1995.07.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 15:06:54 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DB5ALr.74E@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>-rs "I note that you put the title "Dr." in quotation marks. 
>-rs  " Do you have some basis for doubting that I am entitled to it?"

>"How about the above?", he said dryly.

Huh?  What does the one have to do with the other?  If your only basis
for doubting that I have a doctorate is that you didn't find my little
joke about Wyoming (which, as I said, was originally posted to correct
another person's misapprehension about Idaho) funny, then I suggest that
you seek professional help immediately.

In order to save bandwidth, I will just note that the most recent two
unanswered questions from Swartz ("Have you ever lived in that part of
the country [i.e. the part near Wyoming]" and "Who do you think my
employer(s) and funding source(s) are, and what is my current project
that you can comment on them?") have been added to the Mitchell Swartz
FUQ (Frequently Unanswered Questions) List.

> Tell us more about your observations and deductions, as you 
>continue to foam from the mouth.

The comment that you edited out (would anyone care to predict the
decibel level that would come from Swartz if someone were to do that sort
of creative editing on *his* posts?), about "foaming at the mouth and
falling over backwards," was also a quotation from Monty Python, as was
the comment about "Look out! There are llamas!"

And for someone who whines about my supposedly "content-free" postings,
the relative amount of time you spend complaining about my .sig quotes
seems rather excessive, especially when compared to the amount of time
you *don't* spend addressing the physics questions I raise.  (For instance,
I posted about your Moessbauer Effect/CF hypothesis yesterday, but you
have yet to reply.)  I will, for instance, raise another question from the
FUQ:  you presented a list of factors that supposedly correlate with CF
product branching ratios, such as impurity levels and "coherence length [sic]."
Who measured these correlations, when, and where are these results reported?
--
					Richard Schultz

"A fly, sir, may sting a stately horse, and make him wince; but one is but an
insect, and the other is a horse still." -- Samuel Johnson

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Willy Moss /  Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
     
Originally-From: Willy Moss <wmoss@llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item
Date: 3 Jul 1995 15:09:13 GMT
Organization: LLNL

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>I found it more than a little intriguing (though not at all
>surprising) to read the language of the fusion authorization
>bill.  The bill argues for funding DIII-D, ITER, and sonoluminescence
>based fusion.  Strangely enough, the major groups doing these
>projects are all based in southern California.  
>
>Rohrabacher representes a district in Southern California.
>Coincidence?  I don't thinks so!
>
>I don't object to funding DIII-D or sonoluminescence fusion
>provided some balance is maintained in the program; but
>to have an all-southern-CA fusion program, as the
>House authorization bill would create, is ridiculous!
>
Hey Bob,
Don't forget us SL folks at LLNL, which is in Northern California!
--Willy













cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenwmoss cudfnWilly cudlnMoss cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 14:06:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3t7u79$8fl@ucrmath.ucr.edu> jdolan@ucrmath.ucr.edu (james dolan) writes:

>anyone up for a realistic re-enactment of the "black knight" scene?

Well, some of Swartz's postings sound a lot like "I'll bite your 
kneecaps off" already. . .
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /   /  cmsg cancel <3t2fsp$6fj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
     
Originally-From: julrey0974@aol.com (JUlrey0974)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3t2fsp$6fj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: 3 Jul 1995 11:46:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

  Please cancel this posting
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjulrey0974 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / David Burkhead /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 15:57:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio

In article <804772625snz@microser.demon.co.uk> Ben@microser.demon.co.uk writes:
[ 8< ]
>
>There is a story that, during WW2, a particularly good invention from a
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     There are _always_ stories.

David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.burkhead@genie.geis.com

-- 
          Spacecub  -  The Artemis Project  -  Artemis Magazine

                             Box 831
                      Akron,  OH  44309-0831
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenr3dlb1 cudfnDavid cudlnBurkhead cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 17:07:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Message-ID: <3t912e$1ke@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

1)   "I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the 
                  men are men, the women
       are men, and the sheep are scared."
         [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995;
        <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]

 2) -rpes  ".. you've never lived in
    -rpes  that part of the country.
     -rpes    If you had, you'd realize
    -rpes   that it's nothing
    -rpes  more than a simple statement of truth."
               [Richard Schultz]

3)   -rs "I note that you put the title "Dr." in quotation marks. 
    -rs  " Do you have some basis for doubting that I am entitled to it?"
    -rs                 [Richard Schultz]

      "How about the above?", he said dryly.

