. > > 2) In the formulation of the quantum theory of the SHO there is an > arbitrary choice of the mathematical ordering of certain operators (the > "creation and annihilation operators") as one goes from the classical to > the quantum theory. Making different choices for this ordering does NOT in > any way change the quantum laws of motion of the SHO, nor the predictions > of the quantum theory as to any measurable observables of the SHO. It > also does not change the quantum predictions of the ZPF (which are, > recall, NOT the same as the ZPE). > > 3) By making different choices of this ordering, however, one can make > the predicted zero-point *energy* of the ground state of an SHO have any > value one wants: positive, negative, or zero. In fact, the most symmetric > choice makes the ZPE identically zero. > > 4) This is of course totally irrelevant to anything physical, since > all it does is shift the whole energy scale up and down, and all one is > ever concerned with in any physical situation are CHANGES between the > lowest possible state (the zero-point state) and some higher-energy state > -- and these changes don't change when the scale they're measured against > itself shifts. (If you cut off the bottom 12" of your yardstick, then use > it to measure the height as you lift a weight 1 foot off the floor, you've > only lifted the weight 1 foot even though it's now matched up against the > 2 foot marking on your yardstick). > > 5) In brief, energy extraction from the ZPE of SHOs (or any other > quantum system) is garbage, garbage, garbage! (and it seems worthwhile > saying that3 X 3 = 9 times). ***{Yep, or else quantum mechanics is garbage. And if, perchance, the excess energy presently described as "cold fusion" turns out to be real, non-nuclear, and non-chemical--if that turns out to be experimental fact--what are you guys going to do? Here's the answer: you will continue to hoot at it until the day you die, irrespective of the facts, because quantum mechanics is a branch of theology, not of science. --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:47:25 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic I just received an e-mail message telling me that I "flamed everyone" about blocking Wallace's access, when in fact no one did, and suggesting that I should publicly 'fess up to some sort of guilt for misunderstanding the intent of Dieter Britz' statement. To those others who might feel that way, here (slightly edited) is the text of my response to the aforesaid e-mail message: -------------------------------------------------------- Excuse me, but what are you talking about? First, if Dieter Britz is so muddled in his thinking that he posts a statement which, if interpreted sensibly, implies that he used a cancelbot to delete Wallace's posts, and I make that sensible interpretation, what, precisely, am I guilty of? Given the context (in which a deluge of "nastygrams" had apparently been used to jam Wallace's e-mail access), where is the fault that you apparently want me to 'fess up to? Perhaps your problem is that you really don't understand what is wrong with Britz' sentence. If that is the case, let me try again. here is Britz' statement: > By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups > (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done. The antecedent of "all" in the second half of the sentence is obviously "all those groups" in the first half of the sentence. This means "all" = "all those groups." Hence whatever meaning the context establishes for "all those groups" in the first half of the sentence must apply to "all" in the second half. So the question is, what does "all those groups" mean in the first half of the sentence? The answer: it refers to the physical data for the newsgroups, stored at the myriad sites out on the net. Why? Because that's where Wallace's post went. It didn't go up to the "Newsgroups" line on his computer screen. It therefore follows that "all" in the second half of the sentence also refers to the physical data from Wallace's post, as stored at the myriad sites out on the net. Interpreted sensibly, therefore, Britz' statement must be regarded as a claim to have deleted the physical data from Wallace's post, not the symbolic representations of that data on Dieter Britz' Newsgroups line. Do you understand? Frankly, as I have stated in a post to sci.physics.fusion, I now believe that Dieter Britz is merely guilty of muddled thinking, not of a cancelbot attack on Wallace. However, if you expect me to apologize for being able to rationally interpret his sentence, or to feel bad because my own thinking is not muddled, I suggest that you not hold your breath while you are waiting. I am not responsible for what Dieter posted. If, tomorrow, you post a message claiming to be the Green River killer and, upon investigation, the FBI concludes that you are not, they will not apologize to you. The fault will still be yours, even if it is not as large as it initially appeared to be. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Scott Little / Atomic stability: ZPF or QM? Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Atomic stability: ZPF or QM? Date: 16 Jun 1995 03:40:35 GMT Organization: EarthTech Int'l OK, now go easy on me...I'm an engineer. 8-) It has been said that QM EXPLAINS why electrons don't spiral into the nucleus. I seem to recall that QM is BASED UPON the assumption that they don't...i.e. that there is a minimum energy level and that there are discrete levels above that. I would appreciate it if some of the highly-educated types on this forum would comment constructively on this subject. If, in fact QM does EXPLAIN why there is a minimum energy level for the electron, could you provide a short explanation of how it does so. Thanks cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Scott Little / Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo Date: 16 Jun 1995 03:49:42 GMT Organization: EarthTech Int'l In article <9506151511.AA35968@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) says: >While we are on the subject of the room temperature, how many >of you are aware that there is a significant error term >that can creep into the calorimetry if the ambient temperature >is changing? You aren't just whistling Dixie, my friend...my differential calorimeter has a "constant" temperature chamber around it that is maintained at 90 degrees F +/- 0.05 degrees and I can STILL see the effects of ambient temp variations on the output of the calorimeter. This is probably because the sensitivity of my system is such that I can "see" a 0.001 degree temp change inside the actual calorimeter chambers (which are inside the "constant" temperature chamber). cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:54:20 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rnukc$r67@news.htp.com>, Tim Mirabile wrote: > Dieter Britz wrote: > > >> By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups > >> (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done. > >> This is for those who don't know that. > > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >And there you have it, folks: plain as the nose on your face. Dieter Britz > >has apparently forcibly removed Mr. Wallace's posts without his consent, > >via a cancelbot. > > > > What are you talking about? All he did was edit the newsgroup line when > making his reply. The post that he replied is still there, on all of the > crossposted groups, but only someone on s.p.f would see his reply. > > -- > Tim Why did you make this post? I had already responded to your remarks in detail before you made them. Try reading to the end of the thread before you post. It does wonders to preserve the "bandwidth" that you guys seem so concerned about when you criticize Mr Wallace, and seem so indifferent to when it applies to your own behavior. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:38:12 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rpmoa$38uo@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote: > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > > >Result: you flood him with e-mail in > >such volume that he literally doesn't have time to sift out the real > >messages from the bogus ones. > > Mitchel, > > Why can't you see that this is the reason the volume of duplicate spam > posts by Mr Wallace that is objectionable? If everyone flooded the net > with posts in such volume readers wouldn't have the time to sift out the > real messages from the bogus ones. ***{Jim, it is a fact that Wallace was flooded with bogus e-mail messages which were called "nastygrams." Because it is a fact, it is objectionable. On the other hand, it is *not* a fact that everyone floods the net with bogus posts. Quite to the contrary, the fact is that the vast majority of people make a good faith attempt to post their material where it will be on-topic. Result: the ambiguous cases, such as that of Mr. Wallace, where it is difficult to form an overall judgment about whether he is on-topic or off-topic, are sufficiently few in number that they can be dealt with by gentle means. The most obvious of these is to simply not read the fellow's posts. Another is to attempt to enter into dialogue with him, not about the irrelevant aspects of his posts, but about the relevant aspects. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > - > Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com > Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote" Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote" Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:44:19 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rpksi$24ga@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote: > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >***{Jim, we can let issues like this be decided by the number of people > >who are "pissed off." If we do, we destroy the diversity that gives > value > >to usenet, and we also destroy the ability of access providers to sell > >connect time to non-techies (i.e., to members of the general public). > > Mitch, > The majority of people like the books on the library shelves sorted by > subject, author or some other recognizable pattern. People also like > things in the grocery store in some semblance of order. Persons > disrupting the ordered systems get kicked out of libraries and grocery > stores. > > >Think about it: if majority rule dominates here, then access providers > >will lose their competitive advantage over the mainstream media--i.e., > >they will find themselves trying to persuade people to pay to connect > to > >the grey uniformity of a medium that offends no one, in preference to > the > >grey uniformity of the mainstream media with which people are already > >familiar. Result: the explosive growth of the internet will cease and > the > >companies that provide connect services will find the prices of their > >stocks to be in a major bear market. Many will go bankrupt, and the > growth > >potential of those that remain will be vastly less than it was before. > >Bottom line: this is a serious matter that deserves careful > consideration. > > This is highly unlikely. We are not looking for a gray uniformity, > just a semblence of order. Mr Wallace is not only ignoring the basic, > loose collection or netiquette "rules" (yes-there ARE rules). He is also > ignoring the charter of this group. I AM an advocate of free speech. > However, free speech does not imply the right to curse in church, spout > communist propaganda at a Nazi convention or Nazi rhetoric at a communist > convention. Were spammers such as Wallace to disappear overnight, > there would be NO dire consequences such as you predict. Instead, many > more would be using the net for meaningful discussion instead of fleeing > to moderated, private mailing lists. The public flow of ideas and > discussion suffers when that happens. > > >We all love the internet and want it to succeed and grow. For that > reason, > >it behooves us to focus on, and understand, the conditions that are > >necessary to support that growth. The decisions that are being made now > >have the potential to have disastrous consequences in the future. > >--Mitchell Jones}*** > > We would like to see the Internet grow. However, spam postings choke > bandwidth and generally make the net a less pleasurable (and usable) tool > than it would otherwise be. > > - > Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com > Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. Jim, you are a latecomer to the thread. All your comments have been made before, and answered in detail. Since you want "preserve bandwidth," I will send some of the relevant posts to you via e-mail. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.16 / Scott Mueller / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 04:59:14 GMT Organization: At Home; Salida, CA In article <21cenlogic-1506951247250001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: <*plonk*> Nearly 6.5 years without a killfile for this group. Guess I'm just getting old. -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests. cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.14 / jonesse@plasma / Reply to Noninski ("S.Jones' paper in J.Phys.Chem.") Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Reply to Noninski ("S.Jones' paper in J.Phys.Chem.") Date: 14 Jun 95 18:23:58 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University V. Noninski posts again -- I suppose a response is in order. Let me begin by noting that Noninski has published claims of excess heat from *light water* electrolytic cells (V.C. Noninski, Fusion Technol. _21_ (1992) 163) -- if there is cold fusion with hydrogen, friends, I'll eat another hat! We challenged such claims with technical detail in our recent J. Phys. Chem. paper which Noninski attacks in a recent post here. As he says, "I will not include here any technical comments on the above problem leaving this for a future manuscript which I will publish in a peer-reviewed journal." Thus he leaves unsubstantiated his barbs that our paper demonstrates "incompetence." I invite readers to read our recent papers and judge for themselves, and consider the possibility of fusion in an electrolytic cell using light water. Our papers are found in J. Phys. Chem. _99_ (May 1995) 6966 and 6973 -- two related papers. Noninski also states in his post here: "Existence of S.Jones' Nature paper is a more powerful proof for the lack of priority than any signed and notorized notebook." Again, his ad hominem attack is unsupported by any technical comments. In response, I re-post the following from my recent (pleasant) exchange with Barry Merriman: In article <1995Jun9.120025.2272@acoust.byu.edu>, jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes: >> So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of >> any other sound approach? >> >> -- >> Barry Merriman> > Yes, there is another way. I suggested using very high pressures, as in > a diamond-anvil cell, to my colleague Clint Van Siclen in 1984-85. This > resulted in a paper which was submitted 12 June 1985 to J. Phys. G: Nucl. > Physics, and published there in March 1986 (vol. 12 pp. 213-221): > "Pizeonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules." > > Note that this paper was *published* 2.5 years before we even heard of > Pons & Fleischmann. Our related experiments began (using electrolysis cells > and other methods of introducing deuterium into metals, which metals were > then subjected to high pressures) in April 1986. *We did not get these > ideas from P&F!* > > Anyway, most of you know the history here, although I occasionally here rumors > that we "stole" our ideas from P&F -- nothing could be further from the truth. > We have detailed logbooks going back to 1985 on our work, including the > use of electrolysis (not our only method!), along with the published paper > in J. Phys. G. Yet some have chosen to ignore these facts, to my bewilderment. > It's not that P&F have anything worth stealing -- rather it's the accusation > that we stole something (made by, well, guess who). > Dr. Noninski, in his post, repeats the offensive and wholly untrue rumor that our work somehow was taken from P&F -- "Lack of priority" he calls it. But not only do we have logbooks providing technical details of our work totally independent of P&F, and long before we even heard of them, we also have the *published* paper in J. Physics G. described above. This paper was published in March 1986, *three full years* before P&F published their paper. Obviously, our priority was established by that paper for the notions of "piezonuclear fusion" that we followed ever since. We have never claimed "excess heat" -- indeed, just what did we allegedly take from P&F, Vesselin? What are you accusing us of, and on what basis? The rest of my earlier response to Barry Merriman follows. --Steven Jones > Anyway, Barry, I refer you to our 1986 paper on use of ultra-high pressures > to increase fusion rates. We found that in the laboratory, pressures could > indeed increase fusion rates, but not to values that would yield practical > fusion yields -- not by many orders of magnitude. > > There is a related idea that I would still like to test, although the theory > does not suggest practical fusion yields here either. The idea is to achieve > sufficiently high pressures (approx. 2-3 megabars) to cause hydrogen isotopes > to form *metallic* hydrogen. Then the electrons are shared -- molecular > pairings break down. We calculate here that the deuterons (say) are still > too far apart for significant fusion rates, at room temp., in metallic > deuterium. But if deuterons occupy interstitial sites in the lattice, as > would likely be the case since the lattice is unlikely to be perfect, then > *these* deuterons are close enough to lattice deuterons to undergo measurable > fusion reactions, given the motion of the deuterons in the metal. > > This is hand-wavy, I hasten to say. We have not found anyone who > would get into a full-blown quantum-mechanical treatment including calculations > of fusion rates in metallic hydrogen isotopes. Indeed, there is > not much work yet on metallic hydrogen that I know of, beyond quantum monte- > carlo work by Bernie Alder et al. at LLNL, on the theoretical side, > and work of Carnegie Institute physicists on metallic hydrogen experiments. > (Whether metallic hydrogen has actually been produced is still controversial, > I understand. Any news, anyone?) > > Fun stuff, I think -- needs a push. > Question is, is it worth the effort? I think so, but that may not count for > much these days... > > --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.13 / 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: 13 Jun 1995 09:42:08 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Dr. Robert L. Park, the Director of Public Information of the American Physical Society, seems to have taken the official position that cold fusion is a farce as evidenced by the an article published on page 4 of the VOLUME 4 No 6 June 1995 issue of APS News, that I receive free every month as a retired member of the APS. The title of the article is "Trio Takes Aim Against Spread of Pseudo-Science," and my quotes from it are as follows: Magician and self-proclaimed "investigator of unusual claims" James Randi kicked off a Wednesday afternoon session at the March Meeting that took a pseudo-serious look at so-called "alternative science", which Randi defines as "currently fashionable delusions enthusiastically embraced by the public, as well as some scientists." Joined by Hal Lewis, author of "Technological Risk," and Robert Park, who pens the weekly electronic newsletter "What's New", the trio skewered several of their favorite targets: psychic spoon-benders, "free energy" machines, and the ongoing debates surrounding extreme low-frequency electromagnetic fields and cold fusion. ... In fact, such ignorance is one reason Lewis believes that many crackpots or pseudo-scientists are sincere, citing Irving Langmuir's famous 1953 colloquium, in which he concluded that these people weren't deliberately being fraudulent; they were simple motivated by an inner desire to be great and make important discoveries. ... While conceding that misdirected sincerity might be the case in some instances, Park believes many pseudo-scientists start out sincere and find themselves trapped in a position from which they don't know how to retreat. "I certainly think that was the case in the cold fusion episode," he said. "There is a very thin line between foolishness and fraud. The curious thing is that, even after the instigator has gotten cold feet, his followers are still trudging right along behind." ... The Seven Rules of Scientific Folly RULE I: A Ph.D. in science is not an inoculation against foolishness. RULE II: Because even scientists tend to see what they expect to see, a foolish report by a respected colleague often carries other scientists along on the road to ignominy. RULE III: It's a thin line between foolishness and fraud. RULE IV: Over time, a constituency is built up that would prefer that the controversy never be quite settled. RULE V: Most screwy sounding scientific claims - are screwy. RULE VI: It seems unlikely that there will ever be an idea so crazy that a Ph.D. physicist cannot be found to vouch for it. RULE VII: When a charlatan is exposed, the outrage of his victims is most frequently aimed at the one who strips away the mask. - Robert L. Park cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.13 / 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: 13 Jun 1995 10:16:15 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote: : 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. || : \\===============================// The telephone conversation was June 6th at about 8PM, the man sounded very jumpy and hung up when I started asking questions. What he said was consistent with several conversations I've had over the years with radio astronomers, usually over a few drinks in a bar, and no identifying badges worn by them. All it would take to make it seem I am a liar is for someone at JPL to publicly post a denial. I suspect it will be a cold day in Hell before this happens!!! Bryan cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.13 / 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: 13 Jun 1995 17:27:53 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. The "The Farce of Physics" thread that I started November 1994 plus several short related threads has now reached a total of 674 posts by 231 people in 14 newsgroups that have shown an interest in it by postings, correspondence, book requests, etc. The thread is devoted to the topics, information, and arguments in my free general interest electronic book by the same name, as well as related current information and arguments discussing the problems in modern physics. My book is now archived in many Internet libraries and can be found by using Gopher and World Wide Web and is also available from Project Gutenberg archives and on their CDROM's. The free standard 311KB ASCII version can be obtained by anonymous ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get farce.txt". The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the uncompressed text. If you use a graphics interface to ftp the book, like that used by America Online, you may get a file called farce.txt that is still in a compressed form. You can ftp a software package for the PC called gzip124.zip from ftp.aol.com in the directory /pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the book after you rename it farce.gz. Unix computer systems have a command called "gunzip" that will also uncompress the .gz format. You can also ftp the book in an uncompressed form from my Internet service provider at ftp.intnet.net in the directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace. The file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1 version of the same book, and it contains all the extras like italics and superscripts, etc. The file d.wp5 is a WordPerfect reprint of my 1969 Venus radar paper, and the j.wp5, m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my principle dynamic ether published papers, some that include imbedded graphics. The p1.gif file is a picture starting from left to right, of Vladimir Ilich Sekerin, myself(Bryan G. Wallace), and V. N. Bezwerchy after my lecture at the House of Scientists before the First Russian Conference started. The p2.gif file is a picture of me delivering my paper at the First Conference with Svetlana Tolchelnikova- Murri doing the translating. The p3.gif file is a picture taken at the closing ceremony of the Second Russian Conference. With regard to the people mentioned in the book: row 1 number 1 me, n.2 Lee Coe, n.3 Pavel F. Parshin; r.2 n.1 Leonid Maiboroda; r.3 n.5 Petr Beckman; r.4 n.11 Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri; r.5 n.5 Vladimir Sekerin, n.8 Alexandra Schpitalnaya; r.6 n.4 V. O. Beklyamishev; r.7 n.4 Konstantin Manuilov. The file readme.txt contains much the same information as this post. If you have email but not ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a size limit on your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being 55KB for Chapter 3. If you don't have access to the Internet but have a computer with a modem, you can download the book from the Bulletin Board "SIRIUS CONNECTION" in Ontario Canada. The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone lines are 705-737-0728 and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using ANSI or RIP graphics, then log to the BROWSE file library and download the file FARCE.TXT. The stats from EU Net show a peek of 2013 copies sent by ftp November 1994 and I've sent out at least 6000 copies of the book by email over the past few years. There are no restrictions on anyone making electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who