1995.07.04 / Bill Page /  Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
     
Originally-From: wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
Date: 4 Jul 1995 16:09:07 GMT
Organization: dsis

In article <3ta758$2oa@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) says:
>
>There are five photos of the Potapov device now on-line via the worldwide
>web at the url below.
>
>These photos were taken by Chris Tinsley in Moldova in May '95.  The
>photos are owned and copyright by Cold Fusion Technology, Inc /
>Infinite Energy Magazine and are posted there with permission.  Scanned
>by Jed Rothwell.
>
>Thanks all around, and have a look.  If you don't have www access yet,
>time to think about getting it.  
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

Thanks, John (and others), for making these photos available -
real nice!

I do have some question about the 5th picture. You label it as a
picture of the "cores" of the the vortex tube. Each "core" in the
picture looks like it might be one of the devices described by
Scott Little. I see the rectangular input port, for example. But
your use of the plural suggests there may be more than one such
core per "vortex tube". Also, I don't recall Scott specifically
mentioning this *tube* as such. Is it some sort of housing for
the cores or is it more integral to the operation of the device?

I also noted that these photos do clearly show the "bypass" line -
apparently welded directly into this unit. Is the picture of a
Yeshmar I or a II?

In one of the pictures there appears to be some sort of measurement
device. The heat output radiators are clearly labelled in another
picture. I suppose that what we are looking at is actually a test
setup - not an actual installation. Can anyone provide any information
on what type of tests were done with this setup and how the
measurements were taken? There are some very apparent differences
between these photos and the test setup that Scott Little has
described.

Finally, I would say that these photos add some considerable credibility
to the recent posts by William Bernecky and others drawing a parallel
between the Potapov device and the Hilsch Tube heat pump.

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / E Corp /  Moderated s.p.f.?
     
Originally-From: eaton1@coho.halcyon.com (Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderated s.p.f.?
Date: 4 Jul 1995 15:58:59 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

I wonder, are those who object to things like "Farce.." using a threaded 
newsreader?  If their newsreader forces them to page past every single 
article posted to s.p.f., then I could see where lots of the postings 
would be objectionable.  But the fault then is not with the authors of 
the posts!

Myself, I never even knew what 'Farce' was, since I saw the subject 
heading in several newsgroups and assumed that it was one of those 
interminable crackpot-flame threads, and never bothered to read a single 
message under that topic.  If I REALLY wanted to get rid of that header, 
I think this TIN newsreader supports kill files (but I'd have to trace 
down a users manual to figure out their use.)


--
===================================+==================================
Bill Beaty
Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.         Industrial Optoelectronics
720 80th St. SW                   voice: 1-800-426-9184
Everett, WA 98203-6299            fax:   1-206-347-0544
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 16:26:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9507041503.AA17416@pilot02.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) continues on with
his "theory" against cold fusion. 

   < 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 pronouncements of the how this decays, where it is < or "can't be"
   < coupled >, and what its lifetime "must be". Rather than "think" must be
   < happening in the fully loaded <with respect to low molecular weight
   < protons/deuterons>, tightly bound <with respect to the material nature
   < of the metal>, inhomogeneous and optically-phonon-loaded materials.
  -db   "Would it not be nice if PdH turned green when the condition for 
  -db   cold fusion was achieved?

  It glows excess heat.  Your condition is achieved.  Only the wavelength
 (green) is incorrect.

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

 -db It is clear what is meant by "fully loaded",
 -db  and is a few experiments there
 -db were even experimental measurements to suggest that high loading was reached
 -db   in some average sense.
 
        We agree

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

 -db  I am puzzled, however, my Mitchell's insertion of the condition "tightly
 -db bound."  That requires some further clarification, for me at least.  The
 -db  picture I have of fully loaded PdH is that the H is rather mobile, i.e. not
 -db  tightly bound.  I also don't know the significance of a phrase like
 -db   "the material nature of the metal."  Could you be more specific?