4)  
-rs "Huh?  What does the one have to do with the other? "

   Actions speak louder than a putative degree.

5)
-rs   "If your only basis for doubting that I have a doctorate
-rs  is that you didn't find my little joke about Wyoming ......."
 -rs                         	Richard Schultz"

   Gendanken thought:
    When a thief steals a prized painting, 
 does he acquire a doctorate of art?   

  =========================================
"(Freedom is) a blessing, on which all the good and evil
of life depends."
George Washington (letter to George Mason, 4/5/1769)


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Laurie Forbes /  MM Pact Revisited
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MM Pact Revisited
Date: 2 Jul 1995 17:15:37 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service.

As we approach the first anniversary of the "Merriman-Mallove Pact", I 
thought it appropriate to revisit the issue with the view of brief 
reiteration of what transpired a year ago and an invitation to Mr. 
Mallove to retract his challange or perhaps raise the ante.

Avid follows of SCF will recall the wording of the "pact":

  "We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ................ (name of 
  antagonist), having diametrically opposed views on the subject of CF, 
  agree in 2 years time (on or before July 19, 1996) to publically 
  acknowledge - based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) below, that either:

  (1) G. Malove is a wishful thnking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

  or;

  (2) .............. is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe

  SIGNED: G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ...............

  (a) = CF will be widely accepted as existing
  (b) = CF will be widely accepted as energy producing
  (c) = CF will be widely accepted as economically viable"

As I recall, only Barry Merriman and myself took up Mr. Mallove's 
challenge.  In any case, since there remains a great paucity of evidence in
support of (a) to (c) above, even at this date, how about it sir, do you 
wish now to conceed defeat and avoid further embarassment or to reissue 
the challenge with perhaps higher stakes?  The winners will bask in the 
accolades of an admiring populace while, may I suggest, an evening with 
Jed Rothwell and a trip to South (North?) Carolina for the losser(s). :)

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Peter Weis /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 20:00:38 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.

In article <DB3wsp.EE0@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu says:
>
>In article <3t6uha$ngo@stud.Direct.CA>, pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis) writes:
>>In a fairly recent brief to the Supreme Court (regarding the value of 
>>scientific evidence in court proceedings), Stephen J. Gould and 11 other
>>eminent science historians stated that, "Most of today's widely accepted
>>theories in science were originally considered the excentric thoughts
>>of heretics"..... (snip)
>
>This is very nice and very misleading at the same time.  The implication seems
>to be "so and so (insert the name of your popular historical figure here) was
>ridiculed by his peers but later was proved right.  Therefore, since I'm
>currently ridiculed by my peers, I'll also be proven right, eventually".  I've
>seen this reasoning applied not only to science but also to the arts, politics,
>indeed any area of human activity..... (snip)

   These are purely your implications, not mine. I just quoted from a
joint brief of 12 eminent science historians.
   Since all new ideas are, by nature, departures from established know-
ledge, all this is to be fully expected. I would just advise caution in
these matters, and as much open-mindedness as one can muster, lest one
finds oneself in the unenviable position of having to hang one's head
while making small circles in the sand with one's left foot. According to
the science historians, it has happened often enough.
  My personal criteria for new ideas - no matter how radical or far
fetched - are simplicity, elegance, beauty and explanatory power; and as
always, and above all, pure logic. And if this logic includes an easy
and natural integration of what where, until then, considered to be un-
related or paradoxial phenomena, so much the better. Since the most
meaningful, also powerful, progress in science has come from the last
criterion - the integration of erstwhile and seemingly unrelated or
paradoxial phenomena - this criterion carries, at least in my mind,
much weight. 
peter;
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpweis cudfnPeter cudlnWeis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 12:11:04 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <3snvq4$ncu@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu
(Ben Weiner) wrote:

