1995.06.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 03:52:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3saoen$bud@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <DAEnn9.Fps@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>> In article <3rtk9s$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.  

I was referring more to the editorial "you"; you know! the chap
with no face behind your editorial, that gives us that third person
view, ... or nearly so.  REFERRING TO THAT impression given by your
earlier  writings, then  " it didn't seem .. . etc.  

>And I do support alternative concepts funding.

Yes..?    Not a bad place to grab a foot hold if it a likely place
is needed to jump, too.     

>I'm even tempted to try building a little PLASMAK(TM) plasmoid  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.

Sorry it had that impact, I was a bit inconsiderate contemplating
the bruising that could be about to start ore perhaps already going 
on there.  

>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.

Ahh! ... who cares who does it as long as it gets done.  I think 
the kind of support for excellence that circumstance, costs, 
best approach, materials, etc. etc.  can carry the day as fast or
faster when private industry takes up the cause.  Also, I certain that
some academic funds will be piped in for fusion engineering, chemistry
and physics graduate programs.    

>> >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.
 
Well understanding or education is a function of our schools and 
universities, and not a group, that BTW, would also benefit from a slant 
or exaggeration of the technology here or there in the delivery of the 
"science" in an almost lobbying like format.  Basically the Governnment 
and its cronies should be out of the lobbying business, especially when
it deals with the subject of adjency or department work.  


>> So, 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".  

So what .. I don't think Congress put that language there and even
so it did it would have be small potatoes not intended as large boon 
doogles of fusion energy, which seems to be the current situation.  

>NSF traditionally does
>small-scale science, and DOE traditionally does large-scale
>science (particle accelerators, nuclear physics labs, etc).
>Give me a break.

Yep! sort of more the DoE will begin to be modeled after ... if that.  


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


You know what Uncle S. said ???

                     "No more big
                       bucks! 
                   And just maybe     
                    No More DoE
                        ."
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman's theory shot down in flames!
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 04:50:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <DAn411.MEr@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>  As Mr. Schultz, posting from Princeton, notes,
>it is quite apparent that some of the HOTFUSION-Believers
>are simply ignoring the cold fusion data because it would
>upset their pet theories (or perhaps jeopardize their funding).
>This interpretation is borne out by their copious repetitive &
>nonsensical response to the data supplied from
>numerous laboratories.
>

There are those such as myself who continue to read posts here hoping to
find some irrefutable evidence of CF or some credible theory to explain
the phenomena. So far, I haven't seen either with respect to CF other than
muon catalyzed fusion. 

OTOH, there is plenty of repeatable accepted data as well as theory for
hot fusion.

Note, I don't lose funding no matter if CF is real or not.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Alan M /  Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 07:16:34
Organization: Home

In article: <damir-2406950023470001@damir.mindspring.com>  damir@mindspr
ng.com (Damir Smitlener) 
writes:
> Are people being foolish by investing (eg buying stocks) in firms claiming
> success, either present or near-future, in this field? Is there real
> substance here, or is it another PolyWater - or is it just to early to
> tell?
> 

ARE people investing? If they were, they would be very foolish indeed.

But I don't think that even Jed has been able to root out anybody
as gullible as that.

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

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

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 /  GeorgeNet /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: georgenet@aol.com (GeorgeNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 04:57:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3s5t4u$sjl@maureen.teleport.com>, Charles Cagle
<singtech@teleport.com> writes:

>Sure.  Singularity Technologies, Inc. has a new design which outputs a 
>directed pulsed beam of particles which pass through conversion arrays 
>to extract the kinetic energy of the particles directly to electric 
>current.
>
>Regards,

Can you post details or is there a location for a FAQ. This sounds
interesting.
George
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengeorgenet cudlnGeorgeNet cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 /  GeorgeNet /  Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
     
Originally-From: georgenet@aol.com (GeorgeNet)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So what if CF is not nuclear?!? Who cares?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 04:57:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3s32hf$b3j@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) writes:

>Also, I want no comments about problems with illiteracy among
>scientists---it should be clear to all who have been observant that I 
>don't know how to type.

Bad typing is not the fault of humans. It is the fault of stupid computers
that have not yet learned to hear.<G>

George
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengeorgenet cudlnGeorgeNet cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / C Cagle /  Re: Amazing behaviour
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing behaviour
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 03:17:52 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <chrisk.803927391@gomez>, chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris
Kostanick) wrote:

> singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> This is hilarious. Someone who, to my recollection, hasn't posted
> anything useful about fusion tells the CF Biblio maintainer to 
> do some useful work. 
> 
> Chris Kostanick

Obviously, you were asleep at the switch.  Or like most here, endlessly
pontificate without actually making it happen.

