1995.06.20 / Bryan Wallace /  cmsg cancel <3s1vrf$evg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
     
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: cmsg cancel <3s1vrf$evg@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:29:46 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:57:37 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3s5u4q$sjl@maureen.teleport.com> Charles Cagle  
<singtech@teleport.com> writes:
> 
> I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
> immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
> DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
> solution in a year.
> 
> 

Well then I am safe as I don't wear a white coat. As for Breakeven 
being just around the corner: crufty old TFTR has already
gotten within a factor of 3 of breakeven....so whats the problem?

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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / 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: 20 Jun 1995 15:00:52 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <xeyfWYi.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> You misunderstand. I have no theory. Only data; experimental evidence.
> Nobody here has ever disproved my data, or shown any mistakes in the
> experiments, therefore the data stands and I am right.

Sorry, but there is a demonstrated flaw in you steam & barrel experiment.
You did not measure the heat stored in the system during the warmup phase.

Since you are Mr. Data, I want no theoretical doubletalk from you
about how this is not necessary as it ran so long, etc, etc. Just
do the measurement, or ``shut up'', as ``they'' say.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Bryan Wallace /  cmsg cancel <3rkvsp$57t@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
     
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: cmsg cancel <3rkvsp$57t@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:47:57 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Bryan Wallace /  cmsg cancel <3rpcb2$5lv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
     
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: cmsg cancel <3rpcb2$5lv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:48:12 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Dick Jackson /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:02:33 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Barry Merriman writes:
>
>Yes, and on this point: now that you have identified two (or more) companies
>(one in eastern Europe, plus Griggs, and maybe E-quest) that are 
>actually selling commercial CF devices, why are you not trying
>like crazy to get a piece of these companies? I mean, if what you
>believe is true, these will be bigger than general electric in a
>mater of years.
>
>If I were you, every spare dime I had would be in those companies.

Extreme skeptic mode = ON

Prediction: it will turn out that these "companies" (reputed to be
selling hudreds or thousands of energy gain machines) are somehow
unreachable or, if reachable, cannot actually supply a named party
with such a machine.

I hope I am wrong.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:52:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9506151620.AA35889@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes 

   < Generally speaking, helium-4 is made in the Pd system. ...>
   < Other products occur if the samples are of low purity or  >
    < coherence length.                                         >
-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?

  Good questions. 
  Meant the periodic metallic lattice of course.
 
    ========================
-"Is all of this based entirely on the Miles-Bush investigations?" 

  No. Although their investigations have continued over the
longest period of time, perhaps.

- "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?"

 True.  Some cited actually did not look, or were unable
to examine effectively, detect with enough sensitivity,
or resolve accurately.

    ========================
-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.

  We agree to disagree on that too.   His recent article is nearly
void on discussion of the most recent experiments despite
the loud claims posted here.  No wonder, given the paucity
of science in the article and the overwhelming subjective
comments, he appears somewhat nervous  about
letting Miles respond directly in back-to-back fashion as Dr.
Miles requested.   

    ========================
-My question is whether other key parts of the apparatus were changed
-to reduce the capacity for helium storage and/or penetration?

  Another good question, Dick.  also the reduction of 
capacity for storage (proportional to volume)
 might be opposite the attempt to stop
penetration (proportional to thickness).

    ========================
-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.
 
If money were available, the superior systems would be used.
Of course in addition to their expense, some of them are 
perhaps too focused in space, and limited in energy spectrum.
Given the irregular behavior of some of these systems, in fact,
both are needed as I have posted before.  The autoradiographs
for general detection and survey for active portions of electrodes,
and the spectral analyzers for precision monitoring and real information
about the energy spectrum.

As always, Dick, -- thanks for sticking to the science and fusion.
It is noted however, you have ignored the questions of the implications
of these findings.  

       Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: attn Bryan Wallace: early returns on "the Vote"
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 15:38:23 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rtjvl$11pa@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

> 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?  

***{I see Wallace adjusting his behavior to fit the facts. Dieter Britz
told me, in an e-mail message, that his recollection was that Wallace once
posted to 300 newsgroups. My response was that, since he now only posts to
10, that is proof that he is making a good faith attempt to adjust his
behavior--which means: he isn't spamming. He is making a good faith
attempt to post to relevant groups. You guys are living in the past.
Wallace seems to have made some early mistakes, but so too did we all. You
should let go of the past, look at his vastly improved present behavior,
and recognize that the clarity that once may have justified harassing the
poor man is no longer present. It's time to forgive and forget, and move
on. --Mitchell Jones}***

You haven't 
> answered qustions such as these. 

***{Baloney. Either you have been lurking in some other forum, or you
haven't been reading my posts. In any case, I'm not going to respond to
the same nonsense over and over again. --Mitchell Jones}***

 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.

***{Gee, and you guys accuse *me* of being paranoid! Jim, there is a
simple explanation for your bounced e-mail, and for the possible bounced
e-mail of others, as well as for my absence from this forum since Thursday
midnight, central daylight time. You see, Jim, my connect services
provider began, on midnight thursday, to install 9 gigabytes of additional
storage space, and to switch over to a new server concept. Result: flaky
operation, especially in the usenet area. Neither I nor any of their other
customers have been able to access their usenet data base during this
period, and I have only this evening found a path around the problem. My
name is, indeed, Mitchell Jones, as stated; and I am not, despite your
suspicions, some sort of intellectual hit man hired by Wallace to ride
down his foes. I meant every word of every post. And if there is paranoia
reigning in this newsgroup, it reigns among the "goon squad," not with me.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Tom Liehe /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: tliehe@rainbow.rmii.com (Tom Liehe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 21 Jun 1995 05:29:10 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.

Mark Mallory (mmallory@netcom.com) wrote:

: I'm an electrical engineer and CF skeptic who has been lurking here
: for about 2 years now, and I gotta admit... I'm hooked on s.p.f.!

<snip>

: But the real reason I'm hooked is ... entertainment!

Yeah, I second this.  I'm also an EE and about a 3 year lurker.  BTW,
to see some more of the interesting (but tough to comprehend) discussions
about the 'real' science involved, be sure to check out Bill Page's WWW
site.  The URL is http://xfactor.wpi.edu:8080/iccf5.html.

--
Tom Liehe
(will design FPGAs for food)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentliehe cudfnTom cudlnLiehe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 05:15:52 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Martin Sevior /  Sevior vs. Blue continued..
     
Originally-From: msevior@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Martin Sevior)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sevior vs. Blue continued..
Date: 21 Jun 1995 06:07:05 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne

Well Dick I hope other people find this dialogue interesting because
it appears to be a continuing one...

You write

>Martin,
>As for the question of the Cravens pump power being laid to rest,
>I believe I have raised a slightly differenct issue.  The total
>mechanical work done by the pump on the fluid is not sufficient
>to account for more than a small fraction of the observed one
>watt of heating that occurs within the dewar portion of the circuit.
>That I accept as a know fact, but there are an amazing number of
>unknowns about this device that, as far as we know, have not been
>investigated.
>

I agree  that a paper describing the demo has not been
published by the experimenter(s). I sincerely hope that one will
be published in a widely read journal like Phys. Rev. However I do
think that enough information about the device has been gleaned to
establish that something very interesting and non-obvious is happenning

>The calculation of the mechanical work done on the fluid involves,
>as you indicate, the multiplication of a flow rate by a pressure
>differential.  The flow rate, I assume, is the same for all parts of
>the system (no branches), but what pressure differential has been
>measured and reported?  There can be several different pressure
>differentials to be considered, right?
>

From the ascii drawing on Craven's demo obtained from John Logain's
home page, the pressure gauge is between the pump and the filter.
The maximumim pressure differential in the circuit must be across
the pump as it is the active component that drives the fluid flow. All
other pressure differentials must be less than this. In fact the
sum of all the pressure differentials around the circuit equals the
pressure differential across the pump.

So the power injected by the pump (around 0.01 watt) is the maximum
possible power dissapation due to the fluid flow of the electrolyte.
Actually this follows directly from energy conservation too!
Anyway it's nowhere near enough to raise the temperature above that of
the cell.

>However, my main point was to make it clear that no single ambient
>temperature can describe the external portion of the fluid circuit.
>The pump can certainly transfer heat to the fluid stream by thermal
>conduction and do work on the fluid inside the pump that would
>not be accounted for in measurements of pressure differences outside
>the pump.  Thus I am confident that the fluid exits the pump at a
>temperature higher than at entry and highter than "ambient."  One
>would assume that the fluid is then cooled by heat exchange with
>ambient air before it reenters the the cell.  It would seem then
>that the highest temperature in the loop is at the pump.
>

That's certainly not proven! It's a possible loophole that may get you
out of violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

>My understanding is that the temperatures recorded are those of
>calorimetric significance if you assume that the energy source is
>entirely within the dewar.  I think all that can be said about an
>external energy source is that its effect does not appear entirely
>as heat.  You may be correct that it is not "known chemistry", but
>so what?

Well if Cravens has discovered an effect is beyond "known chemistry"
doesn't that make his experiment really interesting? Especially in the
simple Lithium hydroxide electrolyte he uses?

[Dick's comments on E-QUEST data skipped for now.]

Really Dick, rather than the Cravens demo being full of holes you've
invented a piece of speculation about the pump and have postulated a new
chemical process beyond "known chemistry" to explain his data.

I think rather you've identified one VERY small loophole in the argument.

Here's a question for you though. If you were asked to referee a NSF
request for funds to continue this line of research would you approve it?



Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 08:57:58 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 18 Jun 1995, James Stolin wrote:

[...]
> and newsgroup charters.  Mitch's Internet address is flakey.  Has anyone 
> successfully EMAILed him or replied to his EMAIL?  Mitch might be Wallace 
> in disguise or just a misguided fool that Wallace has brainwashed. 

Yes, I have had a bit of email to&fro with Mitch, there was never any 
trouble reaching him. I can't say off-hand, though, whether he used the same
email address as he gives in his posts to the groups - I just REPLY, usually
without checking where it will go.

Lots of people have unstable or intermittent email contact, for non-sinister
reasons; let's not blame Mitch for that. 

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / C Cagle /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:34:43 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Dieter Wrote:
> 
> I note that the voices voting for Wallace continuing to post here and 
> defending his right to free speech (and denying ours at the same time) are
> people who have not posted here before; in other words they have come here
> only in order to stir things up. The same goes for Wallace himself, it seems.
> He now knows that there is an overwhelming majority of people in this group,
> who want him to go away. We don't read his postings, excellent though they
> may be (I wouldn't know); the one or two people who defend him are not normal
> contributors to spf. 

> Annoy us he certainly has; and his band of followers, too. Monday morning's
> list of postings were dominated by this stuff. Fusion, hot or cold, looks
> like fading out from this group.
> 
> Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to change this group
> into a lightly moderated one?
> 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

I sent you the private email.  And just because you haven't read my
postings doesn't mean I don't interact on this group.  I'm just normally
too busy to machinegun mouth my way around like others.  Some really
participatory subscribers of this newsgroup manage to say a lot without
saying anything of real substance.

Say something worthwhile about fusion, Dieter, and don't suppose that
people who are not posting are not participating.  They either private
email responses (which you would have no way of knowing about) or they are
interested but may not wish to contribute at the time for a variety of
reasons.

We don't come here to 'stir things up' but if we did, it is obvious that
it needs it.  If you are content to sit around in a stale soup that's fine
for you but others may see it differently.

Because some people may lack the cognitive functional ability of
integrating what Wallace has posted about GR into concepts about fusion
doesn't mean that is true for everyone.

Since you don't own this newsgroup why don't you lighten up?

Regards,

C. Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / C Cagle /  Dieter's incessant anti-Wallace behavior
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dieter's incessant anti-Wallace behavior
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:40:00 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Dieter Wrote:
 
> I note that the voices voting for Wallace continuing to post here and 
> defending his right to free speech (and denying ours at the same time) are
> people who have not posted here before; in other words they have come here
> only in order to stir things up. The same goes for Wallace himself, it seems.
> He now knows that there is an overwhelming majority of people in this group,
> who want him to go away. We don't read his postings, excellent though they
> may be (I wouldn't know); the one or two people who defend him are not normal
> contributors to spf. 

> Annoy us he certainly has; and his band of followers, too. Monday morning's
> list of postings were dominated by this stuff. Fusion, hot or cold, looks
> like fading out from this group.
> 
> Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to change this group
> into a lightly moderated one?
> 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

I sent you the private email.  And just because you haven't read my
postings doesn't mean I don't interact on this group.  I'm just normally
too busy to machinegun mouth my way around like others.  Some really
participatory subscribers of this newsgroup manage to say a lot without
saying anything of real substance.

Say something worthwhile about fusion, Dieter, and don't suppose that
people who are not posting are not participating.  They either private
email responses (which you would have no way of knowing about) or they are
interested but may not wish to contribute at the time for a variety of
reasons.

We don't come here to 'stir things up' but if we did, it is obvious that
it needs it.  If you are content to sit around in a stale soup that's fine
for you but others may see it differently.

Because some people may lack the cognitive functional ability of
integrating what Wallace has posted about GR into concepts about fusion
doesn't mean that is true for everyone.

Since you don't own this newsgroup why don't you lighten up?

Regards,

C. Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / C Cagle /  Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:54:51 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Majority rules, huh?  Get a rope!

Exactly the same idea.  Exactly the same mentality.

Congratulations! Someone has finally discovered a way to reverse time and
it now takes us backwards to a point where 'free speech' was an unheard of
concept.

Let's get some helium, put it in this time reversal machine of Scott and
Dieter  and run it backwards to observe fusion in reverse.

Hmmmmm.  Now if Scott and Dieter's heads were in this machine would they
get smarter and more tolerant?

Sorry, Scott and Dieter.  Just having a little fun here.

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Date: 21 Jun 1995 11:14:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAHGBB.7JK@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>- 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?

>  Good questions. 
>  Meant the periodic metallic lattice of course.
 
Yes, but *how* does the amount and type of impurity in the Pd lattice
correlate with the nature and amounts of reaction products?  Has this
been measured, and if so, by whom, where, when, and how?

>If money were available, the superior systems would be used.

Has Steven Jones gone back on his offer to lend his portable
X-Ray Spectrometer gratis to anyone who wants to use it as a detector
for a CF experiment?  In any case, there is something about this statement
that sounds a little strange to me.  Jed Rothwell has been telling us
for years about how EPRI and the Japanese have been providing all of this
funding for CF research.  If they are not willing to give enough money
for the research to be done properly, then isn't the money they are spending
kind of being wasted?

>It is noted however, you have ignored the questions of the implications
>of these findings.  

Speaking of ignoring questions, both he and I have asked you to clarify
what you meant by "coherence length" in the context of fusion in a lattice,
as your use of the term seems to be nonstandard, or at least confusing
in that context.  Would you please be so kind as to explain what you
meant?
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 21 Jun 1995 11:28:47 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <pu7-G25.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Note to Humor Impaired readers: that is a joke. In real life I would never
>think of hiring any out-of-work DOE scientists. Not even to take out the
>garbage.

Note to Idiocy Impaired readers:  as usual, Rothwell is going
out of his way to demonstrate what a complete buffoon he is.  As it happens,
my father is a scientist who works for the DOE (his department was
originally part of the Bureau of Mines but became part of ERDA which then
became part of the DOE).  He does not work on fusion, mind you.  What
he works on is something that I'm sure Rothwell considers equally
worthless, namely, what is the fate of trace elements in coal combustion
and gassification.  I bring this up because it is an interesting
illustration of why sometimes you can't know how useful basic research is
until long after it's done.  For many years, the general attitude toward
his work was that it was, well, useless.  In recent years, however, with
the increase in general of environmental consciousness, people suddenly
realized that this question was neither useless nor unimportant, as some
coals contain all sorts of unpleasant trace elements, from zinc to lead.
Which leaves him as the world's expert, I suppose.  So if the DOE were
to be shut down tomorrow, I suspect that there is at least one DOE
scientist who could probably make as much or more as a consultant than
he does as a DOE scientist.  But as usual, Rothwell only has a dim idea
of what he is talking about.
--
					Richard Schultz

"What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have?
What is the matter with you?  This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's
have some patience, and some manners."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Who cares if it is all smoke and mirrors?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who cares if it is all smoke and mirrors?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 13:05:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Now that Jed Rothwell seems to be facing up to the fact that
the experimental data do not support the notion that CF involves
any nuclear reactions he is claiming that no one cares what
the underlying physics may be.

Pardon me, but I don't believe that there will be a big rush
to invest in a technology that has no underlying rational basis.
So far the suckers have been taken in by a rather coy approach
to the question of what makes it all work, but I think the medicine
show will fold its tent and move on to something different any
day now.