{Megasnip.}
> 
>   "[Wegener made] a good empirical case that the continents had
>   drifted apart.  Wegener based his arguments on detailed geological
>   similarities between the east and west shores of the Atlantic Ocean.
>   At the time, however, the mantle and crust of the Earth were known to 
>   be solid, and Wegener could propose no plausible mechanism by which
>   the continents could move.  His ideas of continental drift were 
>   therefore dismissed and even ridiculed by nearly all of the scientific
>   community, even though additional evidence accumulated over the 
>   following decades that supported past connections between land masses
>   that are now widely separated.
>   
>   "Wegener had proposed that continents somehow moved through the fixed, 
>   underlying basaltic crust.  This idea doesn't work.  Continental drift
>   could be accepted only when a new theory of the crust of the earth was
>   developed, called _plate tectonics_.  In this theory, we recognize
>   that the oceanic crust also moves, driven by the slow convection
>   currents that transport heat within the [lower] mantle."
> 
>   [it goes on to say that the first direct evidence for moving
>    lithospheric plates came from the discovery of fresh lava on
>    the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the _1960s_]
> 
>   source: _Exploration of the Universe_ by Abell, Morrison & Wolff,
>   not an ideal geology reference but all I have in the office.
>   If some geologist is reading this and wants to correct me,
>   please do.
> 
> Well, it's the same story.  Wegener didn't deserve to be ridiculed,
> but basically he was ahead of his time, which is a polite way of
> saying that in his time, he wasn't right.  Note the distinction
> between "continental drift" and "plate tectonics."  The former is a
> speculative idea which explains some geological observations - an
> idea, which, in much modified form, turns out to be correct.  "Plate
> tectonics" however is more than just "continental drift" - it's a 
> full-blown theory, or if you like, a fully developed Kuhnian paradigm.
> 
> Notice how the theory is formed from a phenomenon - continental drift,
> which is essentially a geological observation - and a mechanism,
> the lithosphere which "drifts" on the lower mantle.  You need both,
> crackpots generally forget one or the other.

God, you apologists for the establishment make me tired! First we have
Barry Merriman attempting to defend members of the medical establishment
who, during Semmelweis' time, committed mass murder rather that wash their
hands. According to the brain-dead revisionist historian that Barry
dredged up, virtually all the historic accounts written by those who lived
shortly after Semmelweis's time were wrong in condemning those
establishmentarian killers. In fact, says Barry's modern-day worshipper of
the establishment, Semmelweis was at fault because he failed to maintain
perfect decorum as he protested the ongoing mass murder of patients! And
now we have another apologist for the establishment implying that Wegener,
the originator of the continental drift theory which led to plate
tectonics, was a crackpot because he was wrong about some of the details!
Here again we have an apparent card-carrying member of the establishment
defending the establishment. The geological establishment did no wrong, he
says, when it savagely condemned an innovator who was later proved to be
right. Instead, it is the innovator who was at fault--indeed, a
crackpot--because he was wrong about some details! What a joke! Is there
anyone who is so dumb that he or she cannot see what is going on here? 

In case there is, let me spell it out: the "establishment"--i.e., that
group of professionals who, in each particular area, adopt their views in
order to fit in rather than because of logic and evidence--does not merely
harass legitimate innovators and destroy their careers, *it also denies
doing so.* Thus, when overwhelming historical evidence is presented of
past instances of establishment misbehavior, there is never a shortage of
boot-licking establishment lackeys eager to leap forward, revise history,
and sweep those past instances of misbehavior under the rug. The plain
fact is that there is enormous social pressure, in every professional
discipline, to conform. And it is also a plain fact that this pressure is
not merely directed at "crackpots," but at legitimate innovators. 

Indeed, it is worse than that: not merely are legitimate innovators
persecuted, but incompetent hacks are raised to positions of prominence
because their views facilitate establishmentarian purposes. Let me
explain: it is supportive of all establishments, that members of the
public perceive that they cannot comprehend what the establishment is
doing. If the public feels incompetent to judge such issues, then members
of the establishment become "experts"--i.e., they are elevated to a
virtually sacred status, from which their prognostications become
virtually impervious to criticism. Once they have such a position, they
have an immovable position at the public trough: nobody can shove them
aside, because they are the experts. You don't tell them how much
"funding" is required in their area. After all, what in the hell do *you*
know? They are the experts, not you. They will tell *you* how much "needs"
to be spent. 

