1995.06.17 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:20:00 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: 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? 

Funny.  I thought the conventional explanation has been working fine
since at least the early 1930s or so. 

Namely, you can compute the matrix element of transition probability
to emit photons from a hydrogen atom, and there isn't one for electrons
in the ground state, so no radiation.

: dave

matt
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / John White /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:17:47 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
> Two reports, one steam mode and one hot water mode were posted here quite
> some time back by Gene Mallove.  They consisted of something on the order
> of 10-20 minutes worth of one minute samples (by computer data acquisition)
> based on input temperature, output temperature, flow rate, and dynometer'd
> power input.
>
> The coefficient of production was above unity and there was no trend in
> the COP that would indicated a cooling effect, as one would expect if
> the thermal mass of that size was giving up its stored heat.

I would expect the COP to stay the same, or even rise as the rotor cooled.

Try heating a lump of aluminum to near its melting point, submerging
it in water, and measuring the rate of heat flow as it cools.
You will find that the lump coats itself with a layer of insulating
steam, and that as the lump cools the insulating layer becomes less
insulating. So even though the the temperature is dropping, the
rate of heat flow can actually increase.

There is good evidence that the aluminum rotor of the Griggs device
gets quite hot. Occasionally it even shows signs of melting (660 degC).

> Can't have cooling without seeing evidence of its decay curve in the
> measured data.

There is no measured data for the aluminum rotor, which is what is
cooling.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 /  hench@utia.cas /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: hench@utia.cas.cz ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 16:19:05 +0000

In article <3RPUVD$CAG@PAPERBOY.OSF.ORG>, condict@ziti.osf.org 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?
>
> [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

Actually, here in the Czech Republic, there is a company
named Tesla. They make all thinks electric, and have been
around for a long time. We don't have a ``Lidi'' [People]
magazine yet, though... :-)

--
***********************************************************
** J.J. Hench  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic **
** Institute of Information Theory and Automation (UTIA) **
***********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhench cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 17 Jun 1995 03:35:44 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rp7sc$6jk@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David  
Baraff) writes:
> In article <p03e17w.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> 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.

Well, really I can't be too down on old Jed. I mean, he does put a lot of leg  
work into keeping up on and investigating cold fusion-ish thing.

However, there is just some thin mental line that separates me from 
Jed: while I dearly wish CF were true, and while I think various
experiments, such as Cravens, Griggs, etc, are quite interesting, 
I am not so quick to abandon exisitng science. Jed, on the other hand, 
seems to make the break quite freely. Some, the incredible magnitude
of the claim does not weigh on him. 

So, I guess I'm an eternal optimist but at the core demand strong
proof (its that Phd in math, I guess :-), while Jed's standard of proof
are lower.

But, Jed will pay dearly for this when the CF truth unfolds, and perhaps
he will learn a lesson.

(And I have long since paid those dues---in the process of becoming
a mathematician, one learns a hard lesson that the error is always in
the part of the ``proof'' that seemed obvious...)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / 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: 17 Jun 1995 03:59:49 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

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

Mitch or whoever you are,

   I am not a latecomer to the thread.  I've been here all along but just 
don't post that often.

   Why are you so suddenly concerned about bandwidth?  Why are you NOT 
concerned about the bandwidth consumed by Wallaces's spams?  You haven't 
answered qustions such as these.  Bandwidth consumed by posts that are 
not spams is bandwidth well used.

   DON'T send anything to me via EMAIL.  I've already received a long 
rambling EMAIL supposedly from you but my reply was bounced as an invalid 
address.  NO, I didn't mistype.  My software automatically generates the 
reply address.

  It's really rather curuious that you have a flaky account and when I 
bring this up you get concerned about bandwidth.  It's also rather 
strange that when a controversy arises concerning Wallace's spams, you 
mysteriously appear as his champion knight.  Then you call ME a latecomer 
to the thread.  Don't look now, but your curious double standard is 
showing again.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / John Logajan /  cooling
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cooling
Date: 17 Jun 1995 03:52:15 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

John N. White (jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net) wrote:
: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
: > The coefficient of production was above unity and there was no trend in
: > the COP that would indicated a cooling effect, as one would expect if
: > the thermal mass of that size was giving up its stored heat.

: I would expect the COP to stay the same, or even rise as the rotor cooled.