have copies, so if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should be able to find someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout of the book. A paperback non- profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus postage and handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will post information on it on this thread when I have it. The current plan is to publish up to one million copies of the first edition if there is enough demand for it. The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext version of the book is available via: URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia. Neil Munch was a participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in the Fall of 1996. You can reach Neil at his email address: 70047.2123@compuserve.com My free electronic book "The Farce of Physics" explores and documents the fact that modern physics has become little more than an elaborate farce. The book is my contribution to the coming scientific revolution and contains 156 references to the published literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people including Albert Einstein. It is meant for anyone who is interested in this subject, and I have attempted to reduce the technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach the widest possible audience. I agree that many of the arguments that are under the label of relativity theory appear to be backed with experimental evidence, but the modern evidence has gone against the original basic postulates. In Chapter 7 of my book I cite Einstein's former research associate's argument that pinned the breakdown of the first postulate principle of relativity to the background radiation and by averaging the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies. This is probably the principle reason that near the end of his life, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954 (Chapter 3): I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. Starting in Chapter 4 of my book I start to detail my long struggle to get the physics community to accept the fact that the analysis of signal transit times in the solar system is the ultimate test of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. I suspect that future science historians will argue that my 1969 published analysis of the published 1961 Venus radar data proved beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt that the second postulate was false. I expect that eventually someone will come up with an objective independent evaluation of the relative speed of light in space based on the more accurate modern space data that will be far more dramatic than my 1969 paper. When this happens physics will undergo a revolution that will be as sensational to science as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to world politics. The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and religion were not separated. The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at the base of all of natural science, religion, and technology. Richard Feynman was one of a relatively small number of modern physicists with the intelligence and courage to challenge the current sacred relativity doctrine that argues that empty space is an invisible solid with infinite mass and energy that can create the universe in a Big Bang. Feynman argued that Isaac Newton was right and that a photon of light is a particle composed of a drop of dynamic ether fluid moving through empty space at the speed of light. My 1969 paper showed that an analysis of the Venus radar data was consistent with the Newtonian particle model of light, and my published computer simulation research of the dynamic ether showed the proper magnitudes for the gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces using simple reasonable algorithms, and it was also possible to make the heavier particles from positive and negative electrons, just as John Archibald Wheeler suspected. Of the many interesting comments on the book that I've received to date, the most important one was by Wheeler who wrote: "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in a subject so important. I expect that some time in the future, man will discover some cute technological trick that will upset the balance of the positrons and electrons and mass annihilation will be man's principle energy source, perhaps even leading to space travel at near light speeds. Bryan G. Wallace 7210 12th Ave. No. St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Phone 813-347-9309 Fax 813-864-8382 Email wallaceb@intnet.net cudkeys: cuddy13 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / 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: 15 Jun 1995 09:24:50 -0400 Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc. Chapter 2 Pathological Physics There is a very interesting article published in the October 1989 issue of Physics Today.[86] The article is titled "PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE" and the abstract reads: Certain symptoms seen in studies of 'N rays' and other elusive phenomena characterize 'the science of things that aren't so.' The introduction to the article starts: Irving Langmuir spent many productive years pursuing Nobel- caliber research (see the photo on the opposite page). Over the years, he also explored the subject of what he called "pathological science." Although he never published his investigations in this area, on 18 December 1953 at General Electric's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, he gave a colloquium on the subject that will long be remembered by those in his audience. This talk was a colorful account of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists may stumble. Langmuir begins his presentation with: The thing started in this way. On 23 April 1929, Professor Bergen Davis from Columbia University came up and gave a colloquium in this Laboratory, in the old building, and it was very interesting.... Langmuir then gives the details of the Davis and Barnes controversial experiment that produced a beam of alpha rays from polonium in a vacuum tube with a hot cathode electron emitter and a microscope for counting alpha induced scintillations on a zinc sulfide screen. Then Langmuir described the results of a visit he and a colleague, C. W. Hewlett, made to Davis's laboratory at Columbia University. With regard to the experiment Langmuir states: And then I played a dirty trick. I wrote out on a card of paper ten different sequences of V and 0. I meant to put on a certain voltage and then take it off again. Later I realized that [trick wouldn't quite work] because when Hull took off the voltage, he sat back in his chairÄÄthere was nothing to regulate at zero so he didn't. Well, of course, Barnes saw him whenever he sat back in his chair. Although the light wasn't very bright, he could see whether [Hull] was sitting back in his chair or not, so he knew the voltage wasn't on, and the result was that he got a corresponding result. So later I whispered, "Don't let him know that you're not reading," and I asked him to change the voltage from 325 down to 320 so he'd have something to regulate. I said, "Regulate it just as carefully as if you were sitting on a peak." So he played the part from that time on, and from that time on Barnes's readings had nothing whatever to do with the voltages that were applied. Whether the voltage was at one value or another didn't make the slightest difference. After that he took 12 readings, of which about half were right and the other half were wrong, which was about what you would expect out of two sets of values. I said: "You're through. You're not measuring anything at all. You never have measured anything at all." "Well," he said, "the tube was gassy. The temperature has changed and therefore the nickel plates must have deformed themselves so that the electrodes are no longer lined up properly." "Well," I said, "isn't this the tube in which Davis said he got the same results when the filament was turned off completely?" "Oh, yes," he said, "but we always made blanks to check ourselves, with and without the voltage on." He immediatelyÄÄwithout giving any thought to itÄÄhe immediately had an excuse. He had a reason for not paying any attention to any wrong results. It just was built into him. He just had worked that way all along and always would. There is no question but [that] he is honest: He believed these things, absolutely.... At the end of that section, Langmuir states: To me, [it's] extremely interesting that men, perfectly honest, enthusiastic over their work, can so completely fool themselves. Now what was it about that work that made it so easy for them to do that? Well, I began thinking of other things. I had seen R. W. Wood and told him about this phenomenon because he's a good experimenter and doesn't make such mistakes himself very oftenÄÄif at all. [Wood was a physicist from Johns Hopkins University.] And he told me about the N rays that he had an experience with back in 1904. So I looked up the data on N rays.[87] Then Langmuir gave a detailed account of N rays, and how they were discovered in 1903 by a respected French physicist, Ren‚- Prosper Blondlot, at the University of Nancy. The N-rays were supposed to be generated by a hot wire inside an iron tube that has an 1/8 inch aluminum window in it, and the rays are detected by a calcium sulfide screen which gave out a very faint glow in a dark room. One of the experiments involved a large prism of aluminum with a 60 degree angle. Wood visited Blondlot's lab and Langmuir recounts the following trick Wood played on Blondlot: Well, Wood asked him to repeat some of these measurements, which he was only too glad to do. But in the meantime, the room, being very dark, R. W. Wood put the prism in his pocket and the results checked perfectly with what [Blondlot] had before. Well, Wood rather cruelly published that.[88] And that was the end of Blondlot. Langmuir next deals with the 1923 mitogenetic ray experiments of Prof. Alexander Gurwitsch at the First State University of Moscow.[89] After the mitogenetic ray section, Langmuir presents the following section, which is the heart of his article: Symptoms of sick science The Davis-Barnes experiment and the N rays and the mitogenetic rays all have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published on them. Sometimes they have lasted for 15 or 20 years and then gradually have died away. Now here are the characteristic rules [see the box above]: > The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity. For example, you might think that if one onion root would affect another due to ultraviolet light then by putting on an ultraviolet source of light you could get it to work better. Oh no! Oh no! It had to be just the amount of intensity that's given off by an onion root. Ten onion roots wouldn't do any better than one and it didn't make any difference about the distance of the source. It didn't follow any inverse square law or anything as simple as that. And so on. In other words, the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause. That was true in the mitogenetic rays and it was true in the N rays. Ten bricks didn't have any more effect than one. It had to be of low intensity. We know why it had to be of low intensity: so that you could fool yourself so easily. Otherwise, it wouldn't work. Davis-Barnes worked just as well when the filament was turned off. They counted scintillations. > Another characteristic thing about them all is that these observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes. Any other sense, I suppose, would work as well. Or many measurements are necessaryÄÄmany measurementsÄÄbecause of the very low statistical significance of the results. With the mitogenetic rays particularly, [people] started out by seeing something that was bent. Later on, they would take a hundred onion roots and expose them to something, and they would get the average position of all of them to see whether the average had been affected a little bit... Statistical measurements of a very small...were thought to be significant if you took large numbers. Now the trouble with that is this. [Most people have a habit, when taking] measurements of low significance, [of finding] a means of rejecting data. They are right at the threshold value and there are many reasons why [they] can discard data. Davis and Barnes were doing that right along. If things were doubtful at all, why, they would discard them or not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the theory. They didn't know that, but that's the way it worked out. > There are claims of great accuracy. Barnes was going to get the Rydberg constant more accurately than the spectroscopists could. Great sensitivity or great specificityÄÄwe'll come across that particularly in the Allison effect. > Fantastic theories contrary to experience. In the Bohr theory, the whole idea of an electron being captured by an alpha particle when the alpha particles aren't there, just because the waves are there, [isn't] a very sensible theory. > Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. They always had an answerÄÄalways. > The ratio of the supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. The critics couldn't reproduce the effects. Only the supporters could do that. In the end, nothing was salvaged. Why should there be? There isn't anything there. There never was. That's characteristic of the effect. In an evaluation of modern physics based on Langmuir's arguments, we find that many of the dominant theories should be classed as pathological science. For example, starting with his first characteristic rule "The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity."; we find that Einstein's special relativity theory which is generally acknowledged as the foundation of the rest of the dominant theories of 20th century physics, is based on the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not detect the motion of the earth through the ether! As I have shown in Chapter 3 "Mathematical Magic", Einstein believed that the ether sea exists but that it is invisible and can't be detected by experiments. As a second example of the spectrum of modern theories that should be classed as pathological, we have the particle physicists that argue that invisible quarks exist inside of the detectable protons and neutrons.