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

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

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Damir Smitlener /  Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
     
Originally-From: damir@mindspring.com (Damir Smitlener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I don't see a FAQ, so here goes a Cold Fusion question
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:38:00 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

In article <343154687wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article: <damir-2406950023470001@damir.mindspring.com> 
damir@mindspring.com (Damir Smitlener) 
> writes:
> > Are people being foolish by investing (eg buying stocks) in firms claiming
> > success, either present or near-future, in this field? Is there real
> > substance here, or is it another PolyWater - or is it just to early to
> > tell?
> > 
> 
> ARE people investing? If they were, they would be very foolish indeed.
> 
> But I don't think that even Jed has been able to root out anybody
> as gullible as that.

You'd be surprised...there are at least two people I know of who are quite
impressed by the quantity (they're not qualified to judge the quality) of
patent applications and other documents at the sunsite.* CF "repository".

-- 
damir smitlener                  |  
damir@mindspring.com             |
smitty@optica.mirc.gatech.edu    |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendamir cudfnDamir cudlnSmitlener cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of the Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of the Miles helium data
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 15:54:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <3sfvnc$nim@martha.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:

    : It is a problem if one only considers beam impact experiments.
- "Why do you keep on harping on this?  The quantity in question is the
- matrix element of transitions between excited nuclear states and
- states with the decayed nucleus and ionizing radiation.

- The only difference 'beam fusion' and non-beam fusion is that
- the initial kinetic energy in the second one is slightly less than
- the first one.  How is that going to change the initial state for
- the radiation reaction ("wavefunction of excited nuclear state')
- when that energy difference is eV's next to MeV's.  Answer: it won't.
- 
- Think:
- Drop a safe from a 10 story building, starting from rest.
- Drop a safe from a 10 story building, giving it a 0.001 m/s push.
- So, how can you arrange it that the second one creates a huge crater
- (detectable reaction products) and the first one some how ends up
- motionless on unbroken ground but in the process boiling up a pot of
- coffee in the stove next door.  
- You can't, you'll get a crater either way." (Kennel)

  Interesting example of a "beam experiment".  Now we must
consider the addition of the "solid state". 
   Consider if there was a tree in the way absorbing
energy in small amounts (as the branches break).  
Do you think the crater will be as big?  I doubt it.  The breaking
branches MUST remove small amounts of the energy as they
dissipate energy to create the fracture surfaces.

In fact, this is exactly the issue:  are there other mechanisms
to account for the energy distribution?   With the tree in
your model, and with the lattice in the solid state, there are.

   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)






cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / William Beaty /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:55:25 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Ronald Kunne (KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr) wrote:
: In article <3sdia6$os8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> drbeezar@aol.com writes:
:  
: >The most interesting thing about crackpot theories is that when the next
: >great breakthrough in physics occurs, it will look EXACTLY like the most
: >crackpot idea anyone can come up with.
:  
: Not so.
: The difference between a crackpot-idea and new-theory (valid or not), is
: that the latter:
:  - takes into account all previous observations
:  - makes predictions that can be falsified
:  - explain something that hasn't been explained before

This may be true, but it's a bit naiive because it is usually only true in
hindsight.  It is part of the 'rewriting of history' which all academic
groups tend to perform to preserve their egos.  When a new theory finally
becomes accepted, those who ridiculed and indulged in personal attacks on
its creators prefer that everyone forget this.  And everyone does!   I
think it is extremely unfortunate that this part of science is denied and
kept hidden, and is excused as being part of the testing of new theories. 
But emotional attacks, ridiculing, derision, and attempts to suppress
unconventional works has nothing to do with testing whether a theory is
correct or not.  Take a look at the history of QM, Relativity, Astronomy,
Space Travel, Aerodynamics, Biology, Paleotology, etc.  There are 
numerous examples of setbacks in progress originating with the slow (or 
non-) acceptance of innovative ideas which threatened the status quo.