: Try heating a lump of aluminum to near its melting point, submerging
: it in water, and measuring the rate of heat flow as it cools.
: You will find that the lump coats itself with a layer of insulating
: steam, and that as the lump cools the insulating layer becomes less
: insulating. So even though the the temperature is dropping, the
: rate of heat flow can actually increase.

: There is good evidence that the aluminum rotor of the Griggs device
: gets quite hot. Occasionally it even shows signs of melting (660 degC).


Well there is a glaring flaw in your analysis -- if there is a thermal
insulator (in the form of a layer of steam) that is conserving the
stored heat, then the COP will not be boosted much.  If the COP is
boosted (due to release of thermal storage) then the insulative
layer cannot be functioning significantly.

A very good insulative layer would result in a low COP but slow
cooling,  a very poor insulative layer would result in a high COP
by fast cooling.

You cannot mix both a high COP and a slow cooling unless the thermal
mass is even far greater than we have previously estimated.

--
 - 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:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / 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: 17 Jun 1995 04:33:39 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

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

It is a fact that Wallace spams the net. 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.

True, not everyone floods the net with spam posts.  However, Wallace is 
one of a few that do.

>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,

   It's not difficult to form a judgement.  Look at the newsgroups 
Wallace spams.  It would be nice if Wallace posted about alien visitors 
in alt.alien.visitors and about fusion in sci.physics.fusion.

> 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.

   The few in number is more than overshadowed by the overly long posts.  
Gentle means havce been tried before.  They failed and Wallace's site had 
to take action.

>Another is to attempt to enter into dialogue with him, not
>about the irrelevant aspects of his posts, but about the relevant 
aspects.

  Dialog has been tried.  It didn't work.  Other means become necessary.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 17 Jun 1995 04:05:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3rn2q6$o0p@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> Horacio Gasquet,
gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu writes:
(Fears about next year's budget.)

>     1)  They cut everything except for ITER as proposed (some small 
> exceptions may exist)
> 
>     2)  University level research is killed and people everywhere are 
> layed off right as I am graduating.  (Not that I am staying in fusion)

I just started to realize that if the cuts go *really* deep, then
all the obvious spin-off fields (other areas of plasma research,
Wall-Street type jobs, industry, etc) will be glutted with physicists
too.  So even if you leave the field it's likely to be tough.  Damn!
 
>     3)  A year or two down the road they cancel ITER because it was 
> conceived in another budget climate and we really cannot afford it.

It's definitely not going to be a fun summer around here either.

Gridlock doesn't seem so bad when you're about to get run over!

I used to think speaking up for science didn't matter too much
(though I enjoyed it), but now, hearing American political leaders
spouting the same sort of confused and technically inaccurate
stuff that Limbaugh does, it's clear that that attitude won't work.

I think the act of sharing one's science with the public (so that 
they *understand* it, at least at some level, and aren't simply
trying to balance your voice against someone else's to decide who
is right by the sound of things) should be a considered a professional 
responsibility as important as doing the original research in the 
first place.  Science is obviously valuable as it becomes new 
technology and improved standards of living, but people don't seem
to realize that you can't have the benefits without doing the research
first.  Of course, the current Republican plan for DOE eliminates all 
science education funding too.  Oh well.

And then they have the gall to proclaim that their budget proposals
"protect" funding for scientific research!  Sheesh!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter
Email:  rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Web:  http://w3.pppl.gov/~rfheeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Martin Sevior /  Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:58:20 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Well Dick I can't see how the filter could be at a higher temperature
than ambient as there's is no extra energy going into it. It might just
be possible that the blades of the pump which is attached to a driving motor
are at a higher temperature than ambient and that there is enough of a heat
flow from the motor to the pump to keep it's temperature above the ambient
temperature. I think this is highly unlikely.

Now look at the properties you assigned to the fluid. It will rise in
temperature after it passes through the Ni/Pd beads, lose heat in the
environment in the plastic tubing and filter then upon touching the heated
blades of the pump, instead of rising in temperature the fluid changes it's
internal chemical structure and absorbs heat energy instead. This heat energy
is then released in the cell. As far as I know (being a mere Physicist) 
materials that absorb heat without changing temperature undergo a phase 
transition like liquid to vapour. (Why a pot of boiling water is always at
100 C at atmospheric pressure.) Therefore what Craven's has discovered is
a fluid that changes state at around 20 C and remains in liquid form. This
new state remains in this condition and is only converted back to it's lower
energy form upon a catalytic reaction requiring the Ni/Pd beads.