Even if the gadgets can be sold using claims that aren't really
spelled out very clearly the attempts at further development
don't seem to go anywhere, do they?  Suppose you stumble onto
something that gives a few watts of excess heat.  What do you do
after that if you don't have a clue as to what actually makes the
thing work?  Think back on some of the research programs in cold
fusion.  After the initial successes what happened next?  Every
indication I have seen is that the research tended to go up
some blind alley that never really provided any clear advance.
The lesson, I think, is that R&D on any device is difficult to
do if you don't have a clue as to what makes the thing tick.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Richard Blue /  Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 13:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz reminded me that I had failed to respond to one
of the points he raised.  Now we can't have that, can we?

Given the published results of the Miles-Bush experiments, what
do I considered the implications of these data.  In working my
way along the decision tree I come to the question as to whether
the observed helium is produced by a reaction within the cell or
comes from some other source.  I assume Mitchell wants me to
consider the "positive" interpretation even though I have indicated
that I believe the contamination question has not be layed to rest.

If the Miles-Bush data is considered "positive" with regard to the
production of commensurate amounts of 4He we should explor the
implications of that further to see if the result can be reconciled
with other experimental data and with theory.  I don't believe
that it is good scientific practice to take the positive result as
a given and reject the contamination alternative until some of these
implications have been considered.

As I have said before, I see a very fundamental problem with the notion
that a nuclear reaction occurs in a crystal lattice that releases a huge
amount of energy per event but then remains undetected until the
energy is all degraded to lattice phonons at a very ordinary temperature.
I believe it is equivalent to trying to boil water by dropping fire
crackers into the pot.  You may heat the water, but you are likely to
notice that something out of the ordinary is also happening.

At this stage I would say there is no theory for a process that can
have only 4He and heat as its products.  I challange Mitchell or
anyone else to point to any theory that would support the Miles results.
>From the perspective of basic quantum mechanics and thermodynamics the
notion that 4He forms in a state of high excitation and rapidly decays
to its ground state without a trace is totally silly.

Now should we accept the Miles-Bush result as a solid positive when
the implications are clearly that something is very wrong somewhere?
I should think not!  It is just good sense to say that the contamination
question should be considered further.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / bogus address /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: "(bogus name)" <(bogus e-mail address)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 17:05:13 GMT
Organization: (bogus organization name)

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin) wrote:
>scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) wrote:

>>Nearly 6.5 years without a killfile for this group.  Guess I'm just 
>getting
>>old.

>Scott,

>   I dislike killfiles since even absolute idiots can have something to 
>contribute once in a while.  However, there may be more going on here 
>with Wallace and his supporter than is readily apparent.

>  Both show an ignorance of the net.

>  Both tend to long, rambling posts.

>  Mitch Jones is blindly loyal to Bryan Wallace.

>  You can't reply to one's EMAIL. (For instance, the Prodigy software 
>automatically generates reply address and my attempted reply was bounced).

>   Is it merely a cooincidence that a Wallace supporter suddenly appears 
>from nowhere?  Anyone with other software that can check this out.  I am 
>limited to viewing the header and there are ways of fiddling with that. 
>Thanks.

It sure is possible using Netscape!  I can't edit the header directly, but I can
change my name, e-mail, and organization in the options menu or the .ini file.

Of course, some readers would be able to figure out my real internet provider
by looking at the article reference, and then figure out that I am the only one
who posts here from that provider.  This only works because I have a small local
provider though.

Well, I'm off to compare article references now...

-- 
Tim


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnbogus cudlnaddress cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Cravens demo interesting?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cravens demo interesting?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 13:50:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I admit to having said more about the Cravens demo than is
justified by the  information available, but now I am asked
whether I think it is sufficiently "interesting" to justify
NSF funding.  Let me say right up front the NSF does not
frequently seek my advice on such matters.  Some of you would
be in big trouble if they did. (%-)

I don't know whether an indication of "chemistry" of the
sort I have hypothesized is worth much investigation.  My point
is that the Cravens demo is a very poor way to investigate
nuclear fusion.  I certainly would not recommend that the Cravens
methods be employed for that purpose unless they are part of
a larger program involving more direct nuclear detection methods.
Calorimetry alone just does not cut it!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Super Sly /  Re: Help information needed??
     
Originally-From: slycv@cuppa.curtin.edu.au (Super Sly (Chi))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Help information needed??
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 21:17:01 +800
Organization: Curtin University

Hi!
I am a 2nd year physics student, and I was looking for some info on the current
state of the different means of achieving fusion being researched.  The last
I hear about it there was laser ignition, magnetic, and one other I could not
remember.  Does anyone know where I can go to get some resent infomation.


Thanks


error in editor >> eoing 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenslycv cudfnSuper cudlnSly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / James Stolin /  Re: Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
Date: 21 Jun 1995 14:00:02 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) wrote:
>
>Majority rules, huh?  Get a rope!
>
>Exactly the same idea.  Exactly the same mentality.
>
>Congratulations! Someone has finally discovered a way to reverse time 
and
>it now takes us backwards to a point where 'free speech' was an unheard 
of
>concept.

   It's not the same situation with the Wallace spams.  I'm all for free 
speech.  You can shout from the street corner to your heart's content.  
However, when you rig bullhorns to several street corners your "free 
speech" right conflicts with my right to peace and quiet. Free speech 
does not guarantee the you can force your noise upon others.
-
Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / 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: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:42:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3s0dk1$6gd@news.htp.com>, Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com> wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >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
> 
> I guess you don't understand how usenet works.  When I made this post, there
> were no other replies to your message on my system yet.  Messages take
several 
> days to reach all sites, and in some cases the replies make it to some users
> before the original does.

***{Tim, when I read this I had to chuckle. Why? Because a person so far
removed from the action that it takes "several days" for postings to reach
his site is not, by any rational definition, connected to the internet at
all! I, for example, fell almost 3 days behind starting last thursday at
midnight, because my access provider was installing new disk capacity and
shuffling its servers around. Result: I was unable to access usenet.
However, unlike you, I recognized such a situation for what it was: a
period during which I wasn't "on the internet" at all! Likewise, if there
are sites where usnet postings are accumulated for three days and then
applied in a massive batch run, so that users of that site are, on
average, a day and a half behind, I would say that they aren't really on
the internet at all. And the same considerations apply to you: if your
access provider keeps his customers continually behind the curve by
refusing to apply postings to newsgroups in real time--i.e., as they come
in--then you aren't on the net either! In that case, I will repeat advice
I have given to others: become a more efficient user of the system. Shop
around until you can find a connect services provider who will sell real
access to the internet, rather than fake access! Indeed, call I-Link at
1-800-ILINK99, or send e-mail at info@i-link.net. They are up and running
the vast majority of the time, and when they are, you are *really* on the
net. Honest injun! --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> By the way, I do care about bandwidth.  That's why my average post on this
> Wallace nonsense is about 1/20th the length of your average post.

***{If I had less to say, I would say less. Or, alternatively, if I had
fake access to the internet rather than real access, then I might very
well face a tight length limit on my messages, and be forced to say less
than I want to say. Is that your situation, perhaps? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> --
> Tim

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: 21 Jun 1995 14:16:18 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Right on Mitchell. It appears we have come across a little brother to 
>big brother.  But what do we do, or to whom can we protest? 
>
>We gotta stop this kind of heavy handed crap.  And right now.  So what 
>is the plan?

   I think the heavy handed crap does need to cease but not in the way 
you perceive.  I do support free speech.  However, Mr Wallace's spams are 
not an example of the exercise free speech.  Rigging bull horns to blare 
one's blather all over town (newsgroups) infringes upon others freedoms.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: 21 Jun 1995 14:26:40 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Don't jive us Dieter!  If you did a cancelbot you ought to be ashamed.
>
>If not, then you ought to be ashamed of the fact that someone who knew 
>how acted as your accomplice whether you supported the idea or not.  
>Your dialogue may have begun an unpleasant thing and you have wasted far 

>more bandwidth than was appropriate.

Charles,
   This cancelbot nonsense is just that, nonsense.  Dieter never claimed 
to use a cancelbot and as far as I've seen, one hasn't been used.  
Wallace's posts are still there if you can read back a few days.  As for 
the rest of your nonsense, why should someone apologize for something 
they do not support that never happened?  You should apologize to Dieter 
for your baseless nonsensical accusations.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / mitchell swartz /  Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Implications of Miles helium data
Subject: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:40:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9506211326.AA37786@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Implications of Miles helium data
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

-.  I don't believe
-that it is good scientific practice to take the positive result as
-a given and reject the contamination alternative until some of these
-implications have been considered.

 True.  therefore it is important that they did include
controls for leakage and also adopted use of their metallic containers
used to minimize (and thus rule out) contamination issues.

      ================================
-As I have said before, I see a very fundamental problem with the notion
-that a nuclear reaction occurs in a crystal lattice that releases a huge
-amount of energy per event but then remains undetected until the
-energy is all degraded to lattice phonons at a very ordinary temperature.
 
It is a problem if one only considers beam impact experiments.
Furthermore, until one looks for intermediates, one cannot say that
they remain "undetectable".   the problem is that there are few 
events, all with a very short lifetime, and all located within the
material which is loaded.

      ================================
-From the perspective of basic quantum mechanics and thermodynamics the
-notion that 4He forms in a state of high excitation and rapidly decays
-to its ground state without a trace is totally silly.

  The excess enthalpy generated, and detected by several laboratories,
is clearly much more than a "trace" and is 
easily detectable with appropriate equipment if the materials are
active and loaded.

      ================================
-Now should we accept the Miles-Bush result as a solid positive when
-the implications are clearly that something is very wrong somewhere?
-I should think not!  It is just good sense to say that the contamination
-question should be considered further.

The '93 expts used metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric 
contamination.  All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental
 helium-4 production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
The increases in helium-4 were linked and were about 12 sigma 
above background.
The use of metallic flasks, and carefully measured controls to
actually measure leakage and contamination rates rules out the very
issue which you still attempt to cling too.  Doesn't it?

   Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Martin Sevior
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Martin Sevior
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:35:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>That I accept as a know fact, but there are an amazing number of
>unknowns about this device that, as far as we know, have not been
>investigated.
 
The operant phrase here is: "as far as we know." "We" means Dick Blue
in this case. Those of us in the real world who have read the published
papers and patents by Cravens, Patterson and others know that these
imaginary "unknowns" Dick refers too have, in fact, been investigated.
Furthermore, those of us with some basic knowledge of physics and
calorimetry know that flow calorimeters like this have been in use for
decades, and that they were well charactorized and completely understood
by around 1910.
 
Dick Blue never, ever reads any publications and he knows nothing about
flow calorimeters, so he mistakenly believes there are "an amazing number
of unknowns." In fact, there are none. What we have here is an amazing
amount of ignorance in Dick Blue's head.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re:Blue comments on Craven's demo
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:43:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
 
>I'd love to own the patent rights to a chemical that efficiently absorbs heat
>in an aqueaus solution at 20 degrees C without rising in temperature, that then
>only releases the heat in a catalytic reaction with Ni/Pd beads.
 
So would I! Unfortunately, with most CF experiments, you cannot patent it,
because this magical fluid is usually water. That's: H2O. ("Mizu" in
Japanese.) In the Cravens cell the cooling fluid is 95% water with a little
lithum, but in other flow calorimeters it is 100% water. We cannot pretend
that these other experiments do not exist. Dick Blue's thesis should apply to
them too, if it applies to anything. Therefore, what he is saying is that the
specific heat of water is not constant at 20 deg C.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 09:50:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bill Rowe <wjrowe@ccgate.hac.com> writes:
 
>I think one of the problems with trying to explain the Griggs device is
>the lack of knowledge about the degree of uncertainty in the published
>data. For example Jed keeps refering to the 0.1% accuracy of the Dranetz
>meter as specified in the GE Manual as the uncertainty. However, the
>actual uncertainty depends on how the instrument is calibrated, used and
>read. It is not at all unreasonable to have uncertainty in actual
>measurements as much as 10 times specified limits.
 
Of course I covered all of that in my report. I said who calibrated the
instrument, and how it was used. As for how it was read, I guess the answer
is that it was read off that strip of paper that comes out the front. I am
not sure how else it might be read. With a mirror? With the numbers
translated into Roman Numerals?
 
Be that as it may, suppose, for the sake of argument, that the measurements
*are* 10 times specified limits. Just suppose they are! That would make the
total error 1%, which would be insignificant under the circumstances.
 
>Droege went to see the Griggs device he found much the same problem, i.e.,
>no log books, no calibration curves etc. Given the lack of data regarding
>calibration, its not clear to me there is even an effect that needs
>explaining.
 
It would be more accurate to say that when Droege went to see Griggs he
refused to look at any of the log files in the computer, and he pretended
that Griggs has no calibration curves, and that the insturments have not
been calibrated and certified by the manufacturers. Droege pretended that
the evidence all around him did not exist. When Griggs gave a lecture at
MIT months before Droege went, he showed viewgraphs of some of those curves
that Droege claims do not exist.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / 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: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:40:55 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rtq71$1f1q@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> >
> >I just received an e-mail message telling me that I "flamed everyone"
> 
>    Received an EMAIL at what address?  21cenlogic@i-link.net is an 
> invalid EMAIL address.  EMAIL sent to or replied to at that address is 
> returned saying the address is invalid.

***{Rubbish. I have already explained this in another post. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> >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? 
> 
>    The context of Dieter's note is that the header of a post was edited 
> to eliminate Wallace's spam cross-posting.  You are the only muddled one 
> that interpreted the statement to mean a cancelbot was used.  You are 
> either guilty of ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation.

***{False on both counts: (1) I have received e-mail from others who
interpreted the sentence the same way I did. (2) All I did was assume that
Dieter didn't switch the meaning of a key term in mid sentence. --Mitchell
Jones}*** 
> 
> >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:

 <much snipped>

>    what is wrong is taking Dieter's statement out of context and twisting 
> the meaning. It appears that you are the only one that did this.

***{Baloney. Dieter has not denied that he switched meaning in mid
sentence. What I have concluded, as a result of an extensive e-mail
discussion with him, is that he is using software that doesn't permit him
to go back and correct mistakes. That is why the sentence got posted in
its defective form. Unlike you, Dieter has not seen fit to deny the
obvious. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> >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.

>    Sorry, but it was your thinking that was muddled when you accused
>him  of using a cancelbot.

***{I failed to guess that Dieter was using software that didn't permit
him to go back and correct mistakes. To that extent, I erred. However, I
really don't see how I could be expected to know such things. I do not,
after all, possess esp! As for my thinking being muddled when I rationally
interpreted his sentence, that is absurd. All I did was assume that "all
those groups" meant the same in both halves of the sentence. If you
believe it is OK to switch definitions in mid-sentence, you have my
condolences. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
 
> >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.
 
>    We won't hold out breath.  People who quote out of context usually 
> don't apologize but instead make excuses and obfuscate.

***{You can howl about this until the cows come home, if you wish, but it
will do you no good. I simply don't agree with you. In my view, a person
should hold the definitions of his terms constant throughout the entirety
of an argument. Those who change definitions in mid-argument, in the vast
majority of cases, do not do so because they are using software that
doesn't permit them to correct mistakes: they do it because doing so
enables them to reach any conclusion they want to reach. Dieter may have a
good excuse for what he did, but most of those who switch definitions in
mid-argument are simply intellectually dishonest. And, I might add, most
of those who--like you--insist that such thinking is OK are also
intellectually dishonest. --Mitchell Jones}*** 
> 
> > I am not responsible for what Dieter posted.
> 
>    Correct.  You are responsible for what YOU post.  You jumped to a 
> conclusion not supported by the evidence.

***{Baloney. As I have already repeatedly noted, Wallace's e-mail access
was being clogged by a deluge of harassing "nastygrams." In such a
context, the deliberate cancellation of Wallace's posts via a cancelbot is
hardly a stretch. Frankly, your refusal to see that the interpretation I
made was plausible strikes me as ironclad proof that you are a person who
believes what he wants to believe. Thus I find nothing surprising in your
endorsement of the practice of switching definitions in mid-argument,
since that is the most common trick which people use to believe what they
want to believe! --Mitchell Jones}***    
> 
> >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.
 
>    This is not a valid comparison.  Dieter did not claim to use a 
> cancelbot.  You wrongly claimed he did.  The fault is yours.  You should 
> apologize but we won't hold out breaths.