[64] Actually, their arguments have expanded over the years to include a whole zoo of invisible particles that come in different colors and flavors, the zoo contains, quarks, gluons, gravitrons, Higgs bosons, etc. All of these particles are detectable only by using very elaborate "Mathematical Magic" to analyze the particles that are detected. On this question, Werner Heisenberg, one of the most prominent physicists of this century, makes the following remarks in his article[90] titled "The nature of elementary particles": ...Before this time it was assumed that there were two fundamental kinds of particles, electrons and protons, which, unlike most other particles, were immutable. Therefore their number was fixed and they were referred to as "elementary" particles. Matter was seen as being ultimately constructed of electrons and protons. The experiments of Anderson and Blackett provided definite proof that this hypothesis was wrong. Electrons can be created and annihilated; their number is not constant; they are not "elementary" in the original meaning of the word.... A proton could be obtained from a neutron and a pion, or a hyperon and a kaon, or from two nucleons and one antinucleon, and so on. Could we therefore simply say a proton consists of continuous matter?... This development convincingly suggests the following analogy: Let us compare the so-called "elementary" particles with the stationary states of an atom or a molecule. We may think of these as various states of one single molecule or as the many different molecules of chemistry. One may therefore speak simply of the "spectrum of matter."... My intention, however, is not to deal with philosophy but with physics. Therefore I will now discuss that development of theoretical particle physics that, I believe, begins with the wrong questions. First of all there is the thesis that the observed particles such as the proton, the pion, the hyperon consist of smaller particles: quarks, partons, gluons, charmed particles or whatever else, none of which have been observed. Apparently here the question was asked: "What does a proton consist of?" But the questioners appear to have forgotten the phrase "consist of" has a tolerably clear meaning only if the particle can be divided into pieces with a small amount of energy, much smaller than the rest mass of the particle itself. ...In the same way I am afraid that the quark hypothesis is not really taken seriously today by its proponents. Questions dealing with the statistics of quarks, the forces that keep them together, the reason why the quarks are never seen as free particles, the creation of pairs of quarks inside an elementary particle, are all left more or less undefined. If the quark hypothesis is really to be taken seriously it is necessary to formulate precise mathematical assumptions for the quarks and for the forces that keep them together and to show, at least qualitatively, that all these assumptions reproduce the known features of particle physics... Therefore this article can be concluded with a more optimistic view of those developments in particle physics that promise success. New experimental results are always valuable, even if they only enlarge the data table; but they are especially interesting if they answer critical questions of the theory. In the theory one should try to make precise assumptions concerning the dynamics of matter, without any philosophical prejudices. The dynamics must be taken seriously, and we should not be content with vaguely defined hypotheses that leave essential points open. Everything outside of the dynamics is just a verbal description of the table of data, and even then the data table probably yields more information than the verbal description can. The particle spectrum can be understood only if the underlying dynamics of matter is known; dynamics is the central problem. In 1977, in collaboration with Prof. Wilbur Block and Prof. Richard Rhodes II, I submitted a research proposal through Eckerd College to the National Science Foundation. The proposal was for $159,512, of which $99,655 was to go for a high-performance Harris computer. We intended to use computer methods to attack the difficult mathematics of the underlying dynamics of matter as outlined in Heisenberg's article. The February 1978 rejection letter from Dr. Barry R. Holstein, Program Officer for Theoretical Physics, stated the proposal was declined because their reviewers had an overwhelming feeling that there is no reason to abandon the conventional and remarkably successful theories of electron and quark interactions in favor of our model. The letter supplied the motivation for my campaign to discredit the quark theorists. The campaign involved for the most part, attacking prominent quark theorists at the American Physical Society meetings, and to add insult to injury, I published the following letter[91] in Physics Today: Heisenberg and QCD I would like to comment on Gerald E. Brown's and Mannque Rho's recent paper "The structure of the nucleon" (February, page 24). At the APS 1982 Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., Brown gave an invited paper entitled "Structure of the Nucleons."[92] After he delivered his paper, I challenged Brown to defend his QCD arguments. I stated that Werner Heisenberg had argued[90] that he was afraid that the quark hypothesis was not really taken seriously by its proponents. He pointed out that they do not deal with the mass dynamics of the transformation of mass from energy to the particle spectrum, and that it was irrational to speculate on the division of quarks into subparticles because it would take many times the rest energy of the particles to produce them. I asked him how he would challenge Heisenberg's arguments. He stated that he could not, and that it would be best to ask this of others since he was a nuclear physicist. In answer to Brown's comment, I have asked other QCD theorists and their supporters how they would challenge Heisenberg's arguments. One prominent particle theorist who presented an invited paper at the same Spring Meeting shouted "No Way!" before I could even finish pronouncing Heisenberg's name. In general, this question has had the same sort of devastating effect on all the physicists I've asked it of. Considering Heisenberg's status, it's no wonder that few physicists are willing to challenge his arguments.... In the April 1982 issue of Physics Today,[93] there appeared an article titled "Instant fame and small fortune" which states: At the San Francisco APS meeting in January, Arthur Schawlow announced the results of a contest he initiated last year (PHYSICS TODAY,March 1981, page 75). In his retiring presidential address he said, "This year, I have sponsored a contest for APS members to propose the best way to publicize their own contributed papers. The contest has been judged by a distinguished panel of graduate students and secretaries, who will remain anonymous for their own safety. "First prize of ten dollars goes to... "Second prize of, five dollars, goes to... "Third prize, a copy of my latest paper, goes to... "Fourth prize, a copy of my two latest papers, goes to Bryan G. Wallace of Eckerd College, who pointed out that the abstracts are reproduced photographically, and so he had been able to use tricks like italics and extra heavy type to make his abstracts stand out.... Actually, the full text of my entry concerned more than dark italic type, and goes as follows: Dear Art: With reference to your open letter that accompanied the 1982 renewal invoice, I would like to enter your "Instant Fame and (small) Fortune contest. We have had a major problem with QCD theorists acting as referees in trying to obtain funding and publication for our mass dynamics research. As an example, one of our NSF proposals was declined because "There was an overwhelming feeling that there is no reason to abandon the conventional and remarkably successful theories of electron and quark interactions in favor of your model which is beset with a number of fatal conceptual difficulties." In order to compensate for this problem we have adopted a policy of presenting current research results in the form of a contributed paper annually, with abstracts published in the Bulletin making an archival record. Since the APS Spring Meeting is traditionally held at or near Washington D.C. we felt we could get the most bang per buck from it. I have devised a number of methods of publicizing the contributed papers. To begin with, I use my trusty old Sears typewriter that has large Italic type, use a new ribbon, and set it for maximum impact to type the published abstract. Enclosed you will find a copy of the abstracts published to date. They stand out like a sore thumb from the other abstracts, and are real eye grabbers. The next tactic is to attend the Spring Meeting symposiums where the QCD super stars are giving their invited papers. The idea is to present short, high impact commercials, our brand (Mass Dynamics) versus the other brand (QCD). Where a TV commercial might use a well known movie or television star to help sell their product, I use statements made by Werner Heisenberg, who of course is a physics super duper star. The statements come from Heisenberg's article "The nature of elementary particles" in the March 1976 issue of "Physics Today." Heisenberg had some nice things to say about mass dynamics and some very nasty things to say about QCD type theories. His statements have made effective stones for the sling of this modern day David. As two examples of what I consider to be the best shots fired to date: At the 1979 HA Special Session To Celebrate The Hundredth Anniversary Of Dr. Albert Einstein's Birth before a packed room of perhaps 1000 physicists, Steven Weinberg presented a talk entitled "Unification of the Forces of Nature." Peter Bergmann who was presiding the session gave me Weinberg's throat mike, we were all standing by the overhead projector. I stated that Heisenberg published a paper on the nature of elementary particles a few years ago in Physics Today, and that in the paper he made the contention that Quark theories are little more than a verbal description of the data table and that we will not understand the nature of the particle spectrum until we invent a theory of the dynamics of matter, then I asked him to comment on this. He was flustered and stated that of course this was a legitimate point of view and there are many problems with trying to develop the mass dynamics of quark theories, then he threw up his hands and in an emotional voice shouted that he just believed in them! At the 1981 JA Symposium "High-Energy Facilities of the Future," Leon Lederman gave a talk on "Future Facilities at Fermilab." I was the first to comment and said that Heisenberg has argued that QCD theories are nothing more than a verbal description of the data and that we would not understand the nature of the particle spectrum until we developed theories of the mass dynamics, and here he was basing his arguments for more funding on theories that were mere verbal descriptions of the data. Perhaps the large accelerators are the SSTs of modern physics and we should let the Europeans waste their money on them and we could spend ours on more important things like physicist's salaries and computers. He answered that of course he would not want to argue with Heisenberg, and that I had a good point and he would like to get with me later and talk about it. After the session, he came over and asked "Why me? Why me? Why didn't you pick on