Unless they are extremely conventional and represent a small addition to
current knowledge, new theories must fight an uphill battle for
acceptance.  Their proposers risk their positions by sticking by their
guns.  Their papers will be attacked emotionally in peer review and their
funding put at risk.  You'd think that science would not be like this,
that innovation, creativity, and incredible new discoveries would be
welcome.  But it's more like the philosophers in Hitchikers Guide: WE
DEMAND NARROWLY PROSCRIBED AREAS OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION!  A new
discovery threatens current beliefs and competes for funding with
established old 'safe' worldviews.  And so innovation is attacked as
crackpottery, and funding is witheld from work which attempts to extend
current beliefs to radically. 

Sucessful theories must be easy to demonstrate.  If a new theory appears
ridiculous in light of the conventional thinking of the time, it will be
automatically rejected without being tested.  If the theory is difficult
to demonstrate, there is risk that it will be supressed for long periods
and progress set back for decades.  When new works are suppressed for a
time and later come to the fore, it is usual to say that the theory
appeared 'before its time.' But this apologizes for those who defend the
status quo against all innovation, and excuses those who emotionally
attack novel works without testing them. 

For more on this, take a look at the archives of sci.physics.fusion and
the debate on whether "cold fusion" is crackpottery or not.  Also look for
past debates about the current Peer Review system and its suppression of
novelty and unconventional work.  I recall seeing numerous examples in the
late 80's.  I think there was an NSF study on it.  Here's one: Boston
Globe newspaper, 6/22/87.  Cornell U. astronomer Dr. Thomas Gold is quite
outspoken on this issue, and tells the story of the emotional attacks he
encountered when he proposed the ridiculous, crackpot idea that pulsars
were spinning neutron stars.  Biologist Lynn Margulis tells the story of
the scorn, derision, and denial of funding she encountered because of her
work on the symbiotic origin of cell organelles.  Sociologists are finding
that scientists practice self-censorship for grant proposals because any
research perceived as "unconventional" has little chance at winning
funding. 


Quotes from the article: 
"It's like religion.  Heresy is thought of as a bad thing, whereas in
science it should be just the opposite" 

and

"...there are always going to be Newtons coming along whose ideas are so
foreign and outrageous as to be beyond the ken of the experts." 


-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / jeff candy /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: jcandy@jet.uk (jeff candy)
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: 24 Jun 1995 17:24:30 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

In article <3s7uvl$9t9@warp.cris.com>, ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus) writes:
|> 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?

Here we go again.  I posted some harsh comments about the singularity 
at t=0 about two months ago.  THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG, 
according to the theory.  The manifold (geometry of space-time) is only 
*defined* for t>0. Thus it is *singular* there.  The geometry is 4-d and 
hyperbolic, so its tough to get an intuitive feel for it.  This is why we 
have useful analogies: 

About the 'north pole' analogy; the surface of the earth is 2-d, you 
can walk N-S (one dimension) or (E-W) (the other).  Now, what is 
north of the north pole?  The vector-field on a sphere is *singular* 
wherever you put a pole.

More simply, say you are at a distance d (positive) away from a 
football.  What does that football look like at a distance -d?
It is an ill-posed question.  The distance function is *singular* 
at d=0.  ARRRGGGHHH!  

                              Jeff, who does *classical*
                               physics for a living.

===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjcandy cudfnjeff cudlncandy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Tom Droege /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: 24 Jun 1995 18:10:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3seqmb$n3k@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) says:
>
>In article <Bix+eDb.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>  
>>     "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?"
>>  
>> God only knows! I myself always get information from original sources. You
>> are s-t-r-a-n-g-e. First you ask me a question, then you refuse to believe
>> the answer. So why ask in the first place? In any case, I am outta this job.
>> I will drop the subject after this message, unless someone asks an
>> interesting question.
>
> Jed, I wish you would drop communicating with Merriman. I had
>condemned him to Styx and so I totally ignore him. He is a complete
>waste of your time. Unlike Steve Jones who at least does experiments,

(snip)

It is nice to see that Jed has found a supporter in Archie.  My only
problem is to whom I should send the sympathy card.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re:Cravens demo interesting?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Cravens demo interesting?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 02:48:55 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3sb2s6$v7r@news.unimelb.EDU.AU> Martin Sevior 

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

well, its pretty hard to find whats wrong with an 
experiment on a newsgroup. You sorta have to be there...

> 
> 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?
> 

Everything that is not understood deserves investigation. 1 watt ``!''
is hardly enough energy to get excited about, though. The only good
news is that the experiment is supposedly robust and so there is some
hope that other people can investigate it independant from its
originator.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / 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: 24 Jun 1995 02:50:42 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3sb18l$6va@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)  
writes:
> 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? 