***{And I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that Dieter's
statement was badly worded, or that my interpretation of his statement was
plausible.  --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / David Baraff /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: baraff@cs.cmu.edu (David Baraff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 21 Jun 1995 16:32:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <xc7fOMq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>If you were me, you would have a hell of a lot more spare dimes than you
>do, and you would never, ever take free financial advice from people who
>know nothing about business.
> 
>- Jed

As opposed to taking free scientific advice from people like
Jed who know nothing about science...

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbaraff cudfnDavid cudlnBaraff cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:02:15 -0500
Date: 16 Jun 1995 18:48:21 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Path: bird3.i-link.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!prodigy.com!usenet
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 16 Jun 1995 18:48:21 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rsjll$2t6s@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>
References: <21cenlogic-1506951247250001@austin-1-9.i-link.net>
<da91uq.etn@zorch.sf-bay.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: inugap1.news.prodigy.com
X-Newsreader: Version 1.2

scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) wrote:
>
>Nearly 6.5 years without a killfile for this group.  Guess I'm just 
getting
>old.

Scott,

   I dislike killfiles since even absolute idiots can have something to 
contribute once in a while.  However, there may be more going on here 
with Wallace and his supporter than is readily apparent.

  Both show an ignorance of the net.

  Both tend to long, rambling posts.

  Mitch Jones is blindly loyal to Bryan Wallace.

  You can't reply to one's EMAIL. (For instance, the Prodigy software 
automatically generates reply address and my attempted reply was bounced).


   Is it merely a cooincidence that a Wallace supporter suddenly appears 
from nowhere?  Anyone with other software that can check this out.  I am 
limited to viewing the header and there are ways of fiddling with that. 
Thanks.


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

***{Jim, you are guilty of that which you falsely said I was guilty of
when I misinterpreted Dieter Britz's sentence--i.e., you are leaping to a
paranoiac conclusion when the truth is simply that my access provider was
down for a couple of days. I suppose I should now take a leaf from your
book and indignantly demand that you apologize, but the truth is that I
don't give a hoot in hell whether you apologize or not. I am really;
really getting tired of this thread, and I continue to sit here with
open-mouthed amazement as I watch you guys bray on into the night about
"bandwidth," Wallace's "spamming," and on and on and on. The truth of the
matter is that you guys have consumed more "bandwidth" with your little
campaign than Wallace would consume if he posted here for years.
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:34:59 -0500
Date: 19 Jun 1995 03:13:32 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: UCSD SOE

Path:
bird3.i-link.net!uunet!tcsi.tcs.com!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!soenews.ucsd.edu!usenet
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 19 Jun 1995 03:13:32 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3s2q0s$83l@soenews.ucsd.edu>
References: <3rt3jc$2uc@stratus.skypoint.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: starfire.ucsd.edu

In article <3rt3jc$2uc@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John  
Logajan) writes:
> 
> 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.
> 

As was recently pointed out: the usual exponential decay of temperature
(newton;s law of cooling) assumes there is a constant thermal conductivity
between the hot body and its environment. Since, in this case, that 
conductivity is a function of the multiphase fluid that couples 
the rotor to the outer housing thermally, it is questionable as to
whether it would remain constant. So, its not clear what trend is to be 
expected in the output temperature.

And, to turn your question around: if there were some energy source 
kicking in, wouldn't we expect to see the effluent heating up over time?
How do you reconcile the behavior of the output T with that?

***{As I recall, the fluid circulates in a closed loop. Since the
temperature of the fluid is greater when it exits the pump than when it
enters it, it seems clear that all of the heat added by the pump is lost
while circulating in the external part of the system. Given this state of
affairs, the answer to your question is that we would not expect to see
the effluent heating up over time, even if excess energy were being
produced. --Mitchell Jones}***

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

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 21 Jun 1995 10:51:42 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <hO0+OU3.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
> 
>>When it is not hard to find people who worry about the use of 
>>radioactive materials in their smoke detectors, a "nuclear reactor" 
>>for the garage could be a hard sell.  
> 
>Don't be silly Jim. For years and years you and every other mainstream
>scientist in the U.S. has been yelling that CF is not nuclear. It can't
>be nuclear, you say, because there are no neutrons. I've got thousands
>of statements from you, and dozens of official reports all asserting that
>cold fusion cannot possibly be nuclear. So it is case closed as far as
>I am concerned. I will tell the customers there is nothing nuclear about
>CF, and therefore nothing to be afraid of. Period. .............





What customers?  What are you selling?

Do you actually have someone who is willing to pay MONEY for a
"cold fusion" device that generates more output energy than you
put in?

Talk about selling the Brooklyn Bridge!

I guess Barnum was right.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:49:30 -0500
Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:25:41 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Path:
bird3.i-link.net!uunet!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!solaris
cc.vt.edu!swiss.ans.net!prodigy.com!usenet
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
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rsssl$2foq@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
References: <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>
<siegman-1306951652160001@aesmac.stanford.edu>
<21cenlogic-1506950404340001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: inugap2.news.prodigy.com
X-Newsreader: Version 1.2

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

***{Bob, your response is on target: I did, in fact, casually bad mouth
quantum mechanics. The reason is simple: mathematical equations derived
from experiment, such as the equations of ³quantum mechanics,² can be
explained in many ways, and it is only when a specific explanation is
offered that the mathematics takes on a philosophical coloration. In
particular, it is only when the equations are explained by means of the
³Copenhagen interpretation² that they are considered to be ³quantum
mechanical,² though they do, in fact, continue to fit the experimental
evidence regardless of how they are explained. There are, for example,
various other theories (e.g., that of David Bohm) which explain the
equations in ways that are mechanical and deterministic and, thus, do not
fit the Copenhagen paradigm which defines ³quantum mechanics.² The bottom
line: I can, and do, deny the validity of "quantum mechanics," and I can
do so without denying the validity of the equations falsely claimed by
³quantum mechanics.² --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Mike Jamison /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 21 Jun 1995 14:02 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

[megasnip]

[Mitchell Jones writes, w.r.t the alleged cancelbot:]

> 
>***{And I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that Dieter's
>statement was badly worded, or that my interpretation of his statement was
>plausible.  --Mitchell Jones}***

If I'm not mistaken, you've accused various people of being "newbies" to
s.p.f.  Well, I've been around here quite a bit, over a fair stretch of time.

During that time, I've gotten to sort of know the people behind the writing,
in a way.

I suspect that if you've read most of Dieter's posts, you would have known
what sort of person he is - and you'd have decided that Dieter's "thinking
was muddled" off the bat [no offense Dieter!].  The notion of a cancelbot or
some other nefarious program wouldn't have entered your mind.

However, you seem to be paranoid w.r.t the Internet, and everyone's freedom
of speech, etc. [I'm judging you, admittedly, since I've only seen your
posts over the past few weeks or so, don't remember any earlier ones, etc.]

So, my advice to you is that you might not want to be quite so quick with
that followup button.

You may also want cut back on reading Ayn Rand a bit.

> 


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Jim Carr /  Usenet (was Re: The Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Usenet (was Re: The Farce of Physics)
Date: 21 Jun 1995 14:38:07 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21cenlogic-2006951342350001@austin-2-5.i-link.net> 
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

   ... concerning propagation time on Usenet newsgroups ...

>***{Tim, when I read this I had to chuckle. Why? Because a person so far
>removed from the action that it takes "several days" for postings to reach
>his site is not, by any rational definition, connected to the internet at
>all! I, for example, fell almost 3 days behind starting last thursday at
>midnight, because my access provider was installing new disk capacity and
>shuffling its servers around. Result: I was unable to access usenet.

It does not have to be your provider that is the problem.  Usenet news 
is sent, using primitive sendmail methods, from machine to machine.  In 
fact, it need not even use the "internet" for its entire route.  A problem 
with any of the machines along the way will stop or delay the article. 
For example, your article got to me via 

 news.fsu.edu ! gatech ! news.mathworks.com ! uunet ! in1.uu.net ! 
 bird3.i-link.net ! austin-2-5.i-link.net ! user

while another came in via 

 ... ! gatech ! howland.reston.ans.net ! news.starnet.net ! wupost ! 
 waikato ! comp.vuw.ac.nz ! zephyr.grace.cri.nz ! irl.cri.nz ! B.Hamilton

Notice the common node of gatech -- any problem with *that computer* and 
our feed is broken, but other parts of the country will be fine.  Trouble 
at mathworks will keep your article bottled up while others travel fine. 
It is also possible to see posts out of order, an answer before the 
question is asked, since the news feed from A to B and from B to C 
may not use the same nodes as from A to C.  

Usenet is primitive.  But that is why it was possible to get Usenet 
links to the former USSR when the only link was a phone call to 
Finland a few times a day, long before any realtime links existed. 

>However, unlike you, I recognized such a situation for what it was: a
>period during which I wasn't "on the internet" at all! 

During times that our Usenet feed is broken, I am still on the internet 
and fully able to send and receive mail (sometimes even to make an 
outgoing post), telnet to other machines, and make WWW connections. 
This can remain true even if the point of failure is as nearby as 
the fiber to the FSU computer center, since we have several different 
links to "the internet" that do not depend on that line. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: 21 Jun 1995 14:42:43 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In Message-ID: <9506211326.AA37786@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:
-
-As I have said before, I see a very fundamental problem with the notion
-that a nuclear reaction occurs in a crystal lattice that releases a huge
-amount of energy per event but then remains undetected until the
-energy is all degraded to lattice phonons at a very ordinary temperature.

In article <DAJ23o.IDn@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> 
>It is a problem if one only considers beam impact experiments.

It is also a problem if you consider muon catalyzed fusion, which 
occurs via tunneling (no impact) at room temperature.  Any theory 
of the lattice experiments has to explain both sets of experiments 
in a consistent fashion.  This is often ignored. 

"Hot" fusion also occurs via tunneling, albeit at higher temperature.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 20 Jun 1995 23:17:29 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In article <xeyfWYi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com 
(jedrothwell@delphi.com) says...

>You misunderstand. I have no theory. Only data; experimental evidence.
>Nobody here has ever disproved my data, or shown any mistakes in the
>experiments, therefore the data stands and I am right.
> 

Mr. Miracle: My machine generates power from nowhere!
Skeptic: Oh, yeah?  How about I drop by and run a few tests?
MM: Certainly, certainly, any time you like...
S:  Fine, what about a week from next Tues--
MM: Just sign this non-disclosure agreement, and we're all set.
S:  Ahem...this says any & all data I gather is your secret.
MM: Yes, that's right.
S:  It says it's all your confidential property, not to be disclosed 
without your permission.
MM: Right as rain.
S:  Let me be certain I understand this.  You want me to sign a paper up 
front that says if I prove your claim is groundless, YOU CAN PREVENT ME 
FROM TELLING ANYONE ABOUT IT?
MM: No non-disclosure agreement, no test.
S:  Didn't you use to work with a guy named Beavis?
MM: See, my data stands proven and I am right.
S:  Why you [expletive deleted] [characterization deleted]

Thanks for another Internet Joke of the Week, Jed...


  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 21 Jun 1995 15:09:47 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
> 
>>When it is not hard to find people who worry about the use of 
>>radioactive materials in their smoke detectors, a "nuclear reactor" 
>>for the garage could be a hard sell.  

In article <hO0+OU3.jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 
>Don't be silly Jim. 

I am not being silly.  You do not have to see very many "news magazine" 
shows (and the retractions or letters that sometimes follow a few weeks
later) to realize that they can choose their sources to make whatever 
point they want to make -- and that they regularly use the views of 
mainstream scientists as pseudo-proof of the opposite of what the 
scientists say is true.  See, for example, the recent story on 60 Hz 
magnetic fields.  Those folks would freak out because of the fields 
around the Griggs motor! 

>                     For years and years you and every other mainstream
>scientist in the U.S. has been yelling that CF is not nuclear. 

I do not yell.  Further, that is not what I have said.  It is something 
that you say, sometimes, while at other times you stick with "more than
chemistry".  (A tabloid news critter might interpret that as meaning 
"worse than nuclear" by the way, since if it is not chemistry and not 
nuclear, it must be some dangerous new force that could kill everyone.) 

I know that some forms of CF *are* nuclear, and for quite a few years I 
looked at the theoretical issues that might be able to explain the 
results that Steve Jones had obtained in his early work.  What I have 
said repeatedly and consistently is that there is no evidence for 
nuclear products in amounts commensurate with the heat produced from 
the most carefully studied system, that of P&F.  I have also said 
that the irreproducibility of those experiments by others based on 
the published descriptions makes the various claims difficult to 
verify.  The single largest problem is that there is little agreement 
on exactly what inputs and outputs characterize CF.  I don't need 
no steenking theory (my work on pion-nucleus scattering proves that) 
but I do want a definitive phenomenology we can use as a model. 

>                                                                It can't
>be nuclear, you say, because there are no neutrons. I've got thousands
>of statements from you, and dozens of official reports all asserting that
>cold fusion cannot possibly be nuclear. So it is case closed as far as
>I am concerned. I will tell the customers there is nothing nuclear about
>CF, and therefore nothing to be afraid of. Period. When they ask for proof,
>I will send them to *you*. You are my expert witness. 

I will then point out that you and others 

| In article <3s5vab$sjl@maureen.teleport.com>,
| Charles Cagle  <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:
| 
| Aneutronic reactions can occur if another participating particle or
| field matrix can share the momentum.  The lattice structure within a
| metal may provide such a "secret sharer" and permit DD reactions without
| the product nuclei (alpha particle) breaking down to an enegetic neutron
| and tritium.  

have advocated aneutronic nuclear reactions proceeding through a not 
fully understood mechanism as an explantion.  I would show them the early 
papers on the subject by Hagelstein, and suggest they talk to him as 
well.  Whether there would be more definitive helium data by that time 
is anyone's guess, but I would also tell them that such a theory, no 
matter how at odds to other experiments, cannot be ruled out (or in) 
by the current status of the data.  If I was in the right mood, I 
would close by pointing out that those alpha particles are the same 
as what is emitted from Plutonium and Radon.  ;-)  

Nothing like a half truth to get journalists all excited!  But then I 
doubt if I would need to tell them that particular one since they 
already know about Americium and Radon and alpha particles.  I would 
just have to ask them if they were familiar with the nomenclature. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman's hilarious double standard
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman's hilarious double standard
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 14:27:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Merriman and Stolfi both have a goofy idea about the Griggs device. They think
it is storing energy. We know this is impossible, because many people have
observed the machine produce a substantial excess over long periods, like a
year or two in some cases. I saw it go for hours, and Griggs customers report
that it produces overall excess energy indefinitely. As I have said countless
times, I have customer data and my own readings to verify this. Gene Mallove
posted a brief sample of steady state data from Griggs. If you leave the
machine running, you see these sort of numbers repeating hour after hour.
 
That is what I assert, but Merriman and Co. say they do not believe me because
I do not provide "detailed data." Needless to say, this is a zany thing to say
about *me*, of all people. That is like accusing President Clinton of giving
short speeches. I have put more hard data into this forum than all skeptics
combined. In the case of the Griggs machine, I repeatedly posted a detailed 32
KB report, and over on Logajan's WWW page you will find photographs taken by
Gene and I, and various other information. I have uploaded data from Griggs,
spec sheets from the manufacturers, and I have answered countless questions
about the instruments and experimental technique. I have posted the Patent
number, the address, phone number and so on in order to facilitate direct
contact with Griggs for people who want more information. Gene and I have
offered videos of our tests and of Griggs' lecture at MIT and at ICCF5.
 
Here is what I find hilarious. Merriman, Stolfi and other so-called "skeptics"
are gung-ho and pleased as punch with the report posted here by Tom Droege.
Droege observed nothing and reported squat. He did not even list the
instruments! He did not bother to say how many thermometers he used. It did
not contain a *single instrument reading*, except for a few numbers that he
vaguely recalled a few days after he saw the machine. When I go to see a
machine, I bring back loads of data printouts, data sheets, equipment spec
sheets, photographs and videos, which I often make available to the public.
When Droege goes he forgets to write down the temperature and the duration of
the run. His report was *utterly devoid* of the kind of hard data the
"skeptics" demand from me, yet they accepted it without hesitation! I have not
seen a single skeptic here dare to mention that Droege's report has zero
scientific content. Skeptics pick and choose data to fit their preconceptions.
If they agree with a report, they don't care how sloppy it is. If they
disagree, they raise the standards higher and higher, and demand detail beyond
any reasonable, scientifically justifiable level. It is an absurd double
standard.
 