any of the others?" I said he was the first to use QCD to support his argument for more funding. He stated that he felt that if Heisenberg were still alive, he probably would support QCD, look at the Nobel prize, the large number of theorists that support it. I asked him if he had read Heisenberg's article, he said no, but now he was going to make a point to read it. At the end of our conversation, I gave him 2 cents and said it was my share of the money he needed and that I had nothing against accelerators, only quarks. In a 1985 Physics Today article[94] titles "The SSC: A machine for the nineties," Dr. Sheldon L. Glashow and Dr. Leon M. Lederman present the following argument: True, the Standard Model does explain a very great deal. Nevertheless it is not yet a proper theory, principally because it does not satisfy the physicists naive faith in elegance and simplicity. It involves some 17 allegedly fundamental particles and the same number of arbitrary and tunable parameters, such as the fine-structure constants, the muon-electron mass ratio and the various mysterious mixing angles (Cabibbo, Weinberg, Kobayashi-Maskawa). Surely the Creator did not twiddle 17 dials on his black box before initiating the Big Bang, and its glorious sequela, mankind. Our present theory is incomplete, insufficient and inelegant, though it may be long remembered as a significant turning point. It remains for history to record whether, on the threshold of a major synthesis, we chose to turn our backs or to thrust onward. The choice is upon us with the still-hypothetical SSC. In effect, Glashow and Lederman are arguing that after spending billions of dollars on particle accelerators, all we have to show for it is a bunch of worthless mathematics, or what Heisenberg calls using the language of mathematics to produce "a verbal description of the table of data." They want us to spend many more billions of dollars to build the SSC, a machine that is up to 112 miles in circumference and that can accelerate protons to 40 trillion electron volts of energy. They offer the slim hope that if we explore the short-lived trash at the high end of the particle spectrum at energies far beyond that of the stable particles of the everyday world, we might have some additional insight into a unified theory! The 1985 APS retirement address of the particle physicist Dr. Robert R. Wilson that I quoted in Chapter 4, and the above reply to my NSF proposal tends to indicate that the average particle physicist is opposed to a unified theory along the lines presented by Einstein and Heisenberg, and that funding of the SSC could very likely hamper the development of a realistic unified theory that would bring enormous benefits for mankind. At the 1985 APS Spring Meeting, the Nobel prize winning particle physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia gave a talk in which he indicated a major problem in separating the data from the artifacts of machine operation. The only way to be certain of the results, was when different accelerators gave consistent data at the same energies. During the comment and question session following his talk, I asked him if the current accelerators had reached the point of diminishing returns, and he answered "Yes." So we face the prospect of spending many billions of dollars for a machine that will produce uncertain results, of marginal value, a real "white elephant." The following excerpts from the letter published in the July 1988 issue of Physics Today,[95] by Dr. John F. Waymouth of GTE that is titled "WHAT PRICE FUNDING THE SUPER COLLIDER?" brings to bear some interesting arguments on this question: I am an R&D director in industry whose own work is almost entirely company funded. I nevertheless believe that government funding of long-range research in the physical sciences is essential to the future health of the US economy. I am, however, extremely distressed by the direction that recent proposals for such funding are takingÄÄtoward hundreds of millions, ultimately billions of dollars for a gigantic particle accelerator to explore physical phenomena in the tera-electron-volt range. At the same time, I see from my perspective as an eventual "customer" of university- based low-energy plasma, atomic, molecular, electron and optical physics research, and as a former member of the NSF Advisory Committee for Physics, that these areas are being severely constrained by inadequate funding. I believe that this allocation of priorities in funding of the physical sciences would be in error, for the reasons outlined in the following.... This line of reasoning leads me to the conclusion that the only satisfactory argument justifying society's support of physics research over the long term is the fourth one: that physics research in the past has led to a cornucopia of new products, industries and jobs and thereby to the wealth and quality of life that we now enjoy; failure on our part to provide the same kind of support will deprive our children, and our children's children, of similar benefits in the future.... As I reflect back on what physics research has provided to society in the past, I am struck by the fact that not all physics research is uniformly productive of economic benefits. In my own mind, I have divided physics into three basic areas: electron-volt physics, in which energy exchanges on an atomic, molecular or electronic scale are less than 100 000 volts; MeV-GeV physics, which primarily involves nuclear and subnuclear particles; and high-energy physics, covering GeV to TeV and up, involving the structure of subnuclear matter. Out of Ev physics have come electricity and magnetism, telegraphy, telephony, the electric light and power industry, stationary and propulsion electric motors, radio, television, lasers, radar and microwave ovens, to name just a few. In short, it is the core science of the modern world. X rays and the resulting medical physics industry were the high-energy physics of their day, but fall within my definition of Ev physics. Digital computers arose from the computational needs of MeV physics, but the technology for satisfying those needs came entirely out of Ev physics; microminiaturization of those computers for space exploration was accomplished also by Ev physics, resulting in the capability to put computing power undreamed of by John von Neumann in the hands of an elementary school child. Moreover, Ev physics has been the core science in the training of generations of engineers who have invented, developed and improved products in all of the above areas. It is, in addition, the core science in the extremely exciting development of understanding of the detailed processes involved in chemical reactions, and the ultimate understanding of biological reactions and the life process itself. Every single member of our society has been touched in very substantial ways by the accomplishments of Ev physics, and many of them are fully aware of it. MeV-GeV physics has given us radioisotope analysis, a substantial portion of medical physics, and nuclear energy (which a significant, vocal minority of our society regards as an unmitigated curse instead of a blessing). High-energy physics has to date given us nothing.... In my opinion, there is another interpretation. Electron-volt physics is the science of things that happen on Earth; MeV-GeV physics is the science of things that happen in the Sun, the stars and the Galaxy; TeV physics has not happened anywhere in the universe since the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang (except possibly inside black holes, which are by definition unknowable). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that items useful on Earth will come primarily from the branch of physics that deals with what happens here on Earth, with lesser contributions from the science of what happens in the nearby Sun and the intervening space. I firmly believe that this situation is quite fundamental, and that despite the best efforts of many dedicated TeV physicists, the probability that economic benefit to society in the future will result from their activities is very remote: in the phraseology of the research director justifying his budget, "a high-risk, longshot gamble." Waymouth's above article presented the currently popular argument for the justification of funding the SSC, that it will shed light on the phenomena that happened in the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang creation of the entire universe. In examination of this argument we should consider the fact that there is ample evidence that Big Bang creation theories are pathological science at its very worst. Some interesting insight into the development of the Big Bang type of theories is contained in the following excerpts from a recent Physics Today article[96] titled "EDWIN P. HUBBLE AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF COSMOLOGY": ...It is now usual to trace the idea of an expanding universe, at least in the mathematical sense, to two papers[97] published by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann in 1922 and 1924. Friedmann's starting point was the field equations of general relativity that Einstein had developed in 1917,... Rather, the first person to join theory and observation in a way that would come to be widely seen as physically meaningful within the general framework of the expanding universe was, as Helge Kragh has argued convincingly,[98] a 33-year-old Belgian abb‚ and professor at the University of Louvain, Georges LemaŒtre. In 1927 LemaŒtre published what would later be recognized as the seminal paper on the expanding universe.[99] But for a brief time, LemaŒtre's work drew no interest. Even Einstein told LemaŒtre, at the fifth Solvay conference in 1927, that he did not accept the notion of the expanding universe or the physics underpinning the paper.... Hubble was always careful in print to avoid definitely interpreting the redshifts as Doppler shifts. But the writings of Eddington and others soon meshed the calculations of LemaŒtre and various theorists with Hubble's observational research on the redshift-distance relation. The notion of the expanding universe was swiftly accepted by many, and the linear relationship between redshift and distance was later widely accepted as Hubble's law. ...But Eddington explicitly rejected the notion of a creation of the universe, as seemed to be implied by a universe with more mass than the Einstein universe, because "it seems to require a sudden and peculiar beginning of things."... During the early 1930s several people, including a sometime collaborator of Hubble's, the Caltech mathematical physicist Richard C. Tolman, examined possible physical mechanisms to explain the expansion. Of course an alternative explanation of the expansion was that it really did start with the beginning of the entire universe, and it was LemaŒtre who introduced this concept into the cosmological practice of the 1930s. In 1931 he suggested the first detailed example of what later became known as Big Bang cosmology. But unlike the universe of modern Big Bang theories, LemaŒtre's universe did not evolve from a true singularity but from a material pre-universe, what LemaŒtre referred to as the "primeval atom".