Jed will assure you that griggs customers are already using his device
to produce more energy than they draw from the grid. In his mind, 
cold fusion is far beyond scientific demonstration, its already been 
deployed into the economy.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:35:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Once more Mitchell Swartz tells us that the "solid state"
can account for cold fusion.  He has made this assertion many
times before, but he never comes forth with any details -
no real answers to questions of the simple basic physics that
must certainly be involved.

The sharing of energy between nuclear excitations and lattice phonons
requires some form of "coupling."  There must be an interaction, a
perturbation, a link of some sort.  Please tell us what that essential
feature of your CF model may be!

In my world view the laws of physics do not cut off at the boundary of
a solid where some form of magic takes over.  Quantum mechanics, as we
all know and love it, still applies.  Do you have something else in mind,
Mitchell?  Don't be shy!  If you disagree with this concept please let
us know.

So I really do believe that the energy transfer from nucleus to lattice
requires a coupling that must have a characteristic strength.  It should
be possible to estimate a rate for the energy transfer process.  It should
be possible to estimate the strength of the perturbing potential involved.
My estimate is that it must be truly huge, but maybe I have that wrong.
Tell me how to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get from one state
at 20 MeV to millions of states spread rather uniformly over the entire
20 MeV range.

Now after you have a perturbing potential that meets some basic requirements
as outlined above, explain why the stuff that comes out is always 4He in its
ground state.  What is it that inhibits all other decay processes?  I leave
it to you to estimate what the inhibition factor likely must be, but my
estimate is a number that is totally unknown (to me at least) in any other
physical process know to man.  If this does occur it would seem to be truly
remarkable.  To find such unique behavior in seemingly ordinary solid would
cry out for an explanation.  Don't you think you owe it to us, Mitchell,
to give just a little hint as to what you think is going on?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / 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: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 15:01:11 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In a reply to Mitchell Jones, Mike Jamison wrote:

 [megasnip]

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

***{Who, me? I'm a virtual teetotaler: I've only read Atlas Shrugged seven
times! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 15:02:16 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

 ----------------------------------------------------------
The following post was from John Cobb:
 ----------------------------------------------------------
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.

***{snip}***
>
>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
 ----------------------------------------------------------
End of John Cobb's post
 ----------------------------------------------------------

***{Why sweat it, John-boy? It's only a teeny weeny 37 % cut! Far better,
in my view, would be a 100 % cut! After all, you guys have been riding on
the backs of the people for decades, and haven't produced squat. Did you
think the music would go on forever? And by the way, in answer to your
challenge: the cold fusion program wasn't cut. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 15:08:08 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <DAJxKw.IKs@crash.cts.com>, bigphil@cts.com (Phil Palisoul II) wrote:

> 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

Phil, two comments:

(1) The relationship to which you refer holds (roughly) only within what
may be loosely described as "ordinary temperatures." In the atmosphere of
the sun, for example, it does not hold at all. There the kinetic energies
involved in collisions are so high that chemical bonds, practically
speaking, cannot form at all.

(2) If "cold fusion" is a real phenomenon, then virtually by definition it
involves the production of excess energy above and beyond what can be
produced by chemical reactions. Thus principles describing the likelihood
of chemical reactions would be mostly irrelevant to explaining how it
could or could not work.

(3) If, perchance, your high school chemistry textbook was talking about
*nuclear* reactions and the formation of *nuclear* bonds, then I suppose
that there are many alleged "experts" who believe what you say. Certainly
the proponents of "hot fusion"--i.e., the essentially goofy notion of
controlling a thermonuclear explosion--believe it. To prove their
dedication to this idea, they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
rathole, without a scintilla of success. My own opinion, for what it's
worth, is that this dog won't hunt. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Richard Blue /  Re: Japanese Tables of Contents
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japanese Tables of Contents
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:00:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many thanks, to Jack Bernstein for his posting of the tables of
contents of a number of Japanese journals.  I notice (tongue in
cheek) that cold fusion is really a very hot topic in Japan???

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 20:48:40 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <DAosCE.Enp@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

> Take a look at the history of QM, Relativity, Astronomy,
> Space Travel, Aerodynamics, Biology, Paleotology, etc.  There are 
> numerous examples of setbacks in progress originating with the slow (or 
> non-) acceptance of innovative ideas which threatened the status quo.