What this means is that when an intellectually blighted, conformist hack
comes along with a "new" theory that is so unintelligible that nobody can
be quite sure what it means, the guy is a godsend. He is offering to
elevate his colleagues to the status of unassailable experts! All they
have to do is convince themselves that he is correct, learn the system of
rationalizing which is implicit in his new "theory," and thereby achieve
virtually unassailable political power. Result: when such an individual
comes along, he will be hailed as a "genius," and his theories will be
accepted very quickly, not because they are persuasive to persons who see
with their own eyes and think with their own brains, but because they are
attractive to mediocre rationalizers who seek power. The examples are
legion: John Maynard Keynes, Albert Einstein, B.F. Skinner, Emmanuel Kant,
Paul Samuelson, Neils Bohr, and on, and on, and on, and on. The point:
unintelligible gobbledygook serves the purpose of elevating
establishmentarians to the status of unassailable oracles whose
opinions--including, most importantly, opinions about "funding"--are
beyond question. Thus the establishment does not merely assail legitimate
innovators, destroy their careers, and delay acceptance of their theories
for decades, it also hails the "achievements" of blighted dullards, raises
them to positions of prominence, and accepts their gibberish virtually
overnight and essentially without question. 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
lt.fan.monty-python,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 13:01:57 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DB4G0M.IEr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
>Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
>ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
>Richard Schultz e-fixations.
>
>    > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
>    >  out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
>    >   [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
>    >          <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>
>    > 
>  "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.  Arthur is
>  explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
>  [zip (excuse please)] "
>  "It's quite a humorous scene.  I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
>  I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
>  of Dr. Schultz.          --Tom"
>
>Does it matter?
>  In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
>"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
>scene according to the DA].
>
>  If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
>exculpate their action?  Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
>focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
>explain his actions? 
>
>Perhaps not. 

I'm not sure what I could possibly add to the above classic post.  Your 
obsession with the random collection of quotes I put in my .sig file is
puzzling enough; your repeated insistence on making an ass of yourself
by trying to link them to anything beyond a possibly odd sense of humor
is strange, but hardly unusual for you.  I don't recall that I have 
used any quotes from MPATHG to "excuplate" any murders, at least not lately.
Monty Python fans out there will no doubt be interested to note, however,
that Movie Expert Swartz has declared "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
to be similar to "Natural Born Killers" -- a similarity that probably
escaped you less astute types.

I note that you put the title "Dr." in quotation marks.  Do you have some
basis for doubting that I am entitled to it?  And do you have any plans
for the near future either to explain your references to my employer(s),
funding sponsor(s), and project(s), or to shut up about them? 

Or am I upsetting your plans shortly to foam at the mouth and fall over
backwards?
--
					Richard Schultz

"Look out! There are llamas!"

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Ben Newsam /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 95 11:41:46 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

mica@world.std.com "mitchell swartz" writes:

>   In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
> "Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
> scene according to the DA].
> 
>   If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
> exculpate their action?  Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
> focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
> explain his actions? 

Have you *seen* "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? No, I didn't think so!

Just an aside... I went to the World Premiere of the film. A friend and I
were wandering through Soho and thought we would like to see a movie. We
came to the Casino cinema and bought a ticket. Just like that. All the stars
were there, as well as many others, including the Goodies *and* the
Pantomime Princess Margaret (who occupied the Royal Box, and waved a lot).
Before the film started, a string quartet of old men appeared on the stage
and played the Liberty Bell March *very* slowly!
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Ben Newsam /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Ben Newsam <Ben@microser.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 95 11:57:05 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu "Ben Weiner" writes:

> Although continental drift is now accepted as "true," at the time it
> was _wrong_.
<....>
> Well, it's the same story.  Wegener didn't deserve to be ridiculed,
> but basically he was ahead of his time, which is a polite way of
> saying that in his time, he wasn't right.

There is a story that, during WW2, a particularly good invention from a
civilian government scientist was rejected by a military research
establishment. It was sent back with the curt note "No good, not invented
here".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 14:51:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 In Message-ID: <3t8po5$sb9@agate.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
                      alt.fan.monty-python,alt.usenet.kooks
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

     "I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the 
                  men are men, the women
       are men, and the sheep are scared."
         [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995;
        <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]

 -rpes  ".. you've never lived in
 -rpes  that part of the country.
 -rpes    If you had, you'd realize
 -rpes   that it's nothing
 -rpes  more than a simple statement of truth."
 -rpes     	Richard Schultz"

-rs "I note that you put the title "Dr." in quotation marks. 
-rs  " Do you have some basis for doubting that I am entitled to it?"