   Periodic crystalline nature of the metal.   if it burst, it is neither
periodic nor bound.

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

 -db   Next we come to "inhomogenous and optically-phonon-loaded materials."  I
 -db   don't know what an optically-phonon-loaded material is. 

The optical phonons only arise with the metal being loaded.  
The two spectra (acoustic and optical) arise from the presence
of the low weight interstitial.   Load the metal, and you have "loaded"
(maybe not the best word -- do you have a better one?)
the existence of the optical portion which did not exist before the loading.

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

 -db    I know of the optical branch of the phonon spectrum, but
 -db   the loading part is a mystery.  I thought there is this ensemble of states
 -db   that are occupied in accord with the statistics as determined by the
 -db   temperature of the lattice.  Are you saying there are more phonons or that
 -db   the phonon spectrum has been altered?

  Loading hydrogen -> interstitials -> optical phonons
   more loading              more interstit.       more phonons

  The spectrum appears to be time dependent in this conditions
would suggests that it is altered.  

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

 -db   We have made some progress, it seems, in that you and I agree now that there
 -db   is a form of intermediate state that could be He-4*.  

  There is another agreement between us.

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

 -db   Now if our He-4* is somewhat like ordinary excited helium but decays somewhat
-db   differently why can't we inquire as to how that comes about?  In my mind a
 -db   change in the decay rate or the branching ratios implies some "perturbation"
 -db   of the nuclear state.  Merely locating our exited He-4* in a lattice loaded
 -db   with "optically-phonons" is no more significant than locating it in California
 -db   or Utah.  

  Obviously you are kidding, since loaded material is as different is a wet versus dry.
Would it make sense to say:
"Merely locating water-sensitive materials in water
is no more significant than locating them dry in California
Utah."?   See the difference yet?
  
         ========================================

 -db    Excited helium has a decay rate and it has branching
 -db   ratios.

  He-4* is forbidden to decay under some analyses in the
CF literature, but does anyway due to perturbations --
Perturbations and outright collisions in the plasma state.

In the loaded, active, solid state, PdD the nucleus encounters
other couplings, perturbations, and opportunities
and apparently other decay pathways open up.

Dick, you cannot prove your claimed plasma-type branching ratios
must hold.   You have been asked.  To date you have
failed.   The burden is on you to prove it since it is your theory.

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

-db   I would like to know how you merge the Cravens data with the Miles data, for
-db   example.

   Different metals, different loaded isotopes.  Nickel =/= Palladium
Or will you try to ignore that again.

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

-db     How does the Miles data fit with Pons and Fleischmann results?

   What are you talking about?

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

-db   Why is it that there are no experiments showing both helium-4 production
-db   and neutrons, gammas, X-rays, etc. correlated with excess heat? 

  He-4 production is correlated with excess heat.  Since there are 
neutronpenic levels of neutrons, detecting correlations must be very
tough indeed.   Care to do an estimate, Dick?

         ========================================
   
-db     The fact that Cravens claims
-db   excess heat under the conditions Miles says there must be no excess heat
-db   says a great deal about those two experiments, does it not? 

  Prove what you say, if it is true.  And I doubt it.
What conditions does Miles say there
is no excess heat (with nickel) such that Cravens observations are at
variance.        Have you really thought about this?
Did you pick up the ICCF4 Proceedings yet?

   Mitchell Swartz



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Tom Potter /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 4 Jul 1995 16:45:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <browe-0307952102200001@192.0.2.1> browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: 

>I am sure there are a few who resist new ideas to maintain their power and
>prestige. However, I strongly believe this is a small minority. That is
>not to say I don't believe the majority tend to resist new ideas. However,
>I think happens for a much different reason.
>
>Learning new ideas requires significant effort. Also, experience indicates
>a large number of ideas which appear to be crackpot ideas are crackpot
>ideas. But it can take considerable effort to demonstrate this. All of us
>have limited time and energy to pursue and learn new ideas. I believe most
>people reject new ideas that appear to be crackpot ideas not to maintain
>their status but to conserve their time, energy etc for ideas they feel
>are more promising.