I'm not very familiar with the history of many of these theories. 
(And, after all, "astronomy" and "biology" aren't even theories; I 
don't know what specifically is being referred to here.)  I can only
say anything very sensible about relativity and quantum mechanics.

The history of quantum mechanics is pretty complicated, because there
are really two different theories: the Old Quantum Theory, and the
modern version.  Then there were also a handful of phenomenological
rules, and also the added problem that the modern theory was discovered
in two different forms that were only later shown to be equivalent.  
That history is a muddle, but I don't think there's any sign of 
ridicule or of slow acceptance of a sensible theory.

The history of special relativity is simpler.  Here's a brief
timeline.
	1905	Einstein publishes two papers on special relativity.
		He is a 26 year old Swiss patent examiner who received his
		PhD six months earlier.
	1906	Max Plank, one of the most famous physicists of Europe,
		presents relativity theory in a colloquium in Berlin.
	1906-7  Plank, von Laue, and Ehrenfest publish papers on
		relativity.  One of Plank's students writes a PhD thesis
		on relativity.
	1908    Minkowski shows that relativity can be understood in terms
		of simple geometry.
	1909	Einstein receives an honorary doctorate because
	        of his work on relativity.  He is also appointed
	        associate professor at the University of Zurich.
	1910    Einstein is first nominated for the Nobel Prize.
		(He doesn't finally get it until 1921.)
	1911    Emperor Franz Joseph signs a decree appointing 
	        Einstein full professor at the Karl-Ferdinand University
	        in Prague.
	1913    The Prussian Academy votes 22 to 1 to admit Einstein
		as a member and to offer him a professorship without
	        teaching obligations at the University of Berlin.  
	        Emperor Wilhelm II approves the vote.

What I see, then, is that relativity became an active research topic
almost immediately, although in the first two or three years only a
relatively small number of people were working on it.  Within five 
years, though, special relativity was widely accepted by physicists
and Einstein began to receive extraordinary honors.  (Most of 
this information comes from _"Subtle is the Lord"_, by Abraham Pais.
It's the best biography of Einstein ever written.)

Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that relativity
was slowly and reluctantly accepted.
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / A Plutonium /  SPF now splitt into four camps
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: SPF now splitt into four camps
Date: 24 Jun 1995 20:08:00 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

             commercialization unimportant     commercialization
important
          
 ---------------------------------------------------------------



no science        if no science then obviously no commercialization
  CF




yes,science        this may be                 this is what is hoped
for
 CF exists

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

  I should have said 3 camps for if CF is no science at all then
commerialization is out of the picture.

  If we substitute sonoluminescence for CF then this newsgroup would be
perhaps the better for it. Since few if any disbelieve the existence of
sonoluminescence. The seeing of light is always more convincing than
the recording of heat temperature dials and the apparatus setup.

  There is a good chance that sonoluminescence is a sound wave form of
cold fusion electric waves.

  But the trouble with sci.physics.fusion at the moment is that the
proof of the existence of the science is not as certain as the
existence of sonoluminescence. What is sonoluminescence is unclear and
uncertain. Noone doubts that it exists but noone can say what it is.
Unlike CF, there is strong evidence that it exists but not so much that
it quiets the whole of the science community as sonoluminescence quiets
the science community.

  But the danger of this newsgroup is that it has entered and more so
recently a phase of asking for commercial proofs and marketing
products, when as obviously the science of CF is not even as sure as
say sonoluminescence. And noone is shouting for commerial proof or
products on sonoluminescence.

  Superconductivity of high temperature species is certain that it is a
science. Yet noone can say for sure what the science is, ie the theory
behind it. Yet we have moved swiftly into actual commercialization of
the science.

  How CF will develop in the future is anyones guess. 

  The gist of this post is that let some rhyme and reason enter this
newsgroup. Cut the crap of these commercial products or the fighting on
CF water heaters. Cut the crap on the falsely raising expectations of
commercializing CF. Use logic and reason in the discussion of CF by
following related science such as sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence
may be Mother Natures way of inertial confinement fusion with sound
waves. And CF may be sonoluminescence with electric waves.

  As I have said so many times before. Unless an accurate hadron count
before and after experimentation and an accurate atomic isotope count
before and after an experiment, then the science is mostly a guess.