If Merriman and Stolfi want to know what the data for a three hour run looks
like, I suggest they take the sample provided by Griggs, load it into a word
processor, and copy it over and over again until it looks like three hours of
data. I will not bother transcribing or posting data I do not feel is needed
to prove my point. I give the reader a summary. Take it or leave it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: 21 Jun 1995 22:55:47 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <pu7-G25.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> <jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
>  
> Note to Humor Impaired readers: that is a joke. In real life I would never
> think of hiring any out-of-work DOE scientists. Not even to take out the
> garbage.
>  

Thats OK Jed, I don't hold it against you. When CF goes bust,
I _will_ hire you to take out my garbage.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / James Stolin /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:15:06 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) wrote:
>
>I sent you the private email.  And just because you haven't read my
>postings doesn't mean I don't interact on this group.  I'm just 
normally
>too busy to machinegun mouth my way around like others.  Some really
>participatory subscribers of this newsgroup manage to say a lot without
>saying anything of real substance.

   So you are the misguided one who claims that Dieter should apologize 
for using or not using a cancelbot.  Since a cancelbot was never used, 
you DID machine-gun your mouth with a groundless accusation. :(  You owe 
Dieter an apology.


>Say something worthwhile about fusion, Dieter, and don't suppose that
>people who are not posting are not participating.  They either private
>email responses (which you would have no way of knowing about) or they 
are
>interested but may not wish to contribute at the time for a variety of
>reasons.

  If something wothwhile was said about fusion, I'm sure we'd all welcome 
Wallace's posts.  However, trying to dig a few relevant lines out of 
several hundred precludes any meaningful info.  Perhaps Wallace could 
snip out the irrelevant portions?

>We don't come here to 'stir things up' but if we did, it is obvious 
that
>it needs it.  If you are content to sit around in a stale soup that's 
fine
>for you but others may see it differently.

   You didn't come here to stir things up?  It sure looked that way.  You 
blasted Dieter with false accusations and claimed he owed an apology 
whether he used the cancelbot or not.  A cancelbot was NOTR used and you 
still haven't apologized to Dieter.

>Because some people may lack the cognitive functional ability of
>integrating what Wallace has posted about GR into concepts about fusion
>doesn't mean that is true for everyone.

   It's from difficult to impossible to integrate several hundred lines 
of anecdotal pseudo science that have almost nothing to do with fusion.  
If Mr Wallace could cite >only< the portions of his ramblings that apply 
to fusion, I'm sure we'd have a better chance at understanding.   

>Since you don't own this newsgroup why don't you lighten up?

Good advice but too bad you have a double standard.  Or would you rather 
keep making false accusations abour cancelbots?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: 21 Jun 1995 23:24:01 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>Yes, I have had a bit of email to&fro with Mitch, there was never any 
>trouble reaching him. I can't say off-hand, though, whether he used the 
same
>email address as he gives in his posts to the groups - I just REPLY, 
usually
>without checking where it will go.
>
>Lots of people have unstable or intermittent email contact, for non-
sinister
>reasons; let's not blame Mitch for that. 

Diteter,

   It's since been explained by Mitch that his server was down.  What had 
me wondering was that he dumped several hundred lines into my mailbox and 
then my reply bounced!

   Meanwhile, have you apologized for not using a cancelbot that wasn't 
used? <G>

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / 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: 21 Jun 1995 23:35:38 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>
>From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
>   I dislike killfiles since even absolute idiots can have something to 

>contribute once in a while.  However, there may be more going on here 
>with Wallace and his supporter than is readily apparent.
>
>  Both show an ignorance of the net.
>
>  Both tend to long, rambling posts.
>
>  Mitch Jones is blindly loyal to Bryan Wallace.
>
>  You can't reply to one's EMAIL. (For instance, the Prodigy software 
>automatically generates reply address and my attempted reply was 
bounced).
>
>
>   Is it merely a cooincidence that a Wallace supporter suddenly appears 

>from nowhere?  Anyone with other software that can check this out.  I am 

>limited to viewing the header and there are ways of fiddling with that. 

>Thanks.
>
>***{Jim, you are guilty of that which you falsely said I was guilty of
>when I misinterpreted Dieter Britz's sentence--i.e., you are leaping to 
a
>paranoiac conclusion when the truth is simply that my access provider 
was
>down for a couple of days. I suppose I should now take a leaf from your
>book and indignantly demand that you apologize, but the truth is that I
>don't give a hoot in hell whether you apologize or not. I am really;
>really getting tired of this thread, and I continue to sit here with
>open-mouthed amazement as I watch you guys bray on into the night about
>"bandwidth," Wallace's "spamming," and on and on and on. The truth of 
the
>matter is that you guys have consumed more "bandwidth" with your little
>campaign than Wallace would consume if he posted here for years.

Mitch,

   You've jumped to conclusions again.  Very strange logic you used for 
this.  You dumped several hundred lines of EMAIL into my mailbox.  Then I 
can't reply.  You did explain that your server was down and I'll accept 
that.  Re-read my post.  Besides your EMAIL problem, I noticed some 
curious parallels between you and Wallace.  I ASKED others if they had 
problems EMAILing you and if they noticed the similarities also.  I 
didn't draw any conclusions but was waiting for mopre data.  You've 
jumped the gun again.



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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 10:18:49 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:

... deletions...

>It's really weird that people have heard of rather far-out explanations of
>physical phenomena while the very successful, 70-year-old QM seems
>completely unknown or at least misunderstood! Should this newsgroup be
>called sci.physics.a.current.affair?

>Mark Richardson

A recurrent theme in this group has been that QM is under attack from all
ideas of new physics that are raised speculatively to try to give theoretical
support for CF. I dont think that the bulk of QM and the ijmpressive array of
results it has produced are under a significant threat here. 

In other areas too it is those whose faith is insecure that become the most
vocal Defenders of the Faith. In politics it has been those closest to the
rotten elements in our political-economic system who were the most vocal and
militant Cold Warriers. The rest of us eventually realised that the pseudo-
intellectual clap-trap that constituted communism was no threat to a system
that had evolved naturally over centuries.

Back to physics. What is likely to happen with QM is that our interpretation
of it will evolve and expand. My feeling is that the math will be taken fore-
granted and there will be an increasing focus on the physics in building up
better intuitive models of our physical reality. This will lay the foundations
for our next Great Leap Forward.

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Barry Merriman /  Clarification of JR's Barrel Tests
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarification of JR's Barrel Tests
Date: 22 Jun 1995 00:44:59 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Jed: you say you have done long time run tests on the griggs
device.

Can you clarify this?

(1) were these observations of the steam mode (60 % excess heat)
or hot water mode (< 10% excess heat)? 

(2) Were these formal experiments, or merely visual observations?

(3) is a detailed presentation of the data available?


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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 21:22:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
>Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to change this group
>into a lightly moderated one?
 
Yes! You are interested in doing the work!!! You want a moderated group, and
I strongly urge you to make one. Go to it. Get to work. Moderate away, please.
Call it anything you want, but kindly leave this particular name alone,
because changing it would screw up my files and literature. Why not start
one with a name like "sci.physics.fusion.moderated?" Lots of names end with
the ".moderated" name.
 
You and your friends keep whining and moaning about how you need a moderated
group. So why not get off your butt and make one? I would, if I wanted one.
Just stop bothering us with your complaints, go away, and moderate off into
the sunset, please.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /   /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:09:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Mitchell Jones wrote:

***{Bob, your response is on target: I did, in fact, casually bad mouth
quantum mechanics. The reason is simple: mathematical equations derived
from experiment, such as the equations of ³quantum mechanics,² can be
explained in many ways, and it is only when a specific explanation is
offered that the mathematics takes on a philosophical coloration. In
particular, it is only when the equations are explained by means of the
³Copenhagen interpretation² that they are considered to be ³quantum
mechanical,² though they do, in fact, continue to fit the experimental
evidence regardless of how they are explained. There are, for example,
various other theories (e.g., that of David Bohm) which explain the
equations in ways that are mechanical and deterministic and, thus, do not
fit the Copenhagen paradigm which defines ³quantum mechanics.² The bottom
line: I can, and do, deny the validity of "quantum mechanics," and I can
do so without denying the validity of the equations falsely claimed by
³quantum mechanics.² --Mitchell Jones}***

..........................................................................
..................

There are several problems with these statements.

First the "copenhagen paradigm", by which I assume you mean the copenhagen
interpretation, does not "define" QM. It is an addition to the matematical
structure of QM which tells us how to use QM in particular situations.
Such an interpretation is necessary to predict the results of actual
experiments; "the equations" have no meaning and cannot be compared to
experiment without it or some other interpretation which also yields
agreement with experiment.

Secondly the Bohm models of hidden variables give predictions different
from
QM, copenhagen interpretation of no. Hidden variables theories as a class
have been proven conclusively to be unable to reproduce the predictions of
QM; that proof is called Bell's theorem. Many experiments have been
performed to check QM in the situations where QM conclusively differs from
hidden variables theories. All such experiments have agreed with QM as
supplemented by the copenhagen interpretation.

Thirdly the equations, and mathematical objects upon which these equations
act, are not simply "derived from experiment" as if someone just did a
best
fit to some data and got some formulas. To get QM you have to back off
from
experiment, come up with a rather strange and amazing theoretical
structure
and an interpretation as to how to apply this structure to experiments,
and
only then check to see if the predictions are in agreement with
experiment.

Finally the copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation of
QM,
just the first successful one. It is in the process of being supplanted by
the many-histories interpretation, which is more powerful in that it does
not
need to start by assuming the separate existence of the classical world
but
instead derives the existence of the classical domain from QM itself. The
many-histories interpretation however still retains all of the weird
effects
predicted by QM, otherwise it would be in disagreement with the huge
amount
of experimental evidence in agreement with QM.

One of the problems with QM is that it is difficult to make meaningful
statements about it unless you understand it well enough to actually use
it
mathematically.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Phil Palisoul /  Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: bigphil@cts.com (Phil Palisoul II)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 23:02:23 GMT
Organization: CTSNET

after taking a high school chemistry class, i was told that when
bonding atom/molecules/etc.,
that the more energy, and the harder/ or more energetic the collision
the more likely for a bond
to take place.  if this is so then how could cold fusion ever work?
phil
sna diego
bigphil@cts.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbigphil cudfnPhil cudlnPalisoul cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 03:54:20 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2006950053370001@199.172.8.129> 21cenlogic@i-link.net  
(Mitchell Jones) writes:

> > 
> Barry, I have been thinking 

Well, thats a good start.

(Its a joke! :-)

>about your theory and I am beginning to have logical problems with
> it. 

I hope you didn't get into one of those infinite loops like
on the old Star Trek, where your head starts smoking, and the
pitch of your voice keeps escalating.

(Its another joke! Isn't it fun to be able to selectively
edit what other people say! Now I know what motivates all those
TV reporters. :-)

Okay, now down to business:

> 
> In other
> words, since the temperature of the rotor cannot decline without dropping
> the pump out of the "steam phase," and since the rotor temperature has to
> drop if it is to dump stored heat, it follows that it can't dump stored
> heat while operating in the steam phase. But your whole theory rests on
> the premise that the rotor can dump stored heat while operating in the
> steam phase. Therefore, if my analysis is correct, your argument must be
> wrong. 
> 

Basically, to turn you analysis around, I could say all you prove is 
that the  simple picture _you proposed_ for what is going on inside the Griggs 
device is not true.

In your proposed picture, there is simply a steam layer that forms near
the rotor when the rotor reaches the flash point temperature. Allow 
me to remind you that, if this be the case, you, being a CF believer,
must believe that CF occurs when one creates a layer of steam next to 
an aluminum surface. I have a hard time with that logic :-)

Now, in fact, I assume that you really think it takes more to get CF than
just a layer of steam near an aluminum surface, otherwise you would
be at home doing calorimetry experiments on your kitchen stove.
So, the point is, you yourself must belive there is _more going on_ 
inside the Griggs device than the simply formation of a steam layer
when the rotor temperature reaches the flashpoint.

How does this allow me to shield my ``theory'' (its not much of 
a theory, as I try to make minimal assumption about what is going 
on) from your analysis? Well, I simply invoke the idea that there
is more going on than what you proposed. Here is one of
_many_ possibilities: the formation of the steam layer is not
_uniform_ over the rotor surface, due to the effects of variable rotor
temperature, turbulent flow, cavitiation (and all other fluctuation
inducing factors). During the warm up phase, small regions of
steam layer are forming and vanishing all over the rotor. Any little
patch that forms tens to reattach due to srrounding fluctuations.
Then, once the temperature gets very hot, there is a phase change: 
when a critical fraction of the rotor area is simulatenously
in a steam layer, there are not enough fluctuations to reattach it,
and it bifurcates into an all detached mode.

So, in short: your analysis is based on the assumption of a very uniform,
laminar flow situation in the rotor. The reality is that it is
a turbulent, strongly cavitating, multiphase flow. I could easy imagine
such a system bifurcating to its low drag ``detached'' state 
at a temperature far in excess of the normal flash point, just as turbulent
flow past a sphere stays attached to the surface far beyond the point
where a laminar flow separates.

For further inspiration, look at the different flow modes of a 
Taylor-Couette cyclinder some time (this is essentially a griggs
geometry rotor, but run at low speeds). Depending on its
adjustable parameter (which is rotor speed in that case), it falls
into one of _many_ complex flow patterns. It doesn't take much imagination
to think that the flow inside the griggs device could behave very 
differently from the simple picture you suggest.

Because of that, that is why I don't suggest burning too many
brain cells on trying to analyze a precise scenario for the
rotor-stored-heat+reduced-drag-flow-mode hypothesis. The rotor
clearly is _capable_ of storing enough heat for a ~1 hour run, 
and its clear that a reduced drag mode _does_ occur. But figuring out
the nature of this reduced drag mode could be quite chanllenging.
It is much less challenging to simple DO AN EXPERIMENT WHICH 
MEASURES OR BOUNDS THE HEAT STORED IN THE DEVICE PRIOR TO 
EXCESS HEAT STEAM MODE OPERATION.




 

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / 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: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 15:44:24 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rtlv3$d90@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:

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

***{I have seen estimates of the number of usenet groups that ranged from
5,000 to 10,000. Wallace is posting to 10 groups. And yet you say he
"floods the net with spam posts." Well, let's see: that means he posts to
between .1 and .2 percent of usenet groups. By this reasoning, you would
accuse a guest of flooding your living room, and would toss him out of
your house, if he spilled a teacup full of water on the floor! And I'll
bet you would, if the guest was poor Mr. Wallace! --Mitchell Jones}***    

> 
> >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.

***{I have already responded to this over and over again. It is reasonable
to post new theories of physics to these groups. In the case of
alt.alien.visitors, the Einstein theory asserts that no material entity
can travel faster than light, thereby rendering interstellar travel
essentially impossible. But, if we are being regularly visited by aliens,
then the Einstein theory is clearly wrong, and a new fundamental theory is
called for. Get it? Of course, most of the people posting to
alt.alien.visitors are not focused on such matters, but the possibility
that some might be justifies testing the waters for awhile. For how long?
The answer: that's Wallace's call. --Mitchell Jones}***
 
> > 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.

***{Wallace, I am told, used to post to 300 newsgroups. That is clearly
spamming. But he now posts to 10 groups, all of which are plausible places
where persons interested in his stuff might be found. This means that he
is learning from his mistakes, and making a good faith attempt to do the
right thing. In the past, the issue was clear; today, it is not clear. It
is time to forgive the man for what he did in the past, accept his
presence on the net, and move on. --Mitchell Jones)***
> 
> >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.

***{You say it didn't work. But the change in his behavior makes it look
to me like it did work. It is time to stop this campaign. What purpose is
served by continuing to beat on the man, when you have already achieved
97% of the objective that you sought? Do you all have hearts of stone?
--Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  MIchalchik /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: MIchalchik <MichalcM@physlog-po.physlog.uiowa.edu>
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: 20 Jun 1995 17:20:02 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

point taken, but atleast he's trying.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenMichalcM cudlnMIchalchik cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 / 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: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 16:18:35 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3rq28t$326o@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote the following in reply to a post from Tim Mirabile
<tim@mail.htp.com>:
> 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. 

***{Jim, this has all been addressed before. You get tense when I suggest
that you haven't been reading this thread, but you continue to post
material which supports precisely that interpretation. As noted
previously, and more than once, "nastygrams" are not communications: they
are deliberate harassment. The purpose is not to convince Wallace; it is
to bully him into acting against his convictions. You talk on and on about
netiquette, but you don't seem to realize that "nastygrams" are themselves
an instance of bad manners. And how absurd it is, in a tiny forum such as
this, to get so bent out of shape about the trivial inconvenience of
skipping over Wallace's posts, if you don't want to read them! I have
been, and remain, absolutely amazed that you guys can't see the obvious:
that your response here is absurdly out of proporation to the stimulus! As
I have also said previously, it is transparently obvious, to anyone who
sees with his own eyes and thinks with his own brain, that you guys are
far more out of line in your present behavior than Wallace is. He may have
spammed in the past, but right now you guys are the bandwidth problem, not
he. For myself, unless one of you posts an argument that is truly new--and
you haven't done that for some time now--I am going to not respond to you
in the future. I am sick of this whole little tempest in a teapot.
--Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
>    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. 