"How about the above?", he said dryly.
 Tell us more about your
observations and deductions, as you 
continue to foam from the mouth.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 20:49:58 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3t9i96$6k4@stud.Direct.CA>, pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis) writes:
>In article <DB3wsp.EE0@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu says:
>>
>>>Stephen J. Gould and 11 other
>>>eminent science historians stated that, "Most of today's widely accepted
>>>theories in science were originally considered the excentric thoughts
>>>of heretics"..... (snip)
>>
>>This is very nice and very misleading at the same time.  The implication seems
>>to be "so and so (insert the name of your popular historical figure here) was
>>ridiculed by his peers but later was proved right.  Therefore, since I'm
>>currently ridiculed by my peers, I'll also be proven right, eventually".  I've
>>seen this reasoning applied not only to science but also to the arts, politics,
>>indeed any area of human activity..... (snip)
>
>   These are purely your implications, not mine. I just quoted from a
>joint brief of 12 eminent science historians.

Sorry if I remain unmoved by the eminence of the quoted science historians.
Still, in my opinion, their statement is at least a bit misleading.  When
issuing statements involving an integration over human history one should be
careful where to set the integration limits, else one ends up throwing in lots
of information that's not very relevant to the present.  I would agree that the
statement is true if one talks about all of human history.  However, if one
takes as a starting point the 17 century (which is roughly the time at which
the approach of judging scientific ideas according to how well they conform
with the scriptures, started dying out) a different picture emerges.  Sure, I
can point cases when ideas which were considered "the eccentric thoughts of
heretics" were eventually accepted.  Still, I would say that most of currently
established theories in science which originated in the aforementioned time
period (and that includes most of what we consider science) were never
considered crazy or heretical, maybe at most contraversial.

>   Since all new ideas are, by nature, departures from established know-
>ledge, all this is to be fully expected. I would just advise caution in
>these matters, and as much open-mindedness as one can muster, lest one
>finds oneself in the unenviable position of having to hang one's head
>while making small circles in the sand with one's left foot. According to
>the science historians, it has happened often enough.

No argument over this, but we should not forget that quite often the one left
"having to hang one's head while making small circles in the sand with one's 
left foot" was rather the proponent of the new idea, not the opponents.  What
I'm driving at is that our "eminent science historians" painted here a slightly
misleading picture, not by lying but by omitting part of the story.  The
"conservatism" of the scientific community, as long as it is not taken to an
extreme, serves a useful purpose which is to sift the good ideas from the bad
ones.

>  My personal criteria for new ideas - no matter how radical or far
>fetched - are simplicity, elegance, beauty and explanatory power; and as
>always, and above all, pure logic. And if this logic includes an easy
>and natural integration of what where, until then, considered to be un-
>related or paradoxial phenomena, so much the better. Since the most
>meaningful, also powerful, progress in science has come from the last
>criterion - the integration of erstwhile and seemingly unrelated or
>paradoxial phenomena - this criterion carries, at least in my mind,
>much weight. 

No problem here, again, so long as said idea fits available evidence at least
as well as established theories and makes predictions which can be verified (or
falsified) experimentally.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Tom Droege /  Re: MM Pact Revisited
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM Pact Revisited
Date: 3 Jul 1995 21:32:22 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3t6k7p$pfr@news.nucleus.com>, lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) says:
>
>As we approach the first anniversary of the "Merriman-Mallove Pact", I 
>thought it appropriate to revisit the issue with the view of brief 
>reiteration of what transpired a year ago and an invitation to Mr. 
>Mallove to retract his challange or perhaps raise the ante.
>
>Avid follows of SCF will recall the wording of the "pact":
>
>  "We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ................ (name of 
>  antagonist), having diametrically opposed views on the subject of CF, 
>  agree in 2 years time (on or before July 19, 1996) to publically 
>  acknowledge - based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) below, that either:
>
>  (1) G. Malove is a wishful thnking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe
>
>  or;
>
>  (2) .............. is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe
>
>  SIGNED: G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ...............
>
>  (a) = CF will be widely accepted as existing
>  (b) = CF will be widely accepted as energy producing
>  (c) = CF will be widely accepted as economically viable"
>
>As I recall, only Barry Merriman and myself took up Mr. Mallove's 
>challenge.  In any case, since there remains a great paucity of evidence in
>support of (a) to (c) above, even at this date, how about it sir, do you 
>wish now to conceed defeat and avoid further embarassment or to reissue 
>the challenge with perhaps higher stakes?  The winners will bask in the 
>accolades of an admiring populace while, may I suggest, an evening with 
>Jed Rothwell and a trip to South (North?) Carolina for the losser(s). :)
>
>Regards,
>Laurie Forbes
>

Gosh, how did I miss out on this one.  Is it too late to get on board?
I will bet against a), b), and c).