  Talks of commercialization of CF at this stage will only make CF look
comical. Like Leonardo flying in the air on wings of feathers.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.21 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Reply to Martin Sevior
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Martin Sevior
Date: 21 Jun 95 16:28:31 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Martin Sevior refers to the June 5 article on CF in Chem. & Eng. News and
comments on "Steven Jones's explanation" of the E-quest claims of helium
production in palladium or titanium.  Now, Dick Blue answered Martin already
in a posting here, and I will not repeat Dick's cogent arguments.

I would like to zero in on Martin's characterization of my questions to
E-quest's Stringham and George as an "explanation"  -- as if skeptics have
the obligation to "explain" away such claims or "prove them wrong."
This is incorrect.
"It's not really my job to prove [CF advocates] wrong," Jones tells C&EN.
"My job is to say, 'Have you checked this?  Have you checked that?'"  If
the answer is no, "then I say, 'You haven't got a compelling result yet."

Can you see the distinction?  My challenge to the E-quest boys is to measure
the helium in the *laboratory* air during the experiments, and to check
for tritium contamination in their metals (esp. since 3H decays to 3He),
and to look for *energetic* helium nuclei using a good charged-particle
detector.  Until they do these things, they do not have compelling results.
These challenges or questions should be looked at as helpful
suggestions, ideally, rather than as "absurd explanations."
 
I have noticed that CF advocates like Martin and Miles and George try to
turn things around, to suggest that I have not proven them wrong.  But my
job is to ask the tough questions.  If these gentlemen will do the measurements
(most of them are obvious, but not necessarily easy to carry out; I have
offered help),  they will either derive compelling evidences, or find out
what they did wrong (as I did).  But they must use state-of-the-art equipment
and not avoid the needed measurements.  And they need to look for answers,
not investors, IMHO.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Richard Blue /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:00:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz once again wrongfully accuses me of considering
only "impact-induced" fusion.  I made no reference to impact
experiments!  I said nothing about the conditions that initiate
the reaction.

Are we not talking about a process that releases energy per event
that is "beyond chemistry"?  That was the only qualifier I intended
to place on the fusion under consideration.  Then, of course, the
Miles result does indicate the 4He is the reaction product, right?

In addressing the question of the undetectable process you seem to
indicate that no one has ever looked for the intermediates.  I
have to say you are simply wrong on that point.  What do you think
all these investigations have been directed toward if it were not
an attempt to demonstate the decay of some intermediate state?

The purpose for trying to detect neutrons, charged particles, gammas,
or X-rays is to demostrate the existance of the intermediate state!
You seem to be inventing the concept of an intermediate state that
cannot be detected.  That is my point.  It makes no sense to invent
something that cannot, by definition, be detected.  If you engage
in such flights of fancy you are oblidged to suggest how this new
sort of intermediate can be detected.

I must take issue with your "few events" statement.  Again you must
be wrong.  The event rate is billions per second, is it not?

I do agree with your "short lifetime" statement, however.  That has been
an essential part of my argument from square one.  It does leave hanging
the question as to how one can generate phonons that fast.  Perhaps you
will clue us in on that little secret.  Why would an excited intermediate
(lets call it 4He*) prefer to warm the lattice than to emit a single
gamma ray and be done with it?  You do aggree that the rate for the
latter is known?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Bob Kovsky /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:05:57 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) wrote:
>
> Take a look at the history of QM, Relativity, Astronomy,
> Space Travel, Aerodynamics, Biology, Paleotology, etc.  There are 
> numerous examples of setbacks in progress originating with the slow (or 
> non-) acceptance of innovative ideas which threatened the status quo.

<matt@physics.berkeley.edu> responded:
>
>I'm not very familiar with the history of many of these theories. 
>(And, after all, "astronomy" and "biology" aren't even theories; I 
>don't know what specifically is being referred to here.)  I can only
>say anything very sensible about relativity and quantum mechanics.

>
>The history of quantum mechanics is pretty complicated, because there
>are really two different theories: the Old Quantum Theory, and the
>modern version.  Then there were also a handful of phenomenological
>rules, and also the added problem that the modern theory was discovered
>in two different forms that were only later shown to be equivalent.  
>That history is a muddle, but I don't think there's any sign of 
>ridicule or of slow acceptance of a sensible theory.
>
>The history of special relativity is simpler.  Here's a brief
>timeline.

...