***{As already noted, ad nauseam, the nastygrams are clearly not material
that Wallace is interested in reading, whereas it is perfectly reasonable
for Wallace to think that some members of a flaky, unorthodox forum such
as this might be interested in his stuff. Bottom line: the incongruity
that you allege exists only in your own mind. --Mitchell Jones}***

He also declares that 
> someone has cancelbotted Wallace when all they did was edit their header 
> so as to reply in only one newsgroup.

***{There you go again, Jim. If you have been reading this thread all
along, then why do you keep repeating points that have already been made,
and responded to? --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
>    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? <G>
>  
> -
> Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
> Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

***{Send the books on netiquette to Jim. He obviously needs them more than
I do! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / John Cobb /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 20 Jun 1995 15:02:55 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <3rtk9s$r4t@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <3rn2q6$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)
>
>>     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.
>
I call this the 2-shoe kill. Drop one shoe today and say, no-no-no we are
doing what is best for the program. Then 1, 2, or 3 years later. Come
to the surprise, surprise conclusion that we cannot build ITER without a
national base program and kill it also.

>
>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've always thought that it mattered a great deal. That is why over the
last year when I have looked at employment opportunities, I have purposely
looked at positions that dissimianated information about science to the
general public and to policy-makers, telling them both what is good and
what is bad.
>
>And then they have the gall to proclaim that their budget proposals
>"protect" funding for scientific research!  Sheesh!

I make a challenge here and now to point out a single civillian basic
science program that is not facing serious cuts under this budget plan. 
I have yet to talk to anyone who can find one.

-john .w cobb



-- 
John W. Cobb	Quietly Making Noise, Pissing off the old Kill-Joys
		-Jimmy Buffett

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Harry Conover /  Shameful behavior
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shameful behavior
Date: 20 Jun 1995 20:16:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Dieter Britz (britz@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:  

: I note that the voices voting for Wallace continuing to post here and 
: defending his right to free speech (and denying ours at the same time) are
: people who have not posted here before; in other words they have come here
: only in order to stir things up.

Sadly, this entire scene has become unbelievably ugly, having 
activated and exposed the worst side of a number of 
people.  It's interesting that even the most heated 
disagreement on the significance of CF findings failed 
to surface this quantity of hate and venom.  Why?

I've watched developments here without comment, until now.  If 
nothing else, it's been an education in the psychology of group 
behavior -- possibly gang behavior.  I question what
it is about Wallace that sets him apart for this special 
treatment -- evidently something beyond spamming that 
Archimedes Plutonium, Stefan Hartmann and others -- all characterized 
by frequent postings of  verbose nonsense -- lack.  Still, the 
Wallace quintessence seemingly doesn't warrant the emotional and 
vitriolic diatribe granted it. 
 
: The same goes for Wallace himself, it seems.
: He now knows that there is an overwhelming majority of people in this 
: group, who want him to go away.

This says more about some of the people in this group than 
it does about Wallace. 

In the USA, unlike some other parts of the world, the minority has 
rights too. It's a central component of an endagered species called 
freedom.  Heaven help us when only the majority opinion counts!

In this situation the entire concept of a vote and a majority
opinion is moot.  Indeed, it smacks more of someone having so little 
self-assurance that they must validate themselves through others.
It also could be the result of a frustrated "control freak" playing 
manipulative games --  With the resulting rage and tantrums from Wallace's 
refusal to be "controlled" lending support to this notion.  All in all, 
silly, childish behavior that is totally out of place in a newsgroup
largely populated with adult, educated professionals.  In this case
the actions of Wallace's antagonists are more reprehensible that those
of Mr. Wallace himself.  Shame on you!  

: We don't read his postings, excellent though they
: may be (I wouldn't know); the one or two people who defend him are not 
: normal contributors to spf. 

Check your facts on this.  Two of Wallace's biggest attackers are 
relative newcomers to s.p.f., while one of Wallace's supporters,
Jed Rothwell, is a (bite my tongue on saying this) central 
to most of the ongoing CF debates.  

: If I were Wallace, I would now leave this group alone.
: Since he doesn't, I conclude that, rather than wanting 
: to convince us of his message (which we either kill or 
: skip past), he just wants to annoy us with it. That, 
: Wallace, is not nice. It may be you have a right to do this,
: but there are things one has a right to, that one doesn't do
: just the same. This has to do with etiquette and morals, know 
: what I mean?

Ah, yes... this animal Wallace is truly nasty and dangerous:  When
cornered and attacked, it fights back.  Surprise!

Morals and etiquette?  Here?  In context, this statement appears
so hypocritical that I must assume that you say it in jest.

May I remind you that this is the same group in which one 
participant decided to publically conduct a poll (a vote?) for the 
purpose of determining if another group participant should be asked
to leave (one of the most classless acts that I have personally
ever witnessed on the net).  Soon, a co-conspirator appeared, and
endless number of crude, insulting, and even immoral assaults
on Wallace followed -- acts presumably vindicated by the
representation they were acting in the name of a majority.
Morals and etiquette -- give me a break!

 
: Annoy us he certainly has; and his band of followers, too. 
: Monday morning's list of postings were dominated by this stuff. 
: Fusion, hot or cold, looks like fading out from this group.

When you defecate on rattlesnakes, expect bites.


: Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to 
: change this group into a lightly moderated one?

Oh good, another poll. But, didn't we go through this moderating or 
splitting the group debate only a few months ago?  Oh...???


                                       Harry C.

ps.  Obviously, the signal/noise ratio of this group has been on the
     decline, but one must ask:  Is this because there is too much noise,
     or because there is too little signal?  A small injection of 
     significant, verifiable progress would help immensely.




cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 03:54:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3sact9$6j1@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>I dont think that the bulk of QM and the impressive array of
>results it has produced are under a significant threat here. 

What? You don't believe in black magic and smoke and mirrors?

>Back to physics. What is likely to happen with QM is that our interpretation
>of it will evolve and expand. My feeling is that the math will be taken fore-
>granted and there will be an increasing focus on the physics in building up
>better intuitive models of our physical reality. This will lay the foundations
>for our next Great Leap Forward.

Who is going to even understand the math if our schools continue to
deteriorate at the present rate? After all, there is no longer any
need for disapline in schools. There is no need for learning in schools.
We are far too busy teaching our children to just get along together.

I suggest you look at the latest results of state SAT's. And don't
forget that the SAT's are being "dumbed down".

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 03:24:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3s5u4q$sjl@maureen.teleport.com> Charles Cagle,
singtech@teleport.com writes:
> The U.S. Fusion program is an utter con job.  And you are either very 
> naive for believing that breakeven is just around the corner or so 
> morally corrupt that you are hopeless.

Given that TFTR is within a factor of 3 or so and JET is expected to
make breakeven whenever it goes to full DT, I have no idea where
you get this idea.  As for the con job, speak for yourself, perhaps,
but TFTR has delivered on everything it promised, with less budget
than expected, albeit over a somewhat longer timescale (due primarily
to congressional budget cuts in the early and mid 1980s).

> Talk in usable watt-secs.  Or kilowatt hours of usable power.  Not in 
> amounts of energy released per unit of time.  Cut the release period to 
> very small increments of time and the power rises.  Go to zero and the 
> nod of a piss ant's head provides infinite energy.  Do you really 
> believe everyone is as naive as to believe your pitch?

TFTR produced 33 MJ of fusion power in one day recently.  That's
just shy of 10 kWh.  Not a lot, admittedly, but definitely not nothing.
But TFTR was never designed to produce much more than that.
The problem is that while we know how to build machines that will
achieve breakeven and beyond, we haven't figured out how to get
the construction funding for them.

> The U.S. Fusion program is not close to breakeven because they haven't
a 
> clue about the fusion process.

Care to enlighten me on this one?  A program which goes from 
producing 0.000001 of breakeven (to within a couple of zeros) to producing
0.3 of breakeven, in just 25 years or so, is clearly "close" and most 
certainly "has a clue".
 
> I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
> immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
> DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
> solution in a year.

Funny, but no one I know around here wears a white coat.  And they
work pretty long hours and achieve a heck of a lot in the way of good
results, so I find your sense of the word "Welfare" a bit unusual.
Although they are certainly working on an energy source which
would be for the welfare of mankind.
 
If private enterprise thought it could have a solution in a year,
they'd be working on it right now - there'd be a huge economic
incentive to do the research.  However, it's just not happening.  
Still, the fact that you believe what you wrote suggests that 
maybe it is you who is (to rephrase your second sentence from 
far above) "either very naive for believing that ... or so morally 
corrupt that you are hopeless."  Or perhaps you have a few
*facts* that you'd like to share which would support your views?

Frankly, you could get more respect if you were a little more
polite.  For instance, I would have replied to your private
emails if it weren't for hostile postings like these.  I ain't
no welfare queen.  

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 03:35:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DAEnn9.Fps@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
> In article <3rtk9s$r4t@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
> <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> >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.
> 
> It's just that the books have to be balanced, Bob.  You and your
> lofty buddies have been soaring on borrowed Japanese money, and the
> plug is being pulled.  The value of the dollar is in the dumpster.  
> Wake up.  The joy ride couldn't go on forever, and besides you didn't
> seem to be so depressed when the Alternative Concepts where cut
> and those groups were shut down with most of their personell dumped.  

Yes!  Another winner from Paul!  Has it occurred to you that I
was in Junior High School when the alternative concepts were
cut in the early 1980s?  It's amazing that you'd have noticed that
"I didn't seem to be so depressed" back then - absolutely amazing!
Let's be clear - I didn't make this mess, and all I want to do is
get out of it.  And I do support alternative concepts funding.
I'm even tempted to try building a little plasmak for my
thesis project.  But whenever you make some foolish and
insensitive insulting remark like the one above, I realize how
much I'd hate having to discuss your work with you.

There's no way in hell you can attribute the national debt
to scientific research, in any case.  Cutting research funding
to try to balance the budget is like giving yourself a lobotomy
to try to lose weight.  There's not much weight to be lost, and
you pay a pretty huge price for it in the long run.

> >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.
> 
> But Bob, you are not supposed to be doing "science" but to be "using"
> science to be doing engineering work to create a workable fusion
reactor.  
> The National Science Foundation does "Science" and the DoE isn't needed
> to do "Science" so .. ... why not cut out that huge expense that
> hasn't been doing what congress intended?  We can't afford TWO science
> agencies.   

Maybe you missed out on the line items in the DOE budget that
say things like "Basic Energy Sciences".  NSF traditionally does
small-scale science, and DOE traditionally does large-scale
science (particle accelerators, nuclear physics labs, etc).
Give me a break.

Come back with a better budget and you'll find me in a better mood.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 03:38:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3s4pvk$n4q@news1.radix.net> Joseph Davidson, jhd@radix.net
writes:
> Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
> 
> : 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!
> 
> The Wall Street jobs are already glutted.  You need a backround in
system 
> programming and finance to even get an interview.

Not true.  One of the other students in my program who is 
about to graduate recently took a job there ($80k).  If he had 
a background in finance, I didn't know about it.  A lot of us do 
computational research so we pick up the programming along 
the way.  Unfortunately, he didn't like the job and is now 
looking for something else while finishing his thesis.

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 03:46:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3s79hf$80s@curly.cc.utexas.edu> John W. Cobb,
johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu writes:
> In article <3rtk9s$r4t@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
> Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >(Fears about next year's budget.)
> I call this the 2-shoe kill. Drop one shoe today and say, no-no-no we
are
> doing what is best for the program. Then 1, 2, or 3 years later. Come
> to the surprise, surprise conclusion that we cannot build ITER without a
> national base program and kill it also.

Sigh.  Or more likely we'll find that to build ITER we'd need to pump
up the budget again, and they don't seem willing to do that. 

> >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've always thought that it mattered a great deal. That is why over the
> last year when I have looked at employment opportunities, I have
purposely
> looked at positions that dissimianated information about science to the
> general public and to policy-makers, telling them both what is good and
> what is bad.

Yes, I noticed (am I right?) that you received one of the APS/AIP
Washington internships.  Congratulations!

But did you notice that the new budget proposal zeroes out all DOE
education/outreach funding?  That's not good news for those who
think one of the problems with the current system is that scientists
aren't doing enough to explain what they do to the rest of the world.

> >And then they have the gall to proclaim that their budget proposals
> >"protect" funding for scientific research!  Sheesh!
> 
> I make a challenge here and now to point out a single civillian basic
> science program that is not facing serious cuts under this budget plan. 
> I have yet to talk to anyone who can find one.

My impression was that particle physics research (which gets
an increase this year under the current budget) was pretty well
protected, although I suppose it may lose out in the long run due
to inflation.  But other than that I think you're right on.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / David Davies /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: 22 Jun 1995 16:00:36 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

Horacio Gasquet <gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu> writes:
...
>The only good science is to assume it is wrong until proven right.
...
I dont see science in such monochrome terms and I dont think most
other people do either. Most results, both experimental and theoretical
are probationary to some extent. 

If something is unproven then it is just that - to some degree. This is
not the same as saying it has been disproven - again to some degree.

If you cant cope with shades of (un)certainty then at least accept that
many others not only can, but see it as the essence of vitality for an
evolving science.

Loosen up,

dave


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /   /  Re: Merriman's hilarious double standard
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's hilarious double standard
Date: 22 Jun 1995 02:06:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Well, when is someone going to use one of these wonderous devices to
produce more energy (measured as the equivalent cost of the energy from,
let's say, gasoline) than the device costs plus the cost of the amount of
energy which goes into the device from external sources? 

It would be nice if this energy were produced in sufficient abbundance to
do something useful, such as power Jed's computer (although some would
argue that this wouldn't be a productive use) for several months. Then the
presence of his words here would be due directly to CF!

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  REALMIKEL /  Independent Science Project
     
Originally-From: realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Independent Science Project
Date: 20 Jun 1995 16:50:48 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am a high school student in New York. For the next few years I will be
conducting experiments and research based on cold fusion. If someone can
e-mail me, and send me some info to start out with, I would greatly
appreciate it.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrealmikel cudlnREALMIKEL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  ProFusion /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: profusion@aol.com (ProFusion)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 20 Jun 1995 17:05:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

On Wed, 14 Jun 95, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

"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. There are hundred questions more important than that, starting
with:
How much does it cost? Answer: virtually nothing. How much can we sell it
for?
Lots! What is the fuel consumption? Too small to measure. How much
pollution
does it generate? None. Those are important questions. 'What causes it?'
is a
trivial question, way down the list."
 
 Beggin' your pardon, Jed? This is a very strange statement for posting in
a mostly scientific forum.

"Really, I cannot imagine why anyone gives a darn what causes CF energy."

I do. I want to know. Why is simply because I'm curious. Aren't you?
   Science is really nothing more than organized, collective curiosity.
That there are practical applications to the knowledge acquired from
indulging our curiosity is nice but usually serendipitous. Knowing more
about reality, about the universe, is always advantageous, but our
primatial drive of curiosity is just there, wanting nothing further than
its own satisfaction. Like sex. That there are other benefits is secondary
to that drive.
   I agree that there are important issues involved other than the purely
scientific. I also agree that empirical development, in the lack of a
theoretical consensus, is the way to go until enough data accrues to form
an understanding. But that understanding will speed things up
considerably.

"Scientists seem obsessed with that issue to the exclusion of all
practical concerns."

Scientists are primarily concerned with understanding phenomena. They are
the social embodiment of our curiosity. That's the job. Why castigate them
for doing it? Practical concerns are important for setting priorities for
organized research, and for paying researchers for their time, but have
little to do with curiosity.
   CF is a curious thing. If it truly has to do with nuclear reactions or
with quantum fluctuations, we stand to learn a *big* chunk of new
knowledge.

The Patterson Power Cell, to me, is neither an ultimate vindication of the
reality of the CF phenomena, nor a commercial breakthrough. For me, its
importance is that it is a CF device with 100% reliability in the
production of anomalous heat, suitable for regular, organized study. I
just spoke with Dan Zavela of CETI and mentioned this to him; he said that
this was the way Dr. Patterson feels.
   A reliable device such as this should make the search for nuclear ash
much easier, for instance.

If people make money from their work and ingenuity, if the air gets
cleaner from dropping the fossil fuel habit, if the standard of living for
everyone on the whole planet goes up . . . hey, I'm all for that! But if I
never find out what it is that's happening in that lattice, that's going
to really bug me.