I contend that 

a) This is a very unlikely combination of circumstances.

and 

b) If Dick's right then Craven's has discovered a highly unusual new chemical
with extremely valuable properties. Just think of it's utility in cooling
applications. It absorbs heat but doesn't rise in temperature except in a Ni/Pd
bead bath. Forget cold fusion, patent the electrolyte!

I'd like to hear from people who disagree with these contentions.

The point I'd like to make about both the Craven's demo and E-QUEST data is
that the vast majority of scientists know nothing about them. This newsgroup
has tried for several months to come up with explanations for these results
and the best that has been managed are effects that push limits of what's
possible to such extremes as to be on a par with the generation of nuclear
energy at room temperature with no ionizing radiation.

Surely both these experiments at least deserve widespread publicity and 
scrutiny.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.15 / World System /  conference: WORLD ENERGY SYSTEM
     
Originally-From: wes@acs.ryerson.ca (World Energy System)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: conference: WORLD ENERGY SYSTEM
Date: 15 Jun 1995 19:41:50 GMT
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnic University

 F I R S T   C A L L

1996 INTERNATIONAL WORLD ENERGY SYSTEM CONFERENCE
JUNE 19, 20, 21 - TORONTO-CANADA

THE WORLD ENERGY SYSTEM:  THE TRANSITION FROM LOCAL, NATIONAL, REGIONAL,
TO GLOBAL ENERGY PHILOSOPHY

Energy is an important issue worldwide.  Today, the energy system is a
globally interconnected entity.  Energy information, energy technology,
and energy resources require a comprehensive, system of world wide
management. The conference promotes a new con cept of sustainable energy
development in a systemic, dynamic, probabilistic and global perspective. 
It will stimulate discussions on these challenging issues. 

The aim of the conference is to define the requirements and evolution in
new key areas of world energy system

THEMES:  Global and long term views on energy resources:  gas, oil, coal,
nuclear, solar.  Infra structure: generation and distribution of
electricity, district heating and cogeneration, conservation and efficient
use of energy.  Environment and energ y: the four "E's":  economics,
energy, entropy, ecology.  New developments in the energy and economic
markets (CEE, NAFTA, APEC).  New technologies in the field of energy. 
Forecast on the future development of reliability criteria of energy
systems.  Mo dels of energy systems.  Management of energy systems:
liberalization, privatisation, information, vertical integration.  World
energy system: dream or reality

SPONSORS:  Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Ryerson
Polytechnical University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;  Canadian Institute
World Energy System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

DATES:  Participation notice: June 30, 1995. Date to submit papers:
December 31, 1995. Registration of participants: June 18, 1996. Conference:
June 19, 20, 21, 1996

ABSTRACT:  A 1-page, 50 words abstract including: paper title, name,
affiliation, mailing address, phone & fax numbers, e-mail. A 2-page
summary that states clearly & concisely the specific results of your
previously unpublished work, why the results are important , and how the
results relate to prior work.  Article:  The body of the article should be
typed in two columns with single line spacing in English or French. 
Proceedings: Conference proceedings will include the keynote addresses,
the contribut ed papers, resolutions and discussions.  The proceedings
will be available on December 1, 1996, at a price of US $150 per copy. 

REGISTRATION: Conference registration: US $350 payed by May 30, 1996, with
cheque or money order payable to Canadian Institute World Energy System, 5
Strathgowan Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M4N2Z6, Canada, tel: (416)
487-0479, Fax: (416) 489-4413, E-Ma il: WES@ acs.ryerson.ca

CONFERENCE LANGUAGE: English. 

AUDIENCE: Members of universities, business and financial communities,
regulatory bodies, environmental groups, industries, governments. 

LOCATION: Ryerson Polytechnic University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3. 

COCHAIRS OF CONFERENCE: Prof. H.K. Burkhardt, Prof. V. Nitu


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwes cudfnWorld cudlnSystem cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Does Traffic on Moderated Groups Drop?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:43:09 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Actually, there is one moderated group I know of, where traffic has
been steady for some years: sci.physics.research. They get around 4-10
postings per day and it's just about all of it solid stuff, must be a 
pleasure to read by physicists. There must be others like that.
In short, the answer to the SUBJ question is "wrong question".