It is my observation, that far more time is wasted, in these forums,
flaming crackpots and defending the status quo, than in screening
new concepts.  

Also, It is extremely rare when people in established heirarchies,
willing accept truths which will displace them or lower their status.


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 /  Matej /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matej.pavsic@ijs.si (Matej Pav{i~)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 4 Jul 95 13:07:12 GMT
Organization: J. Stefan Institute, Lj, Slovenia

In article <DAy7qn.6IK@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> In article <3sqe60$799@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers
edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>>tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
> 
> Uh, I would say yes/no/maybe on the last one.  When you submit a paper, to
> Phys. Rev. for example, nobody asks for your credentials and degrees.  So in
> this sense it doesn't matter.  There is some built in bias in the system in the
> sence that the editors may view a paper which arrives from a residential adress
> (as opposed to institutional one) with some suspicion and subject it to a
> closer scrutiny.  However, no paper will be rejected solely on the grounds that
> the author is not a member of the academia.
> 

Closer scrutinity for a "non academic paper"? Just the contrary.
An author from a less known institution or a country usually receives his
paper (submitted to Phys.Rev.D) back, without being sent to a referee
at all, with the editor explanation that the paper is not
interesting enough. So it happened to a friend of mine. It is amusing
in this story  that the same person, while working at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, had no problems with publishing his papers
in Physical Review. Does it mean that the quality of his papers on
theoretical physics has so drastically reduced after leaving Massachusetts
that they do not even deserve to be sent to a referee? Also other persons
told me similar stories about Phys.Rev. Therefore I do not even try to waste
my time and nerves, and I have never sent a paper to Phys.Rev. The latter
is apparently so anxious about its short term reputation such as
the rank on citation index, and the impact parameter index, etc.,
that works of less known scientists are not interesting for it, and do
not merit a closer scrutinity (and are not sent to referees).
However, in the long term it may turn out that some other journal will
rank much higher than Physical Review D.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpavsic cudlnMatej cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 95 08:42:24 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

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

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

I thought that was what this whole thread was.

Frankie

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Allan Proudfoot /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: alanp@newwave.manawatu.planet.co.nz (Allan Proudfoot)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 00:06:07 NZT

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

>In article <browe-0107951154030001@192.0.2.1> Bill Rowe, browe@netcom.com
>writes:
>>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.
>
>Uh-oh.  Time for some corrections.  First, it's "Heeter" (but that's no
>big deal).  Second, the Conventional Fusion FAQ explicitly avoids
>discussing Cold Fusion, precisely because - to paraphrase
>Alan's statement, we don't really know what it is, or the theories
>behind it.  More precisely, there are at least three classes of
>answers to any CF question, and which one you believe depends 
>on your overall attitude towards the phenomena.  Skeptics
>will favor the answer that supports the idea that CF is bunk,
>believers will favor answers which support the validity of CF,
>and then there are those in between who will say the answer
>is that we simply don't know for sure what's going on yet.
>
>Alan - if you ask about CF on this group, you'll get a lot of 
>"help" from the believers, and then they'll be "corrected" 
>by the skeptics, and then you'll get both sides of the picture.
>
>But the bottom line is still that there is still no commercial
>"cold fusion" device, though there are some devices which
>some people claim produce more energy than they consume,
>and therefore "must" be cold fusion devices.  
>
>This is about as neutral a statement as I can come up with,
>and is similar to what I would put in the FAQ if I were
>inclined to do so.  But I'll bet this starts a flamewar
>anyway.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Bob for setting me right.

Hmmm, now like me re-phrase my question. 

If have heard a lot about "Cold Fusion", I know what "Hot Fusion" is but 
what is "Cold Fusion". Are there any Theory's on "Cold Fusion", not 
theory's of the workings of Cold Fusion, but the Theories of what it 
possibly could do or are trying to do.