   ---Victor Lapuszynski   <ProFusion@aol.com>
     "Cold Fusion"
      70 Route 202N
      Peterborough, NH 03458-1107

      (603) 924-0058 x 327
 fax: (603) 588-3205
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenprofusion cudlnProFusion cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Wallace
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wallace
Date: 20 Jun 1995 22:17:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

OK, here is a solution to the Wallace and spammimg problems in general.
It is a solution that John Logajan might support.  What say John?

If people were charged, like they are for telephone calls, by the amount
of net traffic they generate, then they would think long and hard about
who they put on their list.  I would charge them all the way to the
recipent.  Noow we could run up their bill just by requesting their 
post.  We would not have to read it.  ;^)

Some are charged now.  Not sure if it is for sending or receiving or
both.  But it does not look like Archy Plotonium or Wallace have to pay
a bill.  Note that this solution has nothing to do with free speech.  
The Constitution does not (yet) guarantee us equal access to the material
possessions of our choice.

Tom Droege



In article <3s5ism$1ka@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>It just occured to me that if we can ever educate Mr. Wallace on the
>proper forums for the appropriate topics, he could retitle all
>his postings to:
>
>The PARSE of Physics
>
>:-)
>
>--
> - 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:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Morrison's Article.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison's Article.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 20:59:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
 
>Nate Hoffman, a long-time consultant for EPRI regarding CF issues, told
>me recently that EPRI is no longer supporting Mike McKubre's CF work --
>that is where the lion's share of EPRI funding was going.  Perhaps
>Jed will tell us just what EPRI is supporting -- perhaps a small amount
>to check the E-quest claims?
 
Ha! You wish it were so, don't you? You and Nate are both full of bull.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 21:01:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
 
>Heck, the GOP is going to close down the DOE and save the country a bundle
>and -- at the same time -- they will put thousands of experts in the streets
>begging for jobs. I'll be able to hire them for ten cents on the dollar!
>It's perfect.
 
Note to Humor Impaired readers: that is a joke. In real life I would never
think of hiring any out-of-work DOE scientists. Not even to take out the
garbage.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 21:05:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
>When it is not hard to find people who worry about the use of 
>radioactive materials in their smoke detectors, a "nuclear reactor" 
>for the garage could be a hard sell.  
 
Don't be silly Jim. For years and years you and every other mainstream
scientist in the U.S. has been yelling that CF is not nuclear. It can't
be nuclear, you say, because there are no neutrons. I've got thousands
of statements from you, and dozens of official reports all asserting that
cold fusion cannot possibly be nuclear. So it is case closed as far as
I am concerned. I will tell the customers there is nothing nuclear about
CF, and therefore nothing to be afraid of. Period. When they ask for proof,
I will send them to *you*. You are my expert witness. You and the DOE and
APS and all the others have made it nice and easy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00:53:37 -0500
Date: 16 Jun 1995 20:17:46 GMT
Organization: 21st Century Logic
Organization: UCSD SOE

Path:
bird3.i-link.net!uunet!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!usc!elroy.
pl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!soenews.ucsd.edu!usenet
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
Lines: 44
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3rsota$fju@soenews.ucsd.edu>
References: <21cenlogic-1506950258460001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: starfire.ucsd.edu

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)

Barry, I have been thinking about your theory (that energy is stored in
the rotor during the warmup phase, and dumped back into the water flow
during the steam phase), and I am beginning to have logical problems with
it. If we assume, for the sake of argument (I don't have the figures in
front of me) that the water pressure is at 5 atmospheres and that, at that
pressure, it will flash to steam at 155 degrees C, then here is what would
happen: 

(1) During the warmup phase (30 minutes, say) the rotor will heat up from
the starting water temperature (20 degrees C, say) to 154 degrees C. As it
spins in this phase, the rotor will be in direct contact with liquid water
on its surface, and will experience a considerable frictional drag.
Result: the electric motor that turns the rotor will have high power
consumption during this phase, because of the high drag resistance. 

(2) As soon as the rotor temperature reaches 155 degrees C (or
thereabouts: this is a guesstimate), the water that strikes it will begin
to flash to steam, with the result that the rotor becomes enveloped in a
thin layer of steam. Frictional drag will drop at this point, and so will
the power consumption of the motor that turns the rotor. In addition,
because of the reduced friction on the rotor, which is now enveloped in a
thin layer of steam, the rotor will now begin to cool down, quickly
dumping some of its stored heat back into the water stream. But here is
the rub: if it cools even slightly, its temperature will fall below the
flash point, the frictional heating of the rotor will resume, and the
motor's power consumption will jump back up. Conclusion: the minimum rpm
at which the rotor can reace the flash point is insufficient for smooth
operation. 

(3) Therefore, to *maintain* the rotor in the phase where frictional drag
is reduced, the rpm must be increased far above the rpm when the phase
transition first occurs, until there is once again enough frictional drag
on the rotor to hold its temperature above the flash point. At lower rpm's
there will be rough operation because the rotor will be constantly rising
above, then falling below, the flash temperature. Thus the "steam phase"
only begins when this plateau of smooth operation is reached. Importantly,
in the steam phase the temperature of the rotor is still only slightly
above the flash point of the water (at the given pressure), but the rpm is
far above the minimum rpm where the flash temperature could be reached.

If such an interpretation is correct, Barry, then your argument doesn't
work: in the steam phase, the temperature of the rotor remains only
slightly above the flash point. It has no leeway to dump stored heat into
the water stream, because its temperature cannot decline without dropping
it out of the phase of smooth operation (the "steam" phase). In other
words, since the temperature of the rotor cannot decline without dropping
the pump out of the "steam phase," and since the rotor temperature has to
drop if it is to dump stored heat, it follows that it can't dump stored
heat while operating in the steam phase. But your whole theory rests on
the premise that the rotor can dump stored heat while operating in the
steam phase. Therefore, if my analysis is correct, your argument must be
wrong. 

Any comments?

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Martin Sevior /  Re:Cravens demo interesting?
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Cravens demo interesting?
Date: 22 Jun 1995 06:33:42 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

Well Dick I find the demo very interesting. It appears to produce over watt of
excess heat reliablly without a large preload time so there's no question
of peroxide generation and storage. The results seem totally
reproducable. The flow calorimetry agrees nicely with the calibration
resistive heater. No excess heat is generated when the ni/Pd beads are replaced
with gold plated beads.

I can't find anything wrong with the experiment. It seems you can't nor can
anyone else on the s.p.f newsgroup.

Here's a device that seems to produce over 1 watt of energy from nowhere!

Surely that's interesting and deserves a full and thorough investigation?

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / David Davies /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 22 Jun 1995 17:48:45 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>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.

I agree. He provides most of the relevant new material. 

>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, 

Yes, but I would say *very* interesting. 

>I am not so quick to abandon exisitng science.

Here we part company. I dont see the need to abandon any existing science.
We have a relatively new ball park, thats all. There have been many
tentative explanations put forward for CF. They are probably all wrong
but most of them leave existing science intact.

>     Jed, on the other hand, 
>seems to make the break quite freely. Some, the incredible magnitude
>of the claim does not weigh on him. 

No bother to him if you do have to rewrite the text books but I dont
think he believes the Chicken Little stories he sees here.

>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.

I wouldnt fly in a plane that Jed had built but I would be even more concerned
if the average scientist had built it. 

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

Goes both ways. If CF does prove itself the public image of scientists will take
a beating that will take generations to live down. If CF fails Jed will wipe the
egg off his face and move on.

>(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)



dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / David Davies /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 18:11:37 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>As far as I know, there is no mutual antipathy. It is Jed that 
>thinks skpetical scientists are evil incarnate. The scientists
>are pretty level headed about it.

Woooa! It is possible to be extremely offensive without frothing
at the mouth - particularly if you are running with the pack.

How often have I seen it claimed or suggested that Griggs is a
con-man? A few minutes ago was the last time. 

I had hoped that Tom's trip had at least taken the heat out of
that claim.

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Richard Schultz /  Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I apologize on behalf of Morrison (and Jones!)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 11:10:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3sb8jp$l2c@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>Woooa! It is possible to be extremely offensive without frothing
>at the mouth - particularly if you are running with the pack.

For example, when someone who doesn't know what he's talking about
says "put up or shut up," and then when the person to whom he addressed
the remark "puts up," doesn't even have the grace to admit that he
was wrong?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking. . . You did not
have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing. . . Did you ever
think, for even a second, what might happen to you if these people turn
out to be right?" -- Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 6 January 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /  GeorgeRW /  Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 22 Jun 1995 07:53:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Is there anyone out there at the present time who is conducting any CF
experiments using permanent magnets as one of the variables? 

Is there anyone who knows of any experiments which used electromagnets and
produced positive results, either alone or any other stimulus?

Now, I am aware of some experiments that were performed approximately two
years ago, but I am interested in current work?

Is there any theoretical work which in any way incorporates magnetics into
the CF theory structure?

George Wisniewski
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengeorgerw cudlnGeorgeRW cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Alan Watson /  Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
     
Originally-From: Alan Watson <atw>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shrinking hydrogen---any QM ways?
Date: 22 Jun 1995 11:58:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, UK.

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote:
>In article <3r2686$lfn@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
>>So, aside from using muons to shrink H, can anyone think of
>>any other sound approach? 
>
>No, but it could be just as valuable to be able to make cheap muons, and
>if the conversion efficiency could be vastly increased then the muononeum 
>technique could be a real winner.  My candidate for doing this is to
>capture a ball lightning of the type (NOT PLASMAKtm configurations), which 
>is produced by a grain of decaying nuclear matter, and flatten the nuclear 
>matter to something less than the area of a small postage stamp and whose 
>thickness doesn't exceed much more than 10% of the width of an electron.  
>Then by passing a beam of hydrogen through this matter the bound electrons 
>should be converted to muons, since the preferred ground state for an 
>electrons within the nuclear matter is that of the muon.  Incidentally, 
>when one of this pops out of a nucleus it can be though of as an electron 
>in a high energy level state.     What we won't consider, just to bump a 
>local paradigm.  
>
   Hate to pick nits, but what do you reckon "10% of the width of an electron" 
is anyway? We know that electrons are < 10^-18m or so across, but that is ALL
we know about their size - they may well be mathematical points (no size) for
all
we know. 
   While we are at it, the phenomenom of "lepton number conservation" would 
present another snag with this scheme: you cannot (that has ever been observed
at any rate - people have looked quite hard) simply change an electron into a
muon. You can change an electron into a muon, an muon antineutrino and an
electron neutrino, provided you have something else involved so that you can
conserve energy and momentum, but this is a weak process and so will have a
very
low rate (there is in fact no evidence and very little theoretical support for
the muon being considered a high-energy state of the electron).
   I'm assuming the squashing of a nucleus to give the area of a postage stamp
was whimsical - or are US trouser-presses more serious machines than the 
European ones?
            Alan

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudfnAlan cudlnWatson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / guiness att /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:13:39 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com says...
>
>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. 
>
>In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, you say...
>
>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. 
>
  I understand that inertia is proposed to be "due to" a coulomb-like 
force between the electrically charged constituents of atoms undergoing 
acceleration and the ZPF. Does this mean neutral particals (neutrons, 
neutrinos, etc) do not exhibit inertia? Jerry Pulice
>
>
>
In article <3rkdee$ji@boris.eden.com>, you say...
>
>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. 
>
  I understand that inertia is proposed to be "due to" a coulomb-like 
force between the electrically charged constituents of atoms undergoing 
acceleration and the ZPF. Does this mean neutral particals (neutrons, 
neutrinos, etc) do not exhibit inertia? Jerry Pulice att-bl.
>
>
>

>
>

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Bill Page /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 22 Jun 1995 14:55:37 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3samsq$3k1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) says:
>
> ...
>
>Secondly the Bohm models of hidden variables give predictions different
>from QM, copenhagen interpretation of no. Hidden variables theories as
>a class have been proven conclusively to be unable to reproduce the
>predictions of QM; that proof is called Bell's theorem. Many
>experiments have been performed to check QM in the situations where
>QM conclusively differs from hidden variables theories. All such
>experiments have agreed with QM as supplemented by the copenhagen
>interpretation.

No, this is quite wrong. See, for example John Bell's own discussion
of Bohm's interpretation in "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum
mechanics", J.S.Bell, Cambridge University Press, 1987. Especially
chapter 17 "On the impossible pilot wave". The "proof" that you
are referring to is really based on a theorem of John von Neumann's
which turns out to be incorrect. Bell's theorem however says something
quite different and is not incompatible with hidden variable theories.
It does strongly imply that all such theories must be non-local which
Bohm's interpretation is. (By Bell's theorem, either hidden variable
interpretations of QM must be non-local or they must be "un-realistic"
- a characteristic which is considerably less desireable than being
non-local.)

>
> ...
>
>Finally the copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation
>of QM, just the first successful one. It is in the process of being
>supplanted by the many-histories interpretation, which is more powerful
>in that it does not need to start by assuming the separate existence of
>the classical world but instead derives the existence of the classical
>domain from QM itself.

In fact both the pilot wave model (de Broglie) and the Copenhagen
interpretation (Bohr and Heisenberg) were both introduced at the
Solvay conference in 1927. Historically the Copenhagen interpretation
has been favoured but both interpretations have continued to be improved
over the years. De Broglie suspended his interest in the subject after
the conference but in later years published a book "Non-linear Quantum
Mechanics", translated from the French "Tentative d'interpretation
causale et non-linear de la mechanique ondulatoire", Gauthier-Villars,
1956, which again advocated the development of this point of view. David
Bohm improved on de Broglie's approach, especially in the area of
the quantum theory of measurement. The derivation of classical limits
from Bohm's interpretation is straight forward. See "The Undivided
Universe" by D. Bohm, and B.J. Hiley, Routledge, 1993. Also a very
good review is provided in "A Survey of Bohmian Mechanics", K.
Berndl, M. Daumer, D. Durr, S. Goldstein, N. Zanghi; to appear
in Il Nuovo Cimento 1995 (available now as a LANL electronic
pre-print).

The many histories (or many worlds, or Everett) interpretation is
more recent and is also still undergoing further development.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Bill Page /  Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Permanent Magnet CF Experiments?
Date: 22 Jun 1995 14:59:57 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3sblis$8hl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) says:
>
>Is there anyone out there at the present time who is conducting any CF
>experiments using permanent magnets as one of the variables? 

Apparently Srinivasin at BARC, India is looking at the effects of
magnetic fields on the absorption of hydrogen by nickel.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Questions from Merriman and Richardson
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions from Merriman and Richardson
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 11:29:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) asks about the Griggs flow tests.
 
     "(1) were these observations of the steam mode (60 % excess heat) or hot
     water mode (< 10% excess heat)?"
 
We have been over this ground dozens of times. I am sure you know the answer
as well as I do. You cannot do a high temperature steam test for a long time,
because the steel drum fills up. That's why you do a flow test. The GG works
better at high temperatures, so the flow test, which must use tap water, is
always less efficient.
 
I am sick of answering the same old stupid questions about the GG. Stop
bothering me about it. Review the older postings or contact Griggs directly.
 
 
     "(2) Were these formal experiments, or merely visual observations?"
 
How on earth can a person "visually observe" a Delta T water temperature? Do
you think I can see infrared? Do you think I can measure water flow rate by
e.s.p? I am not sure what a "formal experiment" is. I never wear a white lab
coat, if that's what you mean. In the video you will see that I am usually the
only person wearing a business suit (sans necktie). I do not know what
"formal" means in this context, but I assure you that everything I do is
rigorous and I never report anything unless I have checked it carefully. I am
not Tom Droege; I never report haphazard, casual, subjective impressions or
numbers that I think I remember from a few days ago.
 
 
     "(3) is a detailed presentation of the data available?"
 
Not from me.
 
 
mrichar353@aol.com (Mark Richardson) asks:
 
     "Well, when is someone going to use one of these wonderous devices to
     produce more energy (measured as the equivalent cost of the energy from,
     let's say, gasoline) than the device costs plus the cost of the amount
     of energy which goes into the device from external sources?"
 
Someone is going to do that starting three years ago. Someone already has done
it. Ultrasound gadgets are sold by Hydrodynamics in the U.S. and by Vizor
Inc., in the former Soviet Union. I suggest you review my "Highlights of the
Fifth International Conference On Cold Fusion" for more information.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 15:09:03 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3sact9$6j1@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au
(David R Davies) writes:

>The rest of us eventually realised that the pseudo-
>intellectual clap-trap that constituted communism was no threat to a system
>that had evolved naturally over centuries. . . .