[98] Additional insight into Hubble's views of this matter comes from the following material taken from a 1986 article[100] by Dr. Barry Parker of the Idaho State University, titled "Discovery of the Expanding Universe": It was evident by now, however, that Hubble's attitude had changed. He no longer referred to his graph as a velocity-distance relation, though still confident that his distance scale was reasonably accurate. The interpretation of redshifts as velocities bothered him, and he now referred to "apparent velocity displacements." This wording implied there were other possibilities, and indeed there were.... Lemaitre's theory also predicted an expanding universe, so in itself it probably did not bother Hubble. However, a paper published the same year by his Mount Wilson colleague Fritz Zwicky apparently did. Zwicky was convinced that the redshift did not necessarily indicate motion; he was sure that the extremely large speeds recently obtained by Humason were impossible. As an alternative, Zwicky introduced the idea that the redshifts were due to an interaction between light and matter in space. The light gradually lost energy, which shifted it, and the spectral lines, to redder wavelengths. The farther away an object, the more its light would "tire" during the trip to Earth.... He was now very close to the limit of the 100-inch telescope, but there was a new one on the horizon, the 200-inch. He was confident that this instrument would enable astronomers to resolve, once and for all, most of the major cosmological problems.... With regard to Hubble's expectation that the 200-inch would resolve the problem, the following information taken from a recent article[101] published in THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL by Dr. Paul A. LaViolette, and titled "IS THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPANDING", shows that the current evidence supports the Zwicky tired-light model. The abstract of the article reads: The no-evolution, tired-light model and the no-evolution, qo = 0, expanding universe cosmology are compared against observational data on four kinds of cosmological tests. On all four tests the tired-light model is found to make the better fit to the data without requiring the ad hoc introduction of assumptions about rapid galaxy evolution. The data may be interpreted in the simplest fashion if space is assumed to be Euclidean, galaxies cosmologically static, evolutionary effects relatively insignificant, and photon energy nonconserved, with photons losing about 5%-7% of their energy for every 109 light years of distance traveled through intergalactic space. The observation that redshifts are quantized may be accommodated by a version of the tired- light model in which photon energy decreases occur incrementally in a stepwise fashion. The introduction of the article starts with: The notion that the cosmological redshift is a non- Doppler phenomenon in which photons continuously undergo an energy depletion or "aging" effect is not new. This idea was first suggested by Zwicky (1929). Later, Hubble and Tolman (1935) discussed this alternative, postulating that photon energy was depleted in a linear fashion with increasing photon travel distance. Hubble (1936) claimed that his galaxy number count results strongly supported the linear energy depletion hypothesis.... On the 2nd page of the article LaViolette writes: The performance of the tired-light and expanding universe comologies are evaluated on four cosmological tests: the angular size-redshift test, the Hubble diagram test, the galaxy number-count-magnitude test, and the number-count- flux density test (log dN/dS-log S test). It is determined that on all four tests the tired-light model exhibits superior performance. That is, it makes the best fit to the data with the fewest number of assumptions. Finally, the redshift quantization phenomenon is briefly discussed. Although not a cosmological test per se, this phenomenon is something that any candidate cosmology must somehow address. It is shown that redshift quantization is quite compatible with the tired-light model. On the other hand, when the expanding universe hypothesis is adhered to, ad hoc assumptions must be introduced about the possible existence of macroscopic dynamical quantization in the universe's expanding motion. In the CONCLUSION LaViolette states: ...It is concluded that the tired-light model makes a better fit on all four data sets. The expanding universe hypothesis may be considered plausible only if it is modified to include specific assumptions regarding the evolution of galaxy cluster size, galaxy radio lobe size, galaxy luminosity, and galaxy number density. In addition, if the redshift quantization effect is also to be accounted for, special assumptions must be introduced regarding the operation of dynamical quantization on a cosmological scale. But the required assumptions are numerous. Consequently, the tired-light model is preferred on the basis of simplicity. Presently available observational data, therefore, appear to favor a cosmology in which the universe is conceived of as being stationary, Euclidean, and slowly evolving, and which photons lose a small fraction of their total energy for every distance increment they cover on their journey through space. In a recent review[102] of a book[103] titled "QUASARS, REDSHIFTS, AND CONTROVERSIES" published by Dr. Halton Arp, the world-renowned astrophysicist Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge, writes: Chip Arp started with impeccable credentials. Educated at Harvard and Caltech, after a short spell at Indiana he was appointed to a staff position at the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories, where he remained for 29 years. A little more than 20 years ago Arp began to devote all his time to extragalactic astronomy. At first he compiled the marvelous Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. Then he started to find what he believed were physical associations between some of these galaxies and previously identified powerful radio sources. Soon he found many cases of apparent associations between galaxies and quasi-stellar objects, or quasars. All of this would have been completely acceptable if the associated objects had the same redshifts, but they did not. Yet Arp believed in the reality of the associations, and, after struggles with referees, his papers were published. Others were finding similar results, and soon the terms "nonvelocity redshifts" (those not associated with the expansion of the universe) and "local" (as distinct from distant, or "cosmological") quasars entered the literature. Arp's ranking in the "Association of Astronomy Professionals" plunged from within the first 20 to below 200. As he continued to claim that not all galaxy redshifts were due to the expansion of the universe, his ranking dropped further. About four years ago came the final blow: his whole field of research was deemed unacceptable by the telescope- allocation committee in Pasadena. Both directors (of Mount Wilson and Las Campanas, and Palomar, observatories) endorsed the censure. Since Arp refused to work in a more conventional field, he was given no more telescope time. After abortive appeals all the way up to the trustees of the Carnegie Institution, he took early retirement and moved to West Germany. Earlier, Fritz Zwicky had also been frequently criticized by his colleagues in Pasadena (by coincidence?). Zwicky remained a staff member at Mount Wilson and Palomar until he retired, but much of his work continued to be ignored or derided until some years after his death. Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies contains Arp's account of his own work and that of others leading, in his mind, to the conclusion that redshifts are not always correlated with distances. It also contains his personal view of the way he has been treated. When he is critical of others, he omits their names. Zwicky was more blunt in his Morphological Astronomy.... The other part of this learning process has been unpleasant, probably because I have a strong instinct for fair play. It may be argued that this is no substitute for good judgement. But neither are the tactics that have been used by those who want to maintain the status quo. These include interminable refereeing, blackballing of speakers at meetings, distortion and misquotation of the written word, rewriting of history, and worst of all, the denial of telescope time to those who are investigating what some believe are the wrong things. Thus, for both scientific and sociological reasons, I am sympathetic to Arp.... In my view the best evidence for the existence of noncosmological redshifts is the following: the three quasars within 2 arc minutes of the center of NGC 1073, each have a redshift at a peak in the distribution found earlier; the low-redshift quasar Markarian 205 joined to NGC 4319; the pair of galaxies NGC 7603 and its companion, which are connected by a luminous bridge but have very different redshifts; and the statistical evidence relating many quasars to bright ÄÄ not faint ÄÄ galaxies.... One of the most fascinating chapters describes the idea that the alignments of objects with different redshifts are not accidental, but real, implying that galaxies can eject objects, up to and including other galaxies... Dr. I. E. Segal of M.I.T. has published an article[104] that examines the claim that the cosmic background radiation is evidence in support of the Big Bang theories. In the last sentence of the article, he states: ...Unless it can be shown that a temporally homogeneous universe is not physically sustainable, and this has not been possible even in the specific, nonparametric case of the chronometric cosmology, a claim for the big bang theory that it is the natural or logical explanation for the CBR and its apparently Planck law spectrum would appear untenable. With regard to the current evidence on the radiation, a recent article[134] titled "Background radiation deepens the confusion for big bang theorists" states: THE LATEST results from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite are continuing to mystify astronomers. They show that the matter of the early Universe was spread so smoothly that it is difficult to understand how galaxies and clusters of galaxies could have formed (New Scientist,Science, 19 December). Astronomers presented the results last week at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington DC. Although the results confirm those released earlier, they are from observations of the whole sky rather than from just a small portion (This Week,20 January). COBE was launched earlier this year to observe the cosmic background radiation, the remnant radiation of the big bang in which the Universe was born 15 billion years ago. The radiation was created a mere 300 000 years after the big bang. By determining how smoothly that radiation is distributed across the sky we can learn how smoothly matter was distributed at that epoch. "These measurements are more and more puzzling," says Michael Hauser of the NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center. The COBE data show that 300 000 years after the big bang, the matter of the Universe had a density uniform to one part in 10,000. Many of the scientists at the meeting expressed concern that many accepted theories of galaxy formation will have to go if the data build up and continue to show there is no variation in the background radiation. Galaxies could only have condensed from the stuff of the big bang if it was lumpy. "We will be surprised if we don't start seeing wiggles at the level of one part in 100 000 of accuracy," said David Wilkinson of Princeton University. "If COBE gets to [one part in a million] and still sees things smooth big bang theories will be in a lot of trouble." According to George Smoot of the University of California, Berkeley, the data from COBE are really more accurate than one part in 10,000, but the scientists are not revealing these data until they have a chance to correct for any systematic errors. They hinted, however, that they have found nothing even at this level of detail. There was a 1/3/91 article in my local St. Petersburg Times newspaper that was reprinted from The New York Times. The title of the article was Big Bang theory turning out to be big bust and the abstract states: Satellite research casts doubt on a key part of the widely held theory of how the universe was formed. Two paragraphs in the middle of the article state: In a report published today in the journal Nature, they said the theory in its present form must be abandoned. The journal noted that the report by Dr. Will Saunders of Oxford University and colleagues "is all the more remarkable for coming from a group of authors that includes some of the theory's long time supporters." The Big Bang theories fit all of Langmuir's rules for pathological science, but in particular, they fit his 4th one of "Fantastic theories contrary to experience." For example, the following is the sort of fantastic arguments one finds in most modern text books on this matter: ...These new theories are call Grand Unified Theories or GUTs. Studies of GUTs suggest that the universe expanded and cooled until about 10-35 seconds after the big bang, at which time it became so cool that the forces of nature began to separate from each other. This released tremendous amounts of energy, which suddenly inflated the universe by a factor between 1020 and 1030. At that time the part of the universe that we can see now, the entire observable universe, was no larger than the volume of an atom, but it suddenly inflated to the volume of a cherry pit and then continued its slower expansion to its present extent.... [8 p.325] As another example of the fantastic type of arguments one finds in scientific journals, the following was taken from a article[105] titled "The Inflationary Universe" that was published in the prestigious journal Scientific American: From a historical point of view probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing. This claim stands in marked contrast to centuries of scientific tradition in which it was believed that something cannot come from nothing. Bryan cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Richard Blue / Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Blue comments on Cravens demo Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:20:21 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Martin Sevior suggests that my "chemical energy transport" idea would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, his argument is based on an assumption that I do not believe is justified by the available information concerning the demo. Martin assumes that the entire portion of the fluid circuit that is external to the dewar is at a temperature lower than the cell in the dewar. In the external circuit the electrolyte gives up heat to the ambient air in a monotonic fashion. I question whether the facts we have to work with support this view of the basic thermodynamics involved. I believe John N. White in his comments correctly describes the situation. There are some other system components in the external loop that should be considered in this analysis. The pump, in particular, is quit likely to operate at a temperature above the general ambient. In fact I don't see how you can avoid heating the fluid to some extent while it is passing through the pump and the filter. I don't believe that we have been given the fluid temperatures in all parts of the system. While we are on the subject of the room temperature, how many of you are aware that there is a significant error term that can creep into the calorimetry if the ambient temperature is changing? Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / Richard Blue / Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 16:30:20 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Mitchell Swartz takes exception to my statement concerning the lack of direct evidence for nuclear reaction processes in CF. He says: < Generally speaking, helium-4 is made in the Pd system. ...> < Other products occur if the samples are of low purity or > < coherence length. > Such assertions should have something to back them up, so let us explore this further to see if we can determine the basis for Mitchell's position on this question. I understand the meaning of "purity" as it relates to Pd samples, but I have to ask whether purity is actually tested in the crucial experiments. Furthermore has there been a careful determination of how purity level relates to helium production, or is this one of those assertions for which there is little evidence? I am at a disadvantage, however, when it comes to a discussion of "coherence length" an applied to Pd samples. Is this an experimental parameter that has been measured during the course of the successful experiments? Where is this terminology introduced into the CF literature? I have never seen it before. Now to move on to actual experimental data regarding the production of helium or "other products." Mitchell makes extensive reference to the work of Miles and Bush which is purported to show that helium-4 is produced in quantities commensurate with observed excess heat. Is all of this based entirely on the Miles-Bush investigations? One problem to be addressed is replication. Have there not been other attempts (McKubre and Pons & Fleischmann, for example) to detect helium-4 without success? Steve Jones has addressed most of the Miles-Bush experimental issues in detail so I see no need for me to repeat all of that. The basic questions have to do with contamination by atmospheric helium, low precision calorimetric techniques, and failure to deal with recombination adequately. To that list I would add a suspect method for determination of the calorimeter constant and the errors associated with that measurement as well as a failure to conform to cold fusion orthodoxy with respect to deuterium loading and current density. Clearly the initial series of measurements by Miles and Bush in which gas samples were transported from California to Texas in glass flasks without adequate control samples proved to be an embarrassment so the measurements were repeated, in part, using metalic sampling flasks. My question is whether other key parts of the apparatus were changed to reduce the capacity for helium storage and/or penetration? One underlying mystery relating to the Miles-Bush results is why the helium is detected in the evolving gas stream rather than the electrolyte or the Pd sample where one might assume it originates. I would also ask why it is that mass spectrometry is the only technique employed for helium detection when there is a clear problem associated with the detection of helium-4 in a deuterium atmosphere. As for whether the helium is actual produced in quantities commensurate with the excess heat, that clearly can be no better than a very rough approximation. Now Mitchell further indicates that other reaction products and/or radiation have been detected in conjunction with CF investigations, but on this point we quickly run into a swamp of rather vague assertions derived from an assortment of data. I don't believe anyone has made much sense out of this and the results are clearly all over the map and seldom show any clear replication in detail. On this point Mitchell and I will clearly disagree as to which experimental techniques will yield the most significant results. He accuses me of favoring only neutron detection results and dismisses that option by an assertion that the reactions, due to some undefined mechanism, simply do not involve neutron emission. I would ask that someone explain this before it gets accepted as being a perfectly ordinary thing to have happen. I will, however, not insist that neutron detection is the only diagnosic that may be considered. I would find charged particle detection, gamma measurements, and X-ray detection to be well suited to the task at hand; provided they are done in an appropriately specific manner. This brings me to another point of long-standing disaggrement with Mitchell. He considers autoradiographs as a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate that some nuclear reaction process is associated with CF. The only advantage I can see in the use of this technique is that the results are no nonspecific that very little can be learned concerning the nature, intensity, and timing of the process that leads to a darkening of the film. It seems rather silly to have this kind of data being used in the CF debate when clearly what is needed is a better class of measurement. As I would summarize the current situation, we have only the Miles-Bush investigation to support any claim that helium-4 is the major reaction product for cold fusion in the PdD system. That result, and most others, involving radiation detection have not been well replicated. Then to add to the confusion we have the claims that cold fusion has also been observed in systems that have no deuterium. In these cases the claims for detection of nuclear reaction products are yet more rare. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / James Stolin / Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote" Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote" Date: 15 Jun 1995 15:50:42 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >***{Jim, we can let issues like this be decided by the number of people >who are "pissed off." If we do, we destroy the diversity that gives value >to usenet, and we also destroy the ability of access providers to sell >connect time to non-techies (i.e., to members of the general public). Mitch, The majority of people like the books on the library shelves sorted by subject, author or some other recognizable pattern. People also like things in the grocery store in some semblance of order. Persons disrupting the ordered systems get kicked out of libraries and grocery stores. >Think about it: if majority rule dominates here, then access providers >will lose their competitive advantage over the mainstream media--i.e., >they will find themselves trying to persuade people to pay to connect to >the grey uniformity of a medium that offends no one, in preference to the >grey uniformity of the mainstream media with which people are already >familiar. Result: the explosive growth of the internet will cease and the >companies that provide connect services will find the prices of their >stocks to be in a major bear market. Many will go bankrupt, and the growth >potential of those that remain will be vastly less than it was before. >Bottom line: this is a serious matter that deserves careful consideration. This is highly unlikely. We are not looking for a gray uniformity, just a semblence of order. Mr Wallace is not only ignoring the basic, loose collection or netiquette "rules" (yes-there ARE rules). He is also ignoring the charter of this group. I AM an advocate of free speech. However, free speech does not imply the right to curse in church, spout communist propaganda at a Nazi convention or Nazi rhetoric at a communist convention. Were spammers such as Wallace to disappear overnight, there would be NO dire consequences such as you predict. Instead, many more would be using the net for meaningful discussion instead of fleeing to moderated, private mailing lists. The public flow of ideas and discussion suffers when that happens. >We all love the internet and want it to succeed and grow. For that reason, >it behooves us to focus on, and understand, the conditions that are >necessary to support that growth. The decisions that are being made now >have the potential to have disastrous consequences in the future. >--Mitchell Jones}*** We would like to see the Internet grow. However, spam postings choke bandwidth and generally make the net a less pleasurable (and usable) tool than it would otherwise be. - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / James Stolin / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: 15 Jun 1995 16:22:34 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > >Result: you flood him with e-mail in >such volume that he literally doesn't have time to sift out the real >messages from the bogus ones. Mitchel, Why can't you see that this is the reason the volume of duplicate spam posts by Mr Wallace that is objectionable? If everyone flooded the net with posts in such volume readers wouldn't have the time to sift out the real messages from the bogus ones. - Jim Stolin - Illinois Computer Service - fknf40a@prodigy.com Opinions are my own ... but could be yours. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / A Plutonium / Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!) Date: 15 Jun 1995 16:53:16 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > Now that I have apologized for Morrison, maybe I should work on a mea culpa > for you too, Steve. You apparently launched another one of your patented sneak > attacks in this latest bogus "paper" that "proves" Miles is wrong. Naturally, > you did not tell him what you were up to. He was mighty upset when he found > out you intended to publish without giving him a chance to review the paper or > respond. He sent me copies of the letters he wrote, and asked me to post them > on Internet. I find the whole story so sordid that I have avoided posting > them. I was hoping that at the last moment you might reconsider and act like a > scientist and a scholar. But no, I see you went ahead with it, so maybe I will > go ahead and post the truth about you again. I apologize in advance for > showing the world what a slimeball you are. > > - Jed Jed, I wonder if you would give us your views as to why it seems so easy for Steve Jones and for Morrison to get their propaganda published. I mean, C&EN is not what I consider a below board publication. Not only me, but other participants in cold fusion probably wonder the same thing. Do the skeptics have the market cornered on getting their views published? And if this is the case, I wonder if us pro-fusioners could force these publishers into "equal time" provided we care to. For example, if Jones gets 3 pages in C&EN, then pro-fusioners ought to have equal space and pages in the same journal, provided we care to. My personal opinion is that anti-fusioners are backed indirectly by hot-fusioners who call up these presses and say "Hey it is now time to run another destructive critique on so and so's cold fusion experiment, send your editor out to give Jones 5 pages and the cover of your magazine for June." cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.14 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:05:21 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <1995Jun14.162810.3272@nosc.mil>, north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North) wrote: > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > >In article , Dieter > >Britz wrote: > > >> Well, Bryan, now it's you trying to restrict other's freedom to email, eh? > >> By your own argument, if anyone feels like sending you Mb of fan(e)mail, > >> they have a perfect right to do so, right? I doubt that Logajan is in fact > >> doing that, he is no rash mouth frother, I'm just making a point. You need > >> not call the FBI, you need only stop cross posting to this group. > >> > >> By the way, note that although Wallace's post went out to all those groups > >> (alien.visitors etc etc), I removed all except this one; it can be done. > >> This is for those who don't know that. > > >And there you have it, folks: plain as the nose on your face. Dieter Britz > >has apparently forcibly removed