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
Subject: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 22:14:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3sq9ao$4tn@soenews.ucsd.edu>
Subject: J. Rothwell & M. Jones Wrong on Semmelweis
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

 - "Jed Rothwell and now Mitch Jones are spreading *folklore* about 
 - Ignaz Semmelweis. I would just let it go, but (1) I hate to see popular
 - myths propagated unchecked, and (2) maybe there is some small
 - chance I can demonstrate to these guys that there are some flaws
 - in their world views.   ..."
   >Semmelweis developed his theory from observing the different
   >fatality rates when babies were delivered by doctors, who in those days
   >were in the habit of moving back and forth between the delivery room and
   >the autopsy room without washing their hands, as compared to midwives, who
   >obviously performed no autopsies. The "puerperal fever" was simply an
   >infection 
 - "Back in Vienna, I.S. himslef was largely forgotten. His former suporters
 - were not obsetricians themselves, and they went along with their
 - own busy researchers. The folks in charge of Obsetrics were personal
 - enemies of I.S., and disavowed I.S.'s work. HOWEVER: they maintained his
 - practice of hand washing, and thereby kept the mortality rate 
 - under control, even though they made up their own incorrect reasons for
 - doing this. So, at least, the benefit of I.S.'s discovery was not lost."
 -   (zip)
 - So, to summarize: I.S. made a great discovery. His discovery was
 - largely well recieved and was indeed put into practice, though there
 - certainly were holdouts amond the old guard, and some powerful people
 - had a personal animosity toward him. I.S. himself suffered from
 - a bad personality and a developing mental illness that damaged his 
 - career (as well as some cultural, social and racial differences) and
 - terminated his life prematurely, but still he was a recognized professor 
 - of medicine for over 5 years before his rapid decline set in.
 - So: Jed Rothwell and Michael Jones: would you care to debate 
 - the veracity of the above with the highly mythologized versions
 - you presented."

  This is not totally correct.    Specifically, the part:  
"His discovery was largely well recieved and was
   indeed put into practice"

  Perhaps you have made a case for local use in that hospital
but decades would pass before the key surgeons would adopt the
knowledge in their daily use.
His book was in 1861 -- ten years after his discovery.

This would be re-discovered and examined again.
For example, by Lister.
[The controversy against Semelweiss was only 
made easier in the case of Lister because of his prestigous 
position and purported equanimity. ]
Lister published in 1867 his report [Lancet] of eleven cases
and even cited Pasteur's work.    
Even in 1867, sixteen years after Semelweiss' discovery
there was opposition.   It would continue.

   "Little if any faith is place by any enlightened or
experienced surgeon on this side of the Atlantic
in the so-called carbolic acid
treatment of Professor Lister" [Dr. S. Gross, 1873].
 
 Meanwhile, diffusion of the information passed to physicians in 
Denmark (1870), German-speaking countries, and by the mid 1870s to
France.  These were amongst the first to adopt this understanding
of what was going on, and putting it into practice.

The wave of knowledge was much slower to diffuse to the US
then is claimed here.  Most acknowledge that US surgeons did not
adopt these simple procedures until the late 1880s, and 
Medicine (ibid) has a picture of unsterile contamination
from 1901.    There was not a rapid adoption at all.


1851 --  Semelweiss discovery.
1861 --  Semelweiss book 
1867  -- Lister. report [Lancet] of eleven cases
1873  -- "Little if any faith" quote
1870 --  Denmark 
1875  -- France.
1888  --  US
1901  --  holdouts

   There was not a rapid adoption at all.
Except in geologic terms             ;-)X


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 22:06:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <DB5GwL.BnB@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell "Tinbad
the Tailor" swartz) writes:

>      How about dryly.
>   speak louder
>      a putative degree.
>   Gendanken thought:
>      When a painting, 
>   does he acquire art?   