>
>What I see, then, is that relativity became an active research topic
>almost immediately, although in the first two or three years only a
>relatively small number of people were working on it.  Within five 
>years, though, special relativity was widely accepted by physicists
>and Einstein began to receive extraordinary honors.   
...
>Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that relativity
>was slowly and reluctantly accepted.
>--

	Relativity was an unusual case.  Its ultimate origin was the 
conflict between Galilean relativity and the apparent failure of 
Maxwell's equations to conform (which gave rise to the theory of 
luminiferous ether).  The path to relativity had been marked by Lorentz 
and Fitzgerald.  Above all, relativity involved only a single shift in 
conceptual structure and it fit in fully with classical physics.  
Finally, it was primarily mathematical and not subject to criticism on 
the basis of experimental technique or result.

	The history of quantum mechanics was, as you indicate, much more 
convoluted.  Parts of it (e.g. the collapse of the wave function) are 
still controversial.  It took a long time to develop and there was lots 
of opposition.  One great name in physics, Lienard, was denouncing 
quantum mechanics in the 1930's (Lienard was, to put it bluntly, a Nazi, 
who joined in the denunciation of quantum mechanics as "Jewish physics.")
It took at least 30 years for quantum mechanics to become accepted, after 
Planck's original 1900 paper.  (And Max Planck's work was <not> 
immediately accepted --  he was considered quite controversial and summed 
up his own experience in his <Scientific Autobiography> as "a new 
scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making 
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and 
a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.")

	Goddard (space travel) was denounced and ridiculed.  Darwinism 
was the focus of a raging (and well-documented) controversy (one reason 
given for his decades' long delay in publication was fear of attack) and 
these disputes were a re-play of the earlier abuse directed at Lyell who 
made the case for geological events long before the time periods set 
forth in the Bible (and Lyell was Darwin's inspiration).

	With due acknowledgement for the varieties of historical 
experience, the general rule is that new ideas are first dismissed, then 
denounced, subsequently opposed, and only finally accepted.  Any history 
of science will describe such a course of events.  Try <The Structure of 
Scientific Revolutions> by Kuhn for openers.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkovsky cudfnBob cudlnKovsky cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Artur Roytburg /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: aroytbur@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Artur Roytburg)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:33:03 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

>The history of quantum mechanics is pretty complicated, because there
>are really two different theories: the Old Quantum Theory, and the
>modern version.  Then there were also a handful of phenomenological
>rules, and also the added problem that the modern theory was discovered
>in two different forms that were only later shown to be equivalent.  
>That history is a muddle, but I don't think there's any sign of 
>ridicule or of slow acceptance of a sensible theory.

Just a small point. Despite very limitted acceptance presently,
I would suggest that Causal Theory of Quantum Mechanics 
(developed by Broglie and Bohm) may be just the theory
that takes a long time to come through.
Can this theory bring a new light if it is accepted widely? Only
time will tell. Bohm published his first articles on this subject in
1953 and since then many problems in his theory has been overcome. 
As a reference, there
is a great book by Holland, "Quantum Theory of Motion" which is a
comprehensive overview of Bohm's work.

Artur
-- 
       w/nnipeg      *  Artur Roytburg			* Wherever you
 -<-'  / ___ ___ __  *  University of Toronto		* go, there
 _____/ //_  // ((   *  (416) 978 4651			* you are.
/____/ //_  // __))  *  aroytbur@tikva.chem.utoronto.ca	* - somebody -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenaroytbur cudfnArtur cudlnRoytburg cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / R Stats /  Internet Resources on Statistics (P06165) 
     
Originally-From: inquire@ripco.com (Resampling Stats)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Internet Resources on Statistics (P06165) 
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 02:25:40 GMT
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago




                          ANNOUNCEMENT
               (Internet Resources on Statistics)

     The Resampling Project offers you a variety of free
materials on the practice of resampling and its pedagogy.  These
include articles in _Science News_ and _Chance_ and _MD
Computing_, full length books, research on the results of using
and teaching resampling, and much more.  For lists of such
materials and information on how to get them, please reply to
this message or contact inquire@qcnet.com.


Background:  Over the past couple of decades, the resampling
method (including the bootstrap) has revolutionized the field of
statistics.  Resampling tests are now the method of choice for
much everyday work.  But this is not yet well known outside the
community of professional statisticians.

Peter Bruce                                Resampling Stats
phone 703-522-2713                         612 N. Jackson St.
fax   703-522-5846                         Arlington, VA  22201
inquire@qcnet.com                     	   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudeninquire cudfnResampling cudlnStats cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:08:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9506242034.AA19928@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) continues his
'dialogue' against the science and technology of CF.