Mr. Wallace's posts without his consent, > >via a cancelbot. > > Since you are obviously a clueless newbie allow me to help you out. > First, you need to go over to news.announce.newusers and browse a > while. While there, ask someone about setting followups or trimming > the Newsgroups: line. This is what Dieter is referring to. It is called > netiquette. Its purpose is to reduce irrelevant crossposts. ***{I acknowledged the presence of ambiguity in my interpretation of Britz' post in my original reply to it (by repeated use of "apparently" when refering to the cancelbot theory), and more explicitly in a post later that night on the same topic. Since both of these articles were posted before your present article, your leap to the conclusion that I am a "clueless newbie" is unwarranted. As it happens, I have already posted an article in this thread discussing the possibility that Dieter's intent was as you said. In it, I conclude that he is either guilty of muddled thinking (because he switched the meaning of a key term in mid-sentence) or else that he meant exactly what I took him to mean. To attempt to resolve the issue, I asked him which interpretation was the correct one. Thus far, he has not replied. You, apparently, regard it as "obvious" that Dieter's thinking was muddled when he wrote the sentence in question, just as you regard it as "obvious" that my interpretation arose out of ignorance. You are wrong on both counts. --Mitchell Jones}*** > Next, buy yourself a good dictionary and practice using it on these > words: > > censorship ***{Already discussed in vast detail here. Where were you? --Mitchell Jones}*** > logic ***{Up and coming, if you turkeys have the guts to claim that Dieter Britz' sentence didn't arise due to muddled thinking. Come on, I double dog dare you to try! :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** > persuasion ***{Already discussed in vast detail. Where were you? --Mitchell Jones}*** > civility ***{Somewhat, but you guys have pointedly ignored the obvious: that it is uncivil to use bullying and intimidation against a person who is doing the best he can, especially given that other measures are readily available to deal with him. I'll not repeat here the already vast discussion given to such measures. Suffice it to say: where were you? --Mitchell Jones}*** > etiquette ***{Likewise. --MJ}*** > paranoia ***{The defense of freedom requires eternal vigilance. It is not paranoia to object when one's rights are under attack. --Mitchell Jones}*** > obnoxious ***{An appropriate description of yourself. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Then, with the change you get from buying the dictionary, buy yourself > a clue. ***{Appropriate advice for yourself. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >For those who do not understand, a "cancelbot" is a > >program that sends out an internet packet designed to masquerade as a > >packet from the person who posted the message that is being canceled. In > >this case, the packet would masquerade as one sent by Mr. Wallace, thereby > >fooling the server software at the thousands of connect sites that carry, > >in the named case, alt.alien.visitors, into thinking the packet was sent > >by Mr. Wallace and was a request by him to delete his article. What we > >have here, apparently, is an act of deliberate fraud committed by Dieter > >Britz, with the intent of abridging Mr. Wallace's rights under the first > >amendment. > > Yeah, how dare he. Let's declare war on Denmark. You ass. ***{My, my, that's impressive! Is this a demonstration of the "goon squad" in action? Boy, I'm really intimidated. I'm gonna shut up right now, your Royal Higness, Sir! --Mitchell Jones}*** After you > get through drooling on your dictionary ask at your high school if you > can get into a class on US government. ***{Appropriate advice for yourself, your Royal Highness, Sir! --Mitchell Jones}*** In that class you will learn that > the 1st amendment is a set of restrictions placed on Congress not on > individuals. It is not a violation of the 1st amendment if someone > stuffs a sock in your mouth because you are an obnoxious asshole. ***{Right. Stand up an shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, and then try that defense in court, your Royal Highness, Sir! But then, since you are an expert on drool, I suppose it would be dangerous for you to stand up quickly, since you might then slip and fall in that which you are an expert in. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >Accordingly, I advise Mr. Wallace to report this act to his > >internet provider, and to consult with his attorney. > > While we're waving lawyers around perhaps Dieter should get one and > go after you for libeling him. ***{As noted above, I acknowledged the ambiguity of interpretation both in my original post and in all the follow-ups to it. I would have a far better case against you than he would have against me, if I had idle time on my hands to waste wallowing in the gutter with the likes of you. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >Is there anyone out there who doubts, at this point, that these people are > >exactly what I have been saying they were from the beginning? Is there > >anyone out there who cannot see that if this can be done to Wallace, it > >can be done to any of us? > > It certainly wouldn't break my heart if someone did it to you. ***{Gee, why am I not surprised! After all, that's why you guys call yourselves the goon squad, isn't it? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > [incredible rant deleted ] > > Thanks for urinating on our doorstep. The toilet is just down the hall > next to alt.conspiracy. ***{I am glad to see that you claim expertise in urination as well as drool. My previous advice about not standing up quickly also applies in this other area of your expertise. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >You guys better move on this. And you better move big. And you better move > >fast. If you don't, your investments are going to flush right down the > >toilet, and the internet is going to go down with them. > > BTW, ask your doctor to up your Thorazine -- it's not working. > > Mark ***{I'll bet dollars against donuts that you know exactly how it feels when thorazine isn't working. --Mitchell Jones}*** =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.14 / 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: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:52:58 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <3rkajr$eh@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-1306950807510001@austin-1-2.i-link.net> > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > > >***{You are missing, or ignoring, Mr. Cagle's point--to wit: that in the > >specific case of cold fusion (which, coincidentally, happens to be the > >case under discussion!) there is an obvious, crying need for a new, > >generalized explanatory framework. > > I never saw that point being made in what Wallace has written in a > debate that appears mostly on the history and philosophy of a part > of physics unrelated to fusion, hot or cold. ***{Why does it matter who made the point? The point is valid, and because it is valid, Wallace's posts are relevant to sci.physics.fusion. --Mitchell Jones}*** And if he does choose > to post some views on cold fusion, he should post that subject to > this group and not the other sci groups he has been using. ***{Despite the twinge from my carpal tunnel, I must say again: this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But Wallace is also entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to act on that opinion. This is an unmoderated newsgroup. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > "Cold fusion" is impossible within the > >context of mainstream physics, Mr. Kondis! > > That statement is false. It is well known that cold fusion includes > muon catalyzed fusion, which is perfectly consistent with mainstream > physics. ***{Muon catalyzation doesn't explain the Pons-Fleischman results, or the numerous claimed confirmations of their results, nor the numerous results of similar experiments and devices (e.g., the Patterson Power Cell, the Hydrosonic Pump, etc.). Either there is no excess energy being produced by these devices, or else a new generalized explanatory framework is called for. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > Thus if it is real, a new > >approach to the fundamentals of physics is called for, and that > >possibility renders relevant a serious attention to new fundamental views > >of physics, even when the material doesn't deal directly with "cold > >fusion" by name. > > No. If that new approach is capable of explaining some of the data > associated with cold fusion, that aspect of the theory belongs here. > We have given attention to all sorts of new theories that purport to > explain cold fusion, but there is no point to burying this group under > a deluge of posts that have nothing to do with cold fusion and make > no claims to explain anything to do with cold fusion. ***{Correct, there is no point to that, and it isn't happening, because sane people make a good faith effort to post their articles to forums where they will elicit responses, as Wallace clearly is doing. If you guys want Wallace to apply his theories to "cold fusion," don't send him "nastygrams." Instead, post messages to his thread asking him questions about his theories and their relation to "cold fusion." If he ignores such posts, he will be admitting that he truly has nothing to say on this subject, and will thereby lend credence to your claims about the irrelevancy of his material. At that point, I will agree with you guys, because the ambiguity will vanish. If, when asked, Wallace says nothing about this topic, then I will assume that he has nothing to say, and will support an effort to persuade access providers to delete his posts from this newsgroup. The reason I will support it in that case, however, will be that we will have, at that point, unambiguous, ironclad proof that his posts are irrelevant to this group. At that point, and at that point only, will it be possible to act without connotations of censorship. My whole point, from the beginning, has been to protect the internet from efforts that threaten our freedom of speech, not to protect Wallace or any other individual. Please understand what I am saying here: I propose an experimental test of the theory that Wallace has nothing to say about this topic. You say he doesn't, and so I challenge you to objectively test that belief by posting into his threads and entering into dialogue with him on matters that you consider to be relevant. And be fair: give him a reasonable time to answer depending on the difficulty of the point raised. This is the kind and gentle way to deal with people whom we suspect of being off topic, and it is a way to gather ironclad evidence to support removal of a person's posts should that prove necessary. Moreover, if you guys refuse to test your theory that Wallace has nothing to say on this topic--if, instead, you continue collecting votes, sending "nastygrams," and generally behaving like would-be censors--then I believe that a lot of people are going to conclude that that's exactly what you are. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > -- > James A. Carr | "My pet light bulb is a year old > http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | today. That is 5.9 trillion miles > Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | in light years. Your mileage may > Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | vary." -- Heywood Banks =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy14 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.06.15 / John White / Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames! Date: 15 Jun 1995 06:47:51 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: [Discussion of stored heat hypothesis of Griggs steam run.] jedrothwell@delphi.com replies: > I am SURE you can recall that I observed the gadget generate excess heat for > hours, and others have observed it run for weeks. That fact shoots your > theory down. Ratatatatata!!! Boom! Crash and burn. You are confusing the hot water mode of the Griggs' devise with the steam mode. These are completely different and unrelated modes of operation. In the hot water mode the device can run for months, but produces low levels of excess heat. In the steam mode the device can produce much higher levels of excess heat, but it only does so briefly. In the hot water mode the input power does not drop during excess heat production. In the steam mode the input power drops, while the output power remains high. The stored heat hypothesis explains all known data about the steam mode. The hot water mode has a completely different explanation. -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun 16 04:37:07 EDT 1995 ------------------------------