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 08:59:06 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950613164148.4528B-100000@kemi.aau.dk>, Dieter
> Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
[............ bla bla blahr .......] 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk
> 
> 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. 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
[....... much more here .....]

Just in case there is someone who takes this seriously, let me say that I
don't know what a cancelbot is and Mitchell suspects me of something I
don't know how to do. I use pine, and when I reply to something, I have
the option of simply leaving the top lines as they are (Subject, etc, AND
the group(s) the item originated in, etc), or to change it. One of the 
things we dislike about the Wallaceposts is that everytime someone replies,
on any of the groups where he posts, the reply also goes to all the groups.
Someone said they couldn't help it, and I have shown that, if you use pine
at least, you can. For the record, Mitchie boy, I did leave Wallace's
name in it, so it was clearly a reply to his. If you think this is unethical
behaviour, then you should see your doctor.
The reason I removed the other groups, of course, is that it is only in this
group that we are trying to stop Wallace posting to this group. The 
aliens in alt.alien.visitors probably don't care what we get, they have
problems of their own, I'm sure.

I have a theory: since noone can be seriously posting stuff like Mitchell's,
Mitchell is having us on, maybe as part of a study of Internet sociology. I
hope he has enough material soon, and stops.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's "Regionalization" counter-examples not valid
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 09:19:00 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, 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.
[...]

Marshall, I think that must be ZPE you are seeing, energy flicking in and out
of existence before your very eyes. CAN YOU PROVE IT ISN'T?

Seriously, everyone has a lot of muck floating in the vitreous humour inside
the eye. You normally don't register it, except occasionally when a biggish
bit floats past your vision. I guess when you look at a bright and 
featureless expanse like the sky, you start noticing them. No need to invoke
"Aw, gone!" energy or even 'cold fusion' - unless you find some helium, of
course. Just think, if we had cold fusion in the eye, the old dream of
x-ray eyes would become reality (Steve Jones tells us there must be x-rays).

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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Bill Page /  Re: Atomic stability:  ZPF or QM?
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atomic stability:  ZPF or QM?
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:26:41 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3rqufj$pdo@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:

>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.

Scott,

I'm not sure if I qualify as a sufficiently "highly-educated type"
(or if anybody else does for that matter) to comment, but I think you
are going to run into a problem here with what it means to EXPLAIN
something. Its all wrapped up with the role of intuition, the nature
of mathematics, the philosophy of meaning, "how" versus "why" ...
etc.

I would suggest that it is more useful to talk about the merits of
various models here instead of what constituents an explanation.
Conventional QM has certainly been criticised by many people for a
long time - even its creators - as being somewhat deficient in
this department. There are several alternative models (also called
interpretations) that have been considered.

According to your description, the ZPF model attempts to derive
essential the same empirical results as conventional QM starting
from a different set of assumptions. Presumably the predications of
QM based on the ZPF model differ from conventional QM in only
rather subtle ways. I'd like to understand better how quantization
of energy levels arises in this model. I could, of course, read
the reference you provided earlier to Puthoff... <grin>. I
promise I will when I get time. There is also the whole issue of
"measurements" and uncertainty that needs to be dealt with.

Eventually, I'd like to understand how Puthoff's approach
differs from the "pilot wave model" of David Bohm, Louis de Broglie,
and others, but I think that leads a long way away from the main
subject of this newsgroup.

Maybe more specifically, can you describe (aside from the possibility
of enhanced "conventional" fusion by smaller electron orbits) how
Putoff's theory might be applied to the observations of excess
heat *without* significant observable radiation?

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Horacio Gasquet /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: Horacio Gasquet <gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 16 Jun 1995 18:45:34 GMT
Organization: Fusion Research Center  UT Austin

larryk@sr.hp.com (Larry Kubo) wrote:
>
>High temperature superconductivity existance does not yet have a generally
>accepted mechanism, but it is widely reproducible. I am willing to
>phenomenologically accept CF (or whatever) as long as it is reproducible
>by established means, and everyone agrees on the net results.