Can there be any doubt that the man's a true poet?  
Or at least a better poet than he is a scientist.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 1995 18:49:14 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

>In article <3st7kh$1t@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:
>
>> In article <21cenlogic-2706951811290001@austin-1-10.i-link.net> 
>>Mitchell Jones wrote:
>> 
> > I remain convinced that the rising backpressure due to the
> > increasing head in the effluent tank may be significant. Suppose, for
> > example, that when Griggs turns the valve that diverts the steam flow from
> > the air to the effluent tank, the rising backpressure causes the water
> > outflow from the pump housing to fall below the water inflow. That would
> > have to happen, wouldn't it? And if water out suddenly falls below water
> > in when the measurement phase commenses, doesn't that mean a water buildup
> > inside the rotor? Clearly, it does. And doesn't a water buildup in the
> > rotor mean improved thermal conductivity from the rotor to the fluid
> > stream? Clearly it does. And does this not mean that the rotor will begin
> > to dump stored heat into the fluid stream at this point? So it would seem.
> > 
> 
> Except that normally one would also expect a commensurate increase
> in viscous coupling if the thermal coupling is increasing, and this
> would show up as a variable load on the motor. So, it seems unlikely
> that you would remain in low drag mode but have a strongly
> increasing thermal conductivity. 

***{I have addressed this in past posts, Barry. If the rotor temperature
is far above the flash point, then its temperature can fall considerably
without dropping it out of low drag mode. --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Also, I don;t recall that it was clearly said there __is__ an
> increase in backpressure. This would only be true if the steam
> tube were at a constant height, well below the barrel water
> level.

***{Jed said very clearly in his report that the steam hose was held at
the bottom of the effluent barrel. It had to be, of course, in order to
ensure that the vented steam condensed in the barrel. (If it didn't
condense there, its heat content would be lost in the air and wouldn't be
measured in the calorimetry.) If this doesn't convince you, then you
should re-read Jed's report. If you no longer have it, ask me via e-mail,
and I will send you a copy. --Mitchell Jones}***   
> 
> Again, I stick by my approach: ours is not to reason why,
> ours is but to do the energy balance correctly in the experiment.

***{Barry, I don't want to seem unkind, but I must point out that your
attitude arises because you live in a world where such experiments are
"funded" with money looted from other people. In the private sector, where
in the long run our spending cannot exceed our income, things are
different. There we try to answer our questions analytically, rather than
by spending more money. Of course, in the child's world that you live in
where money is provided by others, you don't have to waste your time
thinking. However half-assed an objection to a past experiment may be, the
solution is always the same: throw more of other people's money at it.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / 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 Results
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 03:45:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <9507011702.AA24791@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles Results
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

 -   My guess is that when you mention S-orbitals you 
 -  are thinking about electrons
 -  associated with the Pd nucleus and the fact that those electrons spend
 -  more time in the vicinity of the nuclues than an electron in a P-orbital.
 -  Am I getting warm?  Is this what you had in mind? 

 The P-orbitals have a probability density of zero at the nuclear
center.  The S-orbitals are not zero.  Are they?  Your conversion
to time might quantitatively require GR.  What did you get?

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

 -   OK     I concede that there
 -  are S-orbitals like that, but what does that have 
       to do with cold fusion?
 -  The world is full of s-orbitals, and all those systems appear to be
 -  pretty stable with respect to nuclear fusion.

"those systems" are not normally loaded to the levels as in these
systems, nor are there such unusual material effects in
most materials (e.g. anharmonicity, inverse isotope effects).
 Are there?

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

 -  As to the question of decay of the intermediate nuclear state formed in
 -  cold fusion, I can't seem to get you to commit to one position

  Of course there is probably an excited state intermediate.  When
helium-4 is formed that would be He-4*.  The errors in the TB-skeptics 
thinking is the pronouncments of the how this decays, where it
is (or "can't be" coupled), and what is lifetime "must be".  Rather than
examine the data, they infer from plasma experiments what they
"think" must be happening in the fully loaded (with respect to the
low molecular weight protons/deuterons), tightly bound (with respect
to the materiel nature of the metal),
inhomogeneous and optically-phonon-loaded materials.

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

 -  Now you say that you do not assert that all deexcitations are mediated by
 -  phonons. 

     Most.  Why do you keep insisting people assert "whatever" when
the opposite is true?

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

 -  Does that mean that there could be a neutron or a gamma ray
 -  emitted occasionally?  Suppose the branching ratio is 1 in 1,000,000.
 -  Shouldn't that have been detected by now?  Suppose it's one in one billion.
 -  Does that put us beyond the limits of detectability?  I don't think so.