Dick Blue once more plays 'Devil's advocate' against the
growing cornucopia of cold fusion data.
He asserts that the "solid state" which appears to be required
for these reactions cannot account for cold fusion. 
He has made this broad speculative assertion many
times before, but he never comes forth with any details, as
he ignores known lattice-nuclear couplings (e.g. the 
Mossbauer effect), the uniques features of these materials
(e.g. the inverse isotope effect in palladium)
as well as the grown data on this subject.

-"The sharing of energy between nuclear excitations and lattice phonons
-requires some form of "coupling."  There must be an interaction, a
-perturbation, a link of some sort." 

   True.

    =========================================
-"So I really do believe that the energy transfer from nucleus to lattice
-requires a coupling that must have a characteristic strength.  It should
-be possible to estimate a rate for the energy transfer process." 

  "Estimate the rate".....   OK.
Perhaps you might take a simpler example, Dick, and show us
how well you do this.  Now most of us are familar with, and
realize that, thermodynamics, a certainly successful basis for
discussion, does not indicate rate.  Since YOU are able to 
estimate such rates, perhaps you would be so kind as to calculate
or estimate the rate of something even simpler.  How about the
incredibly much simpler case of the well-known
solvation of CO2 from the atmosphere into water?   Please
indicate what RATE we should expect, given that 'pure' water is first
contaminated from CO2 from the air and this might be easy
to check your calculation.

    Looking forward to your rate calculation, Dick.
Please don't be shy; and share with us all your 
back-of-the-envelope calculation on this. 
Thanks in advance.

    =========================================
-"Now after you have a perturbing potential that meets some basic requirements
-as outlined above, explain why the stuff that comes out is always 4He in its
-ground state.  What is it that inhibits all other decay processes?  I leave
-it to you to estimate what the inhibition factor likely must be, but my
-estimate is a number that is totally unknown (to me at least) in any other
-physical process know to man."

  What number to you get which is "totally unknown"? 

   Mitchell Swartz



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles results
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 23:52:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9506242255.AA18199@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

-Mitchell Swartz once again wrongfully accuses me of considering
-only "impact-induced" fusion.  I made no reference to impact
-experiments!  I said nothing about the conditions that initiate
-the reaction.

 Please, get a grip on yourself Dick!!
Here is the actual exchange.  You said,

  -"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."
 
 to which I replied,
 "It is a problem if one only considers beam impact experiments."

   Now go look up "accusation" in the Webster's.
There was no accusation, was there?  Chill out, dude.  

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

-I must take issue with your "few events" statement.  Again you must
-be wrong.  The event rate is billions per second, is it not?"

That was relative statement.  Here is what was posted:
 "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."

 Please excuse me if that was not clear.
Here is how that was derived.   Take your postulated event rate.
Divide that by Avogadro's number, then factor in the small cone-angle of
a detector (compared to the entire sphere surrounding the sample),
then factor in the small sensitivities of the detectors.   The resultant
is what was meant.  Do you disagree? 

   Best wishes.  
   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Barry Merriman /  Request: Griggs mailing address/Fax number
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request: Griggs mailing address/Fax number
Date: 25 Jun 1995 01:23:08 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE


Jed is correct that those of us who have trouble with his
experiments should take the matter up with Griggs himslef.
I agree that Jed has certainly done his fair share in 
popularizing the device and investigating it, and its 
understandable thats he is tired of answering questions about
it.

So: can some one send me or post a US mail address and
or fax number for Griggs?

I'd prefer not to call him initially, since I'm sure he's busy 
trying to run his company, and doesn't need to donate his
time to those with a purely scientific interest in his device.
Rather, I just want to establish a convenient communucation with
him, and encourage him to address our concerns, either with historic
data or some new experiments of his own.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Questions from Merriman and Richardson
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions from Merriman and Richardson
Date: 25 Jun 1995 01:28:17 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <p2ycGhA.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> 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.
>  

Thats all I needed to know. Its a bad sign, by the way, because a
hot water test producing < 10% excess heat is not nearly as compelling
as the steam tests. It seems to me an arbitrary-duration steam test
could easily be accomplished by using _two_ barrels: one that is actively
collecting steam, and another that is being processed (weighed, 
measuring temperature, etc).


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


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 25 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