Dammit, I can't even ask it, but I think you know what I mean.

Allan.

PS. A thousand appologies if this starts a flamewar.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenalanp cudfnAllan cudlnProudfoot cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / 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: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:05:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

At last Mitchell Swartz has revealed his "theory" of cold fusion.  It's
in this quote (I think.)

< 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 pronouncements of the how this decays, where it is < or "can't be"
< coupled >, and what its lifetime "must be". Rather than "think" must be
< happening in the fully loaded <with respect to low molecular weight
< protons/deuterons>, tightly bound <with respect to the material nature
< of the metal>, inhomogeneous and optically-phonon-loaded materials.

As I read this, it seems Mitchell is trying to tell us the essential features
of the material in which cold fusion occurs.  When these conditions are
not achieved there is no cold fusion, i.e. things return to normal.  This is
an interesting concept, but there are still a few details that need some
further explanation.  It would also be nice if we could devise some way
(independent of cold fusion) to test experimentally that these special
conditions actually exist and are significant in an understandable way.
Would it not be nice, for example, if PdH turned green when the cold fusion
Would it not be nice if PdH turned green when the condition for cold fusion
was achieved?

It is clear what is meant by "fully loaded", and is a few experiments there
were even experimental measurements to suggest that high loading was reached
in some average sense.  I don't know what that tells us about uniformity, etc.
I am puzzled, however, my Mitchell's insertion of the condition "tightly
bound."  That requires some further clarification, for me at least.  The
picture I have of fully loaded PdH is that the H is rather mobile, i.e. not
tightly bound.  I also don't know the significance of a phrase like
"the material nature of the metal."  Could you be more specific?

Next we come to "inhomogeneous and optically-phonon-loaded materials."  I
don't know what an optically-phonon-loaded material is.  I have never heard
of such a thing.  I know of the optical branch of the phonon spectrum, but
the loading part is a mystery.  I thought there is this ensemble of states
that are occupied in accord with the statistics as determined by the
temperature of the lattice.  Are you saying there are more phonons or that
the phonon spectrum has been altered?

The essence of your message, however, is as always to tell TB-Skeptics the
errors of their ways of thinking about the physics of the lattice and nuclei
in that lattice.  You never have done much to enlighten us beyond saying
we are wrong.  It comes down to a fundamental question as to how we should
apply existing knowledge to the circumstances of cold fusion.  I sense that
you just want to go out and invent an entirely new picture, but drop in
a few key phrases to make it appear that cold fusion has a clear link to
the physics of solids.  I must say that the link you suggest is just not
very clear.  I think you ought to be able to flesh out a few more details.

We have made some progress, it seems, in that you and I agree now that there
is a form of intermediate state that could be He-4*.  Now I do not take that
lightly.  I would not think of calling something "helium" if it were not very
like ordinary helium - even if that helium is gaseous, or in a plasma, or
an accelerated ion about to smash into a solid target.  Are you with me at
this point?  Helium is helium where ever we find it.  It seems strange to
have to utter such truisms, but you never know with the CF crowd what they
are thinking.

Now if our He-4* is somewhat like ordinary excited helium but decays somewhat
differently why can't we inquire as to how that comes about?  In my mind a
change in the decay rate or the branching ratios implies some "perturbation"
of the nuclear state.  Merely locating our exited He-4* in a lattice loaded
with "optically-phonons" is no more significant than locating it in California
or Utah.  As to what "must be" or what "can't be" these are not just empty
assertions to be thrown back and forth.  Let's start with what IS and describe
how it can be altered.  Excited helium has a decay rate and it has branching
ratios.  If you are to alter them YOU have to give a reason.  To date you
have failed.  This is not my error.  It is your burden!