  Think.   
If you were honest about this, you would look at the data, calculate the
presumptive limit of detectability, and come up with the observed
branching ratio.  It is a cakewalk if you are/were/willbe serious.

   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)






cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 03:50:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
Richard Schultz e-fixations.

    > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
    >  out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
    >   [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
    >          <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>
    > 
  "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.  Arthur is
  explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
  [zip (excuse please)] "
  "It's quite a humorous scene.  I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
  I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
  of Dr. Schultz.          --Tom"

Does it matter?
  In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
scene according to the DA].

  If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
exculpate their action?  Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
explain his actions? 

Perhaps not. 




cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 03:53:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3t64oj$djj@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) writes
regarding his statement/allegation/claim/whatever:

     "I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
       the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
           [Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]

 -rpes  "BTW, your constant
 -rpes  harping on that quotation indicates to me 
 -rpes  that you've never lived in
 -rpes  that part of the country.
 -rpes    If you had, you'd realize
 -rpes   that it's nothing
 -rpes  more than a simple statement of truth."
 -rpes     					Richard Schultz"

   Incredible.
   To Tom Potter, 
     >"I was unfortunate, in that I was never around 
     >    "the terminally clueless"
     >until I incountered you, so I am just developing the talent for
     >recognizing them. Perhaps some day, I might have
     > the opportunity of meeting
     >your family and friends so that I can hone my ability."
              [tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )]

     eloquent Schultz wrote,
  
     - rpes  "No need for you to go to so much trouble: 
     -rpes       just look in a mirror.
     -rpes                   	Richard Schultz"
        [2 Jul 1995 12:40:27 GMT
      Message-ID: <3t643r$d9k@cnn.Princeton.EDU>]

  Pot. Kettle. Black.
  Wonder what Schultz sees in HIS mirror?
     ;-)X



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / james dolan /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: jdolan@ucrmath.ucr.edu (james dolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 2 Jul 1995 22:12:09 -0700
Organization: fair play for neptune committee

mitchell swartz writes:

-  In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
-Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
-ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
-Richard Schultz e-fixations.
-
-    > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
-    >  out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
-    >   [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
-    >          <3ssbnj$mb9@agate.berkeley.edu>
-    > 
-  "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.  Arthur is
-  explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
-  [zip (excuse please)] "
-  "It's quite a humorous scene.  I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
-  I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
-  of Dr. Schultz.          --Tom"
-
-Does it matter?
-  In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
-"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
-scene according to the DA].
-
-  If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
-exculpate their action?  Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
-focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
-explain his actions? 
-
-Perhaps not. 


anyone up for a realistic re-enactment of the "black knight" scene?

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjdolan cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 09:42:44 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Sat, 1 Jul 1995, Bill Rowe wrote:

> In article <1022wgz5f@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz>,
> alanp@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >I have heard a lot about "Cold Fusion" and it's possible potential. However 
> >I don't know really know what it is, or theorys behind it.
> >
> >Is the a FAQ for Cold Fusion ? or could somebody send me some information 
> >on it.
> 
> Robert Heater maintains a fusion FAQ which I think covers some aspects of
> cold fusion. You also might check the bibliography of papers and books
> Dieter Britz maintains.
> -- 

The bibliography is so large, it is not a good way to start on this. I 
suggest you borrow Frank Close's book, "Too Hot to Handle"; then, borrow
Eugene Mallove's "Fire From Ice", to get the case for cold fusion. There 
are other books, but these two would fill you in.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.02 / Nahum Gat /  www site for engineers and scientists
     
Originally-From: Nahum Gat <oksi@cefnet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.techniques.spectroscopy,sci.physics.research,sci.physics
particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.cond-matt
r,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.
ptics,sci.med.vision,sci.med.radiology,sci.med.physics
Subject: www site for engineers and scientists
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 95 23:11:28 PDT
Organization: CERFnet

Dear Colleagues

Please look up 

http://www.techexpo.com/

You'll find info on technical conferences, technical societies, technical 
publications, and more.

Technical societies and organizations are invited to post their conference and 
meeting schedules.

Regards

Nahum Gat,
oksi@cerfnet.com
Apologies for multiple postings


cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenoksi cudfnNahum cudlnGat cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul  4 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