>This will lay the foundations for our next Great Leap Forward.

Am I the only one to see the irony in this posting?

(BTW, do you plan to show how the QM postulates I posted are equivalent
to assuming the stability of the hydrogen atom?)
--
					Richard Schultz

". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
				Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attention: SCOTT LITTLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:57:01 +0900
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <3s98l2$2evc@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, FKNF40A@prodigy.com
(James Stolin) wrote:
>    It's not the same situation with the Wallace spams.  I'm all for free 
> speech.  You can shout from the street corner to your heart's content.  
> However, when you rig bullhorns to several street corners your "free 
> speech" right conflicts with my right to peace and quiet. Free speech 
> does not guarantee the you can force your noise upon others.
> -
> Jim Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  fknf40a@prodigy.com
> Opinions are my own ... but could be yours.

That's exactly what the Supreme Court just said, too.  Gay and Lesbian
groups wanted to be part of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade.  The parade
organizers didn't want them.  The issue was just recently settled in the
Supreme Court where the court said that the parade organizers where
organizing a function for a specific purpose and had every right to deny
participants with other purposes.  This does not inflict on the Gay and
Lesbian groups' rights because they still have other forums they can go to.

When I heard this story, I immediately thought of the debates going on in
this group.  Are you listening, Mitchell & Wallace?

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 20:22:11 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3s8vpf$1rd@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard  
Schultz) writes:
> In article <pu7-G25.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 

> 
> "What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have?
> What is the matter with you?  This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's
> have some patience, and some manners."
> 			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993

Richard: how dare you attribute such an obvious misquote to Jed. :-)

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Merriman's hilarious double standard
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's hilarious double standard
Date: 22 Jun 1995 20:36:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Jed:

no one denies that you are the source of the most detailed 
experimental data on the Griggs device---why do you think people
address questions about it to you?

(Say, whatever happened to getting Griggs online---I'd much
rather communicate with him directly).

Yes, I argee with you that Tom D.'s reported contained no 
useful experimental information. It was of sociological interest 
only, and basically made the point that Griggs has a sincere
interest and open mind about getting to the bottom of
what is going on in his machine, and also that the experimental
protocols he has used in the past are not up to the standards of
scientific proof of excess energy---especially in the hot water mode.

In any case, the bottom line is this:

When you did your steam experiments, why did you ignore measuring
the heat stored (or simply heat out - electric power in) in the device 
during the warm-up phase.

Without an empirical bound on this stored heat, the results of your 
experiments are rendered INCONCLUSIVE. It is as simple as that, open 
and shut case. NO panel of professional scientists would draw any
definitive conclusions from your experiments. 

What's that---you don't need no stinkin scientific approval? Fine,
go join ranks with the parapsychologists, and give use a call
when you've got your excess heat producing, telekinetically
levitated CF water stirrer.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply direct our inquiries directly
at Griggs. Its clear that you, unlike Griggs, have already become 
one of the true-believers, and are incapable of admitting 
an obvious whole in you experimental protocol.






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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion???
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:59 -0500 (EST)

bigphil@cts.com (Phil Palisoul II) writes:
 
-> after taking a high school chemistry class, i was told that when bonding ato
-> that the more energy, and the harder/ or more energetic the collision the mo
-> to take place.  if this is so then how could cold fusion ever work?
 
Wait until next semester when they cover catalysts and you will get an idea
of what some of the other possibilities are.  BTW, the more energetic the
system, the more likelyhood of BREAKING bonds as well.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  Eleaticus /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus)
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: 21 Jun 1995 02:08:53 GMT
Organization: Think Tank Eleatic

vanjac@netcom.com (Van) wrote:

> There was no time before the big-bang. A scientist once said
> (I forget the name, but agree with the statement), that this
> question makes no sense, and is the logical equivalent of
 
> "what is north of the north pole?".

The North Star?   Lots of galaxies?

Why did you post that trash, Van.  Has he done
something to you?

!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus                                      Think Tank Eleatic ?
! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of   ?
!  premises, logic, and conclusions"  ftp.infohaus.fv.com:/infohaus ?
!  ThnkTank@cris.com     http://www.infohaus.fv.com/access/by-topic ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenThnkTank cudlnEleaticus cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  Eleaticus /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus)
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: 21 Jun 1995 02:09:30 GMT
Organization: Think Tank Eleatic

> : Do you think that particles 
> : accelerated to nearly lightspeed should behave differently in an 
> : accelerator which is moving in one direction (along the ring orthogonal 
> : axis) vs moving another direction (along a line in the ring plane)?  And 
> : so on?  How do you explain the Michaelson-Morely results?
 
> :                                                   Steve Harris
 
The first Think Tank Eleatic test model for Michel-
son-Morley  without  spatial  contraction  or  time 
dilation.  The 'catch and throw' model because  any 
(c+v) model is the equivalent of insisting that the 
reflection velocity  is in no way a function of the 
incoming velocity of light - as if it were 'caught' 
to reduce it to zero velocity  relative  to the re-
flector,   and then 'thrown' at a constant velocity 
relative to the reflector.

We affirm that in his  own  measuring system -  the 
Michelson-Morley apparatus - the observer Acie will
see, for any arm of the device, while inertial,  on
the outbound and inbound light trips:


                  d = c(t_1)                 (1)
                  d = c(t_2)                 (2)
         
         and      v = 0                      (0a)
         and    t_1 = t_2                    (0b)  

and all the  times and distances  are the  same  on 
both arms of the apparatus. However, he is an open, 
cooperative person,  and can  think  of no reason - 
not being a Special Relativist -  that he shouldn't 
consider the  idea that his system is moving.    In 
fact, he knows he is moving  relative  to darn near 
everything else in the universe.   Perhaps  he  can 
include that fact in his equations without any dam-
aging results for his mathematical view of the uni-
verse.  For one thing,   he doesn't have to include 
any contraction or dilation factors.  Or, at least, 
he doesn't think so.   If this analysis says he has 
to, then he will.

He  doesn't  have  to worry  about  viewpoint,   he 
thinks,  good science and good instrumentation will 
get the same measurements on his apparatus whatever 
the inertial frame,  axes,  coordinate  system  the 
measurer uses; just as long as the  observer  isn't 
accelerating maybe.

Further, he'll get the same measure for his own ve-
locity,  relative to any such coordinate system, as 
will the scientist in that coordinate system.


       d + v(t_1)  =  (c+v)(t_1)         (1')
       d - v(t_2)  =  (c+v)(t_2)         (2')


"Solving (1') and (2') for the times,

                            d
              (t_1)  =  ---------           
                         (c-v+v)

                            d
                     =  ----------        (1'')
                            c

                            d
              (t_2)  =  ---------- 
                         (c+v-v)

                            d
                     =  -----------       (2'')
                            c


"and the total time on the AB arm is
                                
                              2d     
          t = (t_1+t_2)  =  ------.              (3)
                               c

Now, isn't that special!   According to this setup,
the time light takes to travel from  A to B  is al-
ways d/c,  ditto from B to A,  when seen by  anyone 
anywhere in any inertial frame;   the  measurements 
are universal, remember.

There's a lot of  noise and static in physics about 
the idea of a  Universal Frame  of Reference.  This 
says that motion in the direction or counter-direc-
tion of light  cannot  be used to  demonstrate that 
such a frame does or does not exist.  

And a Universal or Absolute  Frame  is not required
to handle motion from a non-SR viewpoint, perhaps.
 --------------------------------------------------

So much, for now, with the arm parallel to the dir-
ection of the velocity v.  The other arm, crosswise 
to arm AB, is arm AC.  

The total  distance  other observers would see,  or 
Acie would be able to  calculate  easily  once  the 
frame was picked:

  2*sqrt[ d^2 + ((v^2)/4)*(t)^2 ]  =

  sqrt[ 4d^2 + (v^2)*(t)^2 ].            (4) 


This total distance given in (4) is equal to the 
distance (c+v)*t:

             
    sqrt( 4d^2 + (v*t)^2 ) = (c+v)*t     (5)

Square both sides, and collect the time terms:

         4d^2  + (v*t)^2    =  (c*t)^2 + (v*t)^2


         4d^2   =  (c*t)^2  +  (v*t)^2  -  (v*t)^2

                =  (c*t)^2

Take the square root of both sides:


         2d     =   c*t

and

             t  =  2d/c                 (6)


Now, isn't that extra super special!   According to
this Think Tank test model,  where we use (c+v) and 
the whole universe makes the same measurements, be-
cause - supposedly - there are no spatial contract-
ions,  no time dilations,  there's no way Michelson
-Morley can't come out negative!

Some  Special  Relativity fans have said this Think
Tank model  can't  be right  because  the  Kennedy-
Thorndike experiment showed that the speed of light 
is constant.

Completely missing the obvious  fact that this test 
model shows why Kennedy-Thorndike can prove no such 
thing.  Kennedy-Thorndike IS a Michelson-Morley ex-
perimental setup.

Of course, it could be argued that Special Relativ-
ity is correct because it can give an  infinity  of
results instead of just (c+v)'s single result.
===================================================

DERIVATION OF GENERALIZED "CATCH AND THROW" MODEL
=================================================

Let arm AB be in  any  arbitrary  direction on an
orthogonal (right angle) coordinate system:

D = [e f g].

This means that the length of the arm is:

sqrt[ e^2 + f^2 + g^2 ],

and the arm extends from  [0 0 0]  in the direct-
ion of point [e f g] and to the point [e f g].
 ------------------------------------------------

Let the velocity  vector  of the apparatus be any 
arbitrary V = [u v w].

This means that the  velocity of the apparatus is 
in the direction, from [0 0 0],  of [u v w],  and
means that per unit of time - which we don't have
to specify as long as we're consistent in our use
of units of measurement - the apparatus will move
in that direction at a speed of: 

sqrt[u^2 + v^2 + w^2] per unit of time.
 ------------------------------------------------

What about the vector emission velocity of light?

(A) It's length must be c,  so the square root of
the sum of the squared components must be c.

(B) It's direction must be the same as D,   which
is [e f g].

Let's see what happens to a vector in which each
component S is c:  [ S S S ].

S^2 = c^2, so the sum of squares is 3c^2, and the
square root of the sum is sqrt(3)*c.

What about S = (1/3)*c?  Each S^2 is (1/9)*c^2 so
the sum is (1/3)*c^2,  and the square root is off
still.

And (1/sqrt(3))*c?  S^2 = (1/3)*c^2,  and the sum
is c^2. 

So, we need to use the idea that each element is,
in part,  (1/sqrt(3))*c,   but if we see that the
vector we've been playing with is S*[1 1 1],   we
will be closer.  [1 1 1] implies a direction,  to 
[1 1 1].  We want the direction to [e f g].

Since D tells us the direction,    and |D| is its
length,  let's try C = 

    [ (e/sqrt(|D|))*c

      (f/sqrt(|D|))*c

      (g/sqrt(|D|))*c ].

|D| = sqrt[e^2 + f^2 + g^2] and length of C is:

sqrt[ (e^2 + f^2 + g^2)*(c^2)/sqrt(|D|)^2) ]

=  sqrt[ (e^2 + f^2 + g^2)*(c^2)/|D| ]

=  sqrt[ |D|*(c^2)/|D| ] = c.

So,  the vector emission velocity of light in the
direction of D, is C = (c/sqrt(|D|))*D.
 ------------------------------------------------

Then for the outgoing light trip on arm AB:

The velocity at which light travels,  per our c+v
setup, is C+V.

The distance light DOES travel (per our previous)
terminology/setups, is the length of the distance
vector (t2-t1)*{C + V}.

While light travels that distance,  the mirror at
B is  changing  position  by  the distance vector
(t2-t1)*V, so the distance light HAS to travel is
the length of the distance vector D + (t2-t1)*V.

So, the vector formula for  arm AB on the outward 
journey,  which shows us the end point of light's 
outward journey,  relative to the stationary sys-
tem with A's initial coordinates as [0 0], is:

D + (t2-t1)*V = (t2-t1)*C + (t2-t1)*V     (8i)

Subtract (t2-t1)*V from both sides:

              D = (t2-t1)*C               (9i)

Lets take the distance of both sides;   they must
be equal.  

             |D| = (t2-t1)*|C|           (10i)


The formula is similar for the trip back from B:

D - (t2-t1)*V) = (t2-t1)*C - (t2-t1)*V    (8j)

And,

              D = (t3-t2)*C               (9j)
and,

             |D| = (t3-t2)*|C|           (10j)

Adding (10i) and (10j), we get: 


            2*|D| = (t3-t1)*|C|          (11j)

Using d = |D| and c = |C|, we get

              (t3-t1) = 2d/c

Just like we're supposed to.

If you understand that |D|  is the same for every
arm of the same length, no matter which direction
it lies,  and that |C| is always the same length,
you will understand that:

what (11j) teaches us is that if the general idea
of c+v speed of light is correct,  

(A) it makes no difference what the apparatus ve-
locity is in any way whatsoever,   as long as the 
apparatus is not accelerating, and

(B) it makes no difference what direction the ap-
paratus is pointing.

The round trip time in no way  depends on any ve-
locity except the emission velocity of light.
 ------------------------------------------------

This means that the  above  demonstration for arm
AB also applies to the other arm.  We  made abso-
lutely no assumptions that would not apply to the
other arm also.
 ------------------------------------------------

THE ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE
===============================

THE UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE
================================

The above vector derivation in no way depended on
a particular reference system,  as long as it was
not accelerating.

Thus, if there is, or if there isn't, an Absolute
Reference Frame,  we would have no way of telling
by means of any experiment or test involving dif-
ferent light paths and/or interfereometry.

Also, as long as this model is not proved invalid
there cannot be an experiment,  using those tech-
niques, to prove the constancy of the velocity of
light.
=================================================



!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus                                      Think Tank Eleatic ?
! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of   ?
!  premises, logic, and conclusions"  ftp.infohaus.fv.com:/infohaus ?
!  ThnkTank@cris.com     http://www.infohaus.fv.com/access/by-topic ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenThnkTank cudlnEleaticus cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / John White /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: jnw@elvis.vnet.net (John N. White)
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: 20 Jun 1995 21:13:12 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
> Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to change this group
> into a lightly moderated one?

I've heard that it's very hard to change an unmoderated group into a
moderated one, as some systems never get the message. It's better to
create a moderated group with a new name.

Perhaps you could create a moderated group alt.sci.physics.fusion with
all posts to this group being crossposted to sci.physics.fusion.
That would combine the advantages of moderation and ease of creation
(no vote needed for alt groups), with the wide distribution of s.p.f.
And if the moderator enforced a well defined set of keywords like "HOT",
then readers with narrow interests could easily read only what they want.
(I notice that many alt groups are, in fact, moderated.)
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 / Tom Liehe /  Re: Attn: Bryan Wallace
     
Originally-From: tliehe@rainbow.rmii.com (Tom Liehe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attn: Bryan Wallace
Date: 21 Jun 1995 05:14:21 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.

Scott Little (little@eden.com) wrote:

: New proposal:

: I have read a number of your recent posts and decided that your book
: is wonderful, and that everyone should have access to it.  By now, your
: name is well known across a wide number of Usenet groups.  It only seems
: fair now, in view of your accomplishments, to start a new newsgroup
: specifically for you.  Perhaps it could be called sci.physics.wallace or
: sci.physics.farce.  

I like this idea a lot!  In fact, lets expand on it a bit.  How about
sci.physics.fusion.rothwell-rant for starters?

--
Tom Liehe
(will design FPGAs for food)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentliehe cudfnTom cudlnLiehe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Bryan Wallace /  The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. 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: The Farce of Physics
Date: 22 Jun 1995 17:53:06 -0400

   "The Farce of Physics" topic thread in the sci.physics Internet newsgroup
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.gate.net in the directory
/pub/users/wallaceb.  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, 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 peak 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 topic 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 book 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.
   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.(pages 14,15,37,119 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of
Light and Matter")
   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.(page 114 of James Gleick's new book "GENIUS, THE LIFE AND SCIENCE
OF RICHARD FEYNMAN")  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@gate.net


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / 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: 22 Jun 1995 23:00:13 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

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

> <Lot's snipped>

   I know you said your server was down so I'll not rehash why you 
brought up an old post of mine.  Regardless of how Dieter worded his post,
 you and the few other Wallace supporters are the only one's that 
misunderstood Dieter's post.  It was not muddled to me or most others.  
We understood perfectly that he had edited the header of a Wallace post 
so his reply wouldn't spam.   It appears that your conclusions is 
somewhat different from the majority of us so as you said, we'll just 
have to disagree.