Yah but superconductivity has been conclusivly studied.  I don't
believe many theories that 
propose to explain it either until proven.  With cold fusion, the phenomena itself isn't 
even established conclusivly.  

The only good science is to assume it is wrong until proven right.
 I have not seen a paper 
yet that has convinced me.  No one has established cause an effect.
 It has been established 
for superconductivity even though it is not understood.  

HG


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengasquet cudfnHoracio cudlnGasquet cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:17:46 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-1506950258460001@austin-1-2.i-link.net> 

> 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? 

I agree that is the best way to carry out the experiment.


> Would you, at that point, be prepared to admit that
> these guys are onto something? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 

Well, in the best of all possible worlds there would be two 
``foundation'' experiments: the one described above, plus
a control experiment under similar conditions in which no excess 
heat was observed. The latter is to filter out any gross 
experimental protocol or equipment errors. It should be readily
doable on Griggs, as we are told that the excess energy mode
occurs only for a fairly narrow regime of rotor speeds and input
water flow rates, etc, so that one can have a similar experiment that is
not in the excess mode, to use as a control.

Positive results from that would certainly warrant additional attention.

The only rub is, Jed claims this has all already been done---though
he has not presented detailed documentation of a sufficienlty
long run (>> 1 hour). 


--
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 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:19:54 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3ro8qs$h61@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> We have a temperature signature that is inconsistent with thermal
> mass storage of reasonable dimensions.
> 

I don't recall any plot of effluent temperatue vs time.
The experiments Jed reported only measured the bottom
line, not the time behavior, no?


--
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 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:25:57 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3rp6l7$bnt@elvis.vnet.net> jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)  
writes:
> 
> You are confusing the hot water mode of the Griggs' devise with the
> steam mode. These are completely different and unrelated modes
> of operation.
> 
> 
> The stored heat hypothesis explains all known data about the steam mode.
> The hot water mode has a completely different explanation.
> -- 

John White is exactly Right.

(and it ryhmes!)


PS. The hot water mode does not make me feel that excited: a 6%
excess (such as what they showed Tom Droege) could easily be due
to a vast number of possible small errors. The 60% or greater
excesses in the steam mode, as reported by Jed, coupled with the
fact that there is a _directly observed effect_, namely
the drop in input power, means there really is something
physical going on in the system (precisiely, a drop in the
effective viscocity of the fluid).




--
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 / John White /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 16 Jun 1995 15:47:56 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

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

No, I'm saying the Griggs device has two separate modes. For a particular
run it will operate in only one of these modes.

If the flow of water into the device is kept low, then the output will
be steam. In this mode high levels of excess heat have been seen, but
only for a short period of time. These are the results that Merriman
is trying to explain with the stored heat hypothesis.

If the flow of water into the device is kept high, then the output will
be hot water. In this mode only low levels of excess heat are seen,
but these levels can be sustained indefinitely. It was during such a hot
water run that Jed "observed the gadget generate excess heat for hours."
The stored heat hypothesis does not apply to these runs.

> ... but I seem to recall that the amount was large
> (40% above breakeven comes to mind, ...

I have heard numbers as high as that for a run done in steam mode, but
the 40% has only been observed for a brief period of time.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / James Stolin /  Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed "nasty-gram" for cross-posters
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:15:53 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF) wrote:
>
>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].

Mike,

   Don't forget to forward a copy of the spam posts to the postmaster at 
the offender's site.  Call attention to the number of newsgroups being 
spammed, the huge posts chewing up bandwidth and the violation of various 
group's charters. Then politely request that the postmaster educate the 
offender on netiquette.
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Robert Cormack /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:54:58 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

condict@ziti.osf.org (Michael Condict) wrote:
>
>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?
>

Tesla sold his patent rights to George Westinghouse for peanuts because 
he was trying to be a "nice guy" & keep Westinghouse from bankruptcy.   
Hence there are Westinghouse companies, fortune, heirs, etc.   There's no 
doubt that the power grid and most electric machinery today is based on 
Tesla's designs, not Edison's;  and also that Tesla, unlike Edison,  was 
a lousy businessman!

Bob Cormack

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenURWF21A cudfnRobert cudlnCormack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Dick Jackson /  Logajan's Web Site
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logajan's Web Site
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 21:43:15 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

I went to the pages John has put up about cold fusion and
plasmoid balls again today. It really is a fine job. There is
a picture of a Griggs device in full color!