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

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 23:43:13 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Hmm, it's been -- how long? A REALLY LONG TIME, since Pons and Fleischman
told us that pack of lies about how they measured radiation and excess heat.
Then there was that whopper about how they already had a water heater that
would heat an ordinary house's water for pennies.

Hey, I have a dime, bring on the water heater.

What's the matter Jed? Where is this thing Jed? So what's the deal? Are you
just going to change the subject to the further mystical adventures
of Griggs? I think we all agreed that Griggs simply was a measurement 
error with poor documentation. Your observations, witty as they are, cannot
generate real data.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 22:57:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> writes:
 
>Extreme skeptic mode = ON
>
>Prediction: it will turn out that these "companies" (reputed to be
>selling hudreds or thousands of energy gain machines) are somehow
>unreachable or, if reachable, cannot actually supply a named party
>with such a machine.
 
Those are not the words of an extreme skeptic. A skeptic is a person who
doubts, who does not know. A skeptic makes careful, hedged predictions, and
he makes no predictions at all in cases where he has no information. No,
that is not a "skeptical" prediction, it is a dismissive "debunking" wild
guess.
 
As it happens, the guess is wrong. I have had no trouble contacting these
companies. They are quite reachable. Hydrodynamics is in Rome, Georgia not
far from where I live. Vizor is in Moldavia. I will grant it is difficult
to reach by phone, but other methods work fine, and they have been quite
responsive and helpful so far. I cannot yet confirm that the machine works
the way they claim, however.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 22:58:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> writes:
 
>I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
>immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
>DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
>solution in a year.
 
Amen!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Mark Mallory /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:31:06 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Chris Phoenix (chris@efi.com) wrote:

: ... But you skeptics--why are you still here?  This
: isn't a rhetorical question--I really want to know.

I'm an electrical engineer and CF skeptic who has been lurking here
for about 2 years now, and I gotta admit... I'm hooked on s.p.f.!  As a 
former Utah resident and taxpayer, I was a reluctant investor in CF 
(courtesy of the Utah Legislature), so I have some interest in how my 
$20 or so is helping to solve Humanity's energy problems.  But the real
reason I'm hooked is ... entertainment!  S.p.f. is occasionally 
informative, but mostly it's just a blast to read.  It's great fun to 
watch somebody try to make a point or ask an honest question and have 
a viscious, insulting response hurled back in his face.  It's fun to 
read the latest wild theories of the Universe, Flukes and Farces of 
Physics, or that the Universe is really an atom of Neptunium (or 
maybe Californium?)  Or the feeling of suspense that builds as we 
await the return of our emissary to Georgia.  I was logging in 
every 15 minutes to make sure I wouldn't miss Tom's report!

	And occasionally there is some really good science here.  As 
someone with a strong interest but little background in the field, 
I have gotten much from RF Heeter's FAQ.  Having been fascinated 
back in the late 80's by Jones' article on Muon Catalyzed Fusion, it's 
always interesting to read his posts.  I've been motivated as a result of 
discussions here to obtain copies of the Griggs and Patterson patents, 
and more than once I've dug out my old Thermodynamics textbook to try to 
solve a problem posed here in s.p.f.  

	But mostly it's fun.  My main problem with it is that it's really a 
waste of time.  But I'm hooked.  I can't start off the morning without a 
cup of coffee and a perusal of Jed's latest rantings.  Beats the hell 
out of Good Morning America.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmmallory cudfnMark cudlnMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Charles Cagle /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 20 Jun 1995 07:42:18 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

The U.S. Fusion program is an utter con job.  And you are either very 
naive for believing that breakeven is just around the corner or so 
morally corrupt that you are hopeless.

Talk in usable watt-secs.  Or kilowatt hours of usable power.  Not in 
amounts of energy released per unit of time.  Cut the release period to 
very small increments of time and the power rises.  Go to zero and the 
nod of a piss ant's head provides infinite energy.  Do you really 
believe everyone is as naive as to believe your pitch?

The U.S. Fusion program is not close to breakeven because they haven't a 
clue about the fusion process.

I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
solution in a year.

Best Regards,

C. Cagle

Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
     
Originally-From: Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Date: 20 Jun 1995 08:02:19 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

You wrote:

>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 athand; provided they are done 
>in an appropriately specific manner.

Aneutronic reactions can occur if another participating particle or 
field matrix can share the momentum.  The lattice structure within a 
metal may provide such a "secret sharer" and permit DD reactions without 
the product nuclei (alpha particle) breaking down to an enegetic neutron 
and tritium.  The evolution of heat would ensue from both the metal 
because of energy provided to its lattice field and because the alpha 
particle would depart the reaction zone at 11.3.% c (but would collide 
immediately and evolve more heat).  As fusion is an exothermic process 
that evolves energy the implication is that it is an ordering process.  
The interacting nuclei therefore would be expected to exist in 
anticedent states of greater and greater order before the fusion event 
itself. 

Best Regards,

Charles Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Dieter Britz /  Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Amazing behaviour
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:39:09 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


I have just received a private email, which I will not cite (not having
permission) and whose author I choose to forget in a hurry. He tells me
that,
a) if I did send that cancelbot (whatever that is), I should be ashamed 
   of myself; or,
b) if I did not send it, I should still be ashamed of myself for inciting
   someone else to send one, by my postings.

This assumes rashly, of course, that this cancelbot was in fact sent (which
I doubt). Worse than that, here is someone who loudly defends Wallace's
right to free speech, but tells me I should be ashamed to be using my right
to free speech. There is a flaw in the logic here, I believe.

I note that the voices voting for Wallace continuing to post here and 
defending his right to free speech (and denying ours at the same time) are
people who have not posted here before; in other words they have come here
only in order to stir things up. The same goes for Wallace himself, it seems.
He now knows that there is an overwhelming majority of people in this group,
who want him to go away. We don't read his postings, excellent though they
may be (I wouldn't know); the one or two people who defend him are not normal
contributors to spf. If I were Wallace, I would now leave this group alone.
Since he doesn't, I conclude that, rather than wanting to convince us of his
message (which we either kill or skip past), he just wants to annoy us with
it. That, Wallace, is not nice. It may be you have a right to do this, but
there are things one has a right to, that one doesn't do just the same. This
has to do with etiquette and morals, know what I mean?

Annoy us he certainly has; and his band of followers, too. Monday morning's
list of postings were dominated by this stuff. Fusion, hot or cold, looks
like fading out from this group.

Is there anyone interested in doing the work of trying to change this group
into a lightly moderated one?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.18 / Scott Little /  Attn: Bryan Wallace
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Attn: Bryan Wallace
Date: 18 Jun 1995 22:44:51 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

For the record Bryan, the final tally on the spf vote was:

*** About 55 voted to have Farce posts disappear from spf.

*** Precisely 3 voted to have Farce posts remain on spf.

Two things have become apparent to me since I started this poll:

1. You're not going to pay any attention to the needs and wants of your
 fellow man.

2. A surprising number of folks don't know what the terms "censorship" or
 "freedom of speech" mean.


New proposal:

I have read a number of your recent posts and decided that your book
is wonderful, and that everyone should have access to it.  By now, your
name is well known across a wide number of Usenet groups.  It only seems
fair now, in view of your accomplishments, to start a new newsgroup
specifically for you.  Perhaps it could be called sci.physics.wallace or
sci.physics.farce.  You may choose the name.  I promise you that we could
raise enough votes to get this new group started if you would just agree
to one condition: that you would post the Farce only into your own
newsgroup.  

Please post a follow up article indicating your feelings on this matter.

Thanks



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: cooling
     
Originally-From: stolfi@euler.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cooling
Date: 20 Jun 1995 09:42:39 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


I haven't keept up with s.p.f for the last couple of months, basically since
the Droege report (btw, thanks Tom for the nice certificate!).  

Yet it seems I haven't missed much; people debating the "stored heat
hypothesis" are still chewing the same old bits of data.

    > [Richard A Blue:] I would like to know, for example, what is the
    > power input required to drive an empty pump.  
    
This was asked back in february. Allow me to repost my reply:

    > [Stolfi:] The figure of 4 kW was posted by someone (Jed?).  I
    > always assumed it was for the 20 kW unit that Jed tested, but I
    > may be wrong.
    >
    > Presumably, those 4 kW are largely due to friction at the 
    > bearings in the GG itself, which must withstand ~80 psi
    > and support a 1/4 ton rotor.
    >
    > I wonder how much of those 4 kW end up in the water, and how much is
    > lost to ambient, in normal ("wet") operation.  I suppose the major
    > paths are
    > 
    >                               + --> ambient/motor
    >                + --> axle --> +
    >                |              + --> rotor --> +
    >   bearings --> +                              + --> water
    >                +                 + ---------> +
    >                + --> housing --> +
    >                                  + --> ambient
    > 
    > Let's say the water inside the pump is at 320F.  Any guesses as
    > to the axle temperature near the bearings, and the heat flows
    > along each path?  (From the pictures it seems the axle's
    > diameter is about 5cm.)

A while ago I tried to code a computer model of the heat flow in the
Griggs device, asuming no anomalous physics, to see whether the stored
heat hypothesis could account for Jed's results.  The idea was to split
the rotor and stator into a few dozen layers, like an onion, with a
water/steam layer in between.  Assuming that the layers are
appropriately shaped, and that the temperature throughout the steam
layer is reasonably uniform, it doesn't seem too wrong to assume that
the temperature within each layer is uniform also.

Of the mechanical input power, some enters the system at the
bearings, while the bulk gets dumped into the steam layer.  Some of
that energy leaves through the casing surface, by convection and
radiation; most of it gets carried away by the output steam; and the
balance (positive or negative) gets stored into or extracted from
the pump itself.

Given the pump dimensions, one can easily compute the heat capacity of
each layer and the thermal conductance between layers.   So, a simple
numerical integration would give the temperature distribution inside 
the pump, as a function of time --- if only we knew the starting state,
the input power, and the output heat flow at each instant.

Unfortunately I didn't see any way to get or estimate these numbers.
I asked Jed or Gene, repeatedly, to no avail --- after their initial
faux pas, they had learned that hard data is bad for the Cause, and
carefully avoided giving any out.

In particular, I coudn't figure out how to compute the heat contents
of the escaping "steam", given the temperature and pressure in the
gap.  That number depends critically on the ratio of liquid water to
dry steam in the output flow.  Unfortunately that ratio depends on
details that probably not even Griggs knows --- such as the mass of
water remaining in the gap at any given instant, whether the two are
well-mixed or there is a water-steam boundary, etc.  Those details of
course don't matter much for long-term operation, but they can't be
ignored in simulations of Jed's 30-minute experiments.

If anyone is interested, I can send that half-written Pascal program
by e-mail.  (It is mostly comments, which, as any programmer can tell
you, are the hardest part to get right. 8-)

    > [John Logajan:] 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 I have trieed to explain several times before, John's reasoning
above is valid only if the cooling mass starts out at a uniform
temperature, and the thermal conductivity from it to the ambient
remains constant.  

In the case of Grigg's pump, the "thermal conductivitity" depends on
the settings of the input and output valves, on the wetness of the
outgoing steam, on the flow patterns in the gap, etc. etc.

By manipulating these variables is seems quite easy to violate the
cooling "law" above.  For instance, let the machine reach
equilibrium at 400F, with the output valve at 1/2 setting. Open the
valve all the way and wait until the temperature drops to 300F.  Then
put it back at 1/2 setting.  We could easily get something like this:

Output valve setting:

   open               ******
                      *    *
   1/2    *************    *********************
   
   closed . . . . . . | . .|  . . . . . . . . . . .  > time
                     t0    t1

Amount of water remaining in the gap (hence friction coefficient;
hence input power):


   full ***************
                       *
                        *
                         *
   1/2                    ********************** 


   empty . . . . . . .|. . | . . . . . . . . . .  > time
                     t0    t1

Rotor's core temperature:


   400F  ***************
                        ******
                              ********
   350F                               ***********


   300F  . . . . . . . | . .|. . . . . . . . . . .  > time
                      t0     t1


Output temperature (= rotor's surface temperature):


   400F  *************
                      *             
                      *        *********    
   350F               *      **         ******************
                       *    *   
                        * **  
   300F  . . . . . . .|. . .|. | . .|.   . . . . .  > time
                     t0    t1  t2   t3
                     

Note that between t2 and t3 the ouput temperature is practically
constant, in fact slightly increasing; even though the rotor as a whole
is cooling off.  Note also that meanwhile the pump appears to generate
more heat than it should, given the input power.

    > [John Logajan:] Let us also recall that there is likely a point
    > of maxium friction in the geometry of the device, most likely at
    > the outer radius where the rate of rotation is the fastest.
    > This means that this postulated "red heat" would be generated
    > there first -- but that it would have to spread to the rest of
    > the rotor bulk through the thermal resistance of the rotor
    > material itself -- resulting in a temperature drop across the
    > bulk.
    
As noted above, some fraction of 4 kW are entering the rotor through
the axis.  So the rotor core temperature could in principle be higher
than the maximum steam temperature.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!

--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi | http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi | stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br 
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)               | Tel +55 (192) 39-8442
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)      |     +55 (192) 39-3115 
Campinas, SP -- Brazil                           | Fax +55 (192) 39-7470
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Gene Preston /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: gene.preston@access.texas.gov (Gene Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 12:24:53 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Richard, please ignore Wallace, he's just background noise on all the 
groups and anyone who has been here a couple of weeks can see why.

...gene preston

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpreston cudfnGene cudlnPreston cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Gene Preston /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: gene.preston@access.texas.gov (Gene Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 20 Jun 1995 12:28:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Michal, 

Wallace needs to be ignored.  He is just cluttering up the newsgroups 
with psuedo science.

...gene preston

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpreston cudfnGene cudlnPreston cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: 20 Jun 1995 12:55:42 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <xeyfWYi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You misunderstand. I have no theory. Only data; experimental evidence.
>Nobody here has ever disproved my data, or shown any mistakes in the
>experiments, therefore the data stands and I am right.
 
Do you believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft?  After all, that
is *exactly* (as in word for word) the argument that the proponents of
the "we are being visited by extraterrestrials who are clever enough to
never show themselves clearly and obviously" school of thought use.  They
(and the Bermuda Triangle-ists, Ramtha fans, Gellerites, etc.) are fond
of pointing out how no one has ever disproved their data, and therefore
they must be right, as well.

>I never quote theries. I have none. You -- and many others -- are apparently
>confused about the definitions of theory and data, and their roles in the
>scientific process.

Coming from someone who apparently has yet to learn what a control experiment
is or why one is done, your pontifications about the "scientific process
[sic]" used to be humorous.  Now they are just tiresome.
--
					Richard Schultz

"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reaction products in CF
Date: 20 Jun 1995 13:00:44 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3s5vab$sjl@maureen.teleport.com>,
Charles Cagle  <singtech@teleport.com> wrote:

>Aneutronic reactions can occur if another participating particle or 
>field matrix can share the momentum.  The lattice structure within a 
>metal may provide such a "secret sharer" and permit DD reactions without 
>the product nuclei (alpha particle) breaking down to an enegetic neutron 
>and tritium.  The evolution of heat would ensue from both the metal 
>because of energy provided to its lattice field and because the alpha 
>particle would depart the reaction zone at 11.3.% c (but would collide 
>immediately and evolve more heat).  

Perhaps you can answer some of the questions that have been raised 
about these kinds of hypotheses, since most of the other people who
have floated similar ones have been unwilling to do so.  First, can
you give any kind of basis for why an excited helium nucleus should give
up millions of phonons to the lattice in the same time that it could
have given up a single particle?  (And what mechanism would suppress
the reaction pathways that would most easily conserve angular momentum.)
I'd also appreciate it if you could explain how a charged particle can
go zooming through a lattice at 0.113c and not produce copious amounts
of X-Rays.
--
					Richard Schultz

"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat."   -- Zippy
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.19 /  Spammer /  Free Agent Spam
     
Originally-From: free-agent-spam@spam.com (Spammer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Agent Spam
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:44:29 GMT
Organization: Spam Inc.


Free Agent, Spam Ware Without Compare

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenspam cudlnSpammer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 /  Spammer /  cmsg cancel <3s3gid$1gd@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
     
Originally-From: free-agent-spam@spam.com (Spammer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3s3gid$1gd@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:15:18 GMT

Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenspam cudlnSpammer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Bryan Wallace /  cmsg cancel <3rkvsp$57t@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
     
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: cmsg cancel <3rkvsp$57t@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:28:44 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.20 / Bryan Wallace /  cmsg cancel <3rpcb2$5lv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
     
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: cmsg cancel <3rpcb2$5lv@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
Date: 20 Jun 1995 14:29:00 GMT
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun 23 04:37:09 EDT 1995
------------------------------