Congratulations John, noble work!

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Robert Cormack /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:25:41 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

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

>***{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?

Gee, I hate to see quantum mechanics casually bad-mouthed.  It is only 
THE most successful theory physics has yet come up with.  No verified 
experimental result  has yet been shown to be in conflict with QM 
predictions, no matter how weird they may be.  Also, QM (I believe) is a 
LONG way from being "mined out" as far as theoretical or engineering 
results are concerned. 
The late Julian Schwinger was sure that cold fusion (whatever it is) 
would be explainable under QM, and so far no one has a scrap of evidence 
to the contrary.

Bob Cormack

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenURWF21A cudfnRobert cudlnCormack cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / 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: 16 Jun 1995 23:20:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
: > We have a temperature signature that is inconsistent with thermal
: > mass storage of reasonable dimensions.

: I don't recall any plot of effluent temperatue vs time.
: The experiments Jed reported only measured the bottom
: line, not the time behavior, no?

Two reports, one steam mode and one hot water mode were posted here quite
some time back by Gene Mallove.  They consisted of something on the order
of 10-20 minutes worth of one minute samples (by computer data acquisition)
based on input temperature, output temperature, flow rate, and dynometer'd
power input.

The coefficient of production was above unity and there was no trend in
the COP that would indicated a cooling effect, as one would expect if
the thermal mass of that size was giving up its stored heat.

Can't have cooling without seeing evidence of its decay curve in the
measured data.  That's why there is, in fact, evidence against a storage/
cooling effect.

--
 - 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:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.16 / Bruce Scott /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 16 Jun 1995 18:43:58 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Horacio Gasquet (gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:

: Here are my fears:

:     1)  They cut everything except for ITER as proposed (some small 
: exceptions may exist)

:     2)  University level research is killed and people everywhere are 
: layed off right as I am graduating.  (Not that I am staying in fusion)

:     3)  A year or two down the road they cancel ITER because it was 
: conceived in another budget climate and we really cannot afford it.

My scenario is even worse than yours: 1 and 2 are the same, but then
they actually do spend the 10-20 B on ITER, which then fails to ignite.
End of story; fusion with a dead name for the next 100 years, by which
time we really need it.

My main hope is that real computations (I mean _direct_ global
simulations of at least a reasonably well-extended fluid model, in any
configuration) will within 10 years or so make it obvious what the best
MFE concept is.  Hopefully, with Europe and Japan leading the way, this
field will be a longer-term thing at present levels or even lower, until
it is _obvious_ how to build viable reactors.  Then, we build them.
Note well:  they don't have to be tokamaks.

I do feel reasonably confident the European program can survive
indefinitely at present or present-minus-20-percent levels (i.e., 1980
levels in real terms) even if it dies out in the US.  On the other hand,
if they build ITER and it sinks like a rock, nobody's program will
survive.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.17 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:13:50 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:
: In article <1995Jun13.123021.2275@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:

: >Scott, I think you may be overlooking two important facts about hydrogen in
: >metals:
: >1.  The hydrogen generally is no longer a molecule or even an atom, but
: >rather mainly an ion in an interstitial site in the lattice, with electrons
: >shared (in bands).

: This is a good point, Steven.  Can one assign an effective energy level to
: the H atom's electron in this situation? 

No you cannot.  Elementary particles like electrons are indistinguishable,
meaning that there isn't the concept of "the H atom's electron" once it
has merged into the band.

:  If so, is it lower than the 
: ground state, indicating an energy loss by the electron.

The only sensible thing I can think of is whether the whole system gains
or loses energy when H vs. perhaps an H+ goes into it----that's chemistry.

: >forms of hydrogen.  In plain English, the separation of deuterons in a D2
: >molecule (for example) is about 0.7 angstroms.  When deuterium saturates
: >a palladium lattice, the d-d separation *increases* to about 1.2 angstroms
: >(the number is approx., I can look it up again if you really need it).

: 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?

*booing* (hit head) *I could'a had a V-8*

Maybe people thought that somehow they could squeeze two H's in one site.

How they thought they could squeeze enough to get fusion, I haven't a clue.  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 17 04:37:02 EDT 1995
------------------------------