As to why if keep insisting people assert "whatever" when the opposite is
true,  this is just my crude attempt to get you to "assert" something.
Even now after several exchanges you have not stated a position regarding
the deexcitation of excited helium.  You hint that the answer is to
be found in "the data" as if there were an obvious data set to which we
should refer.  I suggest that the "data" is filled with clear contradictions
such that you must be rather selective in selecting results.  Just tell us
which ones you like and which you don't like.

I would like to know how you merge the Cravens data with the Miles data, for
example.  How does the Miles data fit with Pons and Fleischmann results?
Why is it that there are no experiments showing both helium-4 production
and neutrons, gammas, X-rays, etc. correlated with excess heat?  What do
you consider the "observed" branching ratios, and what data do you use to
determine those ratios?

I have attempted to be "honest" about this.  You make all these nasty
assertions about dishonesty and errors associated with the TB-skeptics,
but you don't put up much to counter our arguments but some obviously
very shakey assertions that you refuse to spell out in any detail.
I have "thought" about what must be happening in a fully loaded PdH
lattice and fusion is not what comes immediately to mind.  In fact the
fusion of hydrogen (at opposed to deuterium) is just about the very
last thing that seems likely to occur.  The fact that Cravens claims
excess heat under the conditions Miles says there must be no excess heat
says a great deal about those two experiments, does it not?  To me
it indicates that the "excess heat" is likely an artifact in one or both
of those experiments.  Have you thought about that?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Dieter Britz /  Small biblio update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Small biblio update
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 17:04:45 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Starry droogs,

I squirt off these two items before I go off for a week or so. The patent
explains itself (to those skilled in the art of reading stuff like that)
and the peripheral is interesting to me for the way these people use the term
"cold fusion" without even blinking. It is in fact a prior use of the term,
as is muon catalysed ditto. One does wonder, though, whether they looked at
one another when they wrote the words (in several places in the paper). All
things are relative, and I guess 200 MeV is "cold" compared with, say, 400
or even more.

Patents: Current count = 187
^^^^^^^
#
Doke H (Doke Masaaki); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 07 77,588, Apr-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 122:301149 (1995).
** "A porous spongy electrode is prepd. by putting a large no. of fine
particles of Pd or Ti in an electrode-shaped mold, heating with compression
using radiofrequency or electromagnetism to make it undergo semi-fusion. The
electrode is mech. vibrated at high speed to increase the reaction rate. The
electrode area is increased from 10- to 10,000-fold, and the probability of
the nuclear collision is increased 2*pi*f-fold (f = cycle no. of vibration)".
(Direct quote from CA).
#...................................................................... Jun-95

Peripherals: Current count = 96
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Gupta RK, Singh S, Muenzenberg G, Scheid W;  Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 2623.
"Neutron-halo nuclei in cold synthesis and cluster decay of heavy nuclei:
Z = 104 nucleus as an example".
** Deals with fusion reactions resulting in element 104, some of which are
considered "cold" by virtue of the relatively low energies required, i.e. just
under 200 MeV. This is a conventional use of the term "cold fusion", along with
the same term applied to muon catalysed fusion.
#....................................................................... Jun-95




How to retrieve the archived biblio files:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. By ftp from vm1.nodak.edu; log in as anonymous, giving your email
   address as password. Then cd to fusion. There are many files here, so
   do not use dir; if you are after the biblio files only, try
   dir fusion.cnf-*
   and then get or mget what you want.
2. Send an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, blank subject and the message
   get fusion.<whatever you want>. To find out what there is, send
   index fusion
   This gets you an email with the directory of all files there, with which
   you can also match Fusion Digest numbers with file names, before getting
   those files. The index, or files you ask for, will be emailed to you.


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

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
lt.consciousness,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 4 Jul 1995 20:26:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3t1ekd$gkm@electron.rutgers.edu> bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben
Weiner) writes: 
>
>By the way, I did not see the beginning of this thread, and so I 
>don't know if anyone ever answered the question in the title,
>"Has anyone convinced a crackpot?"
>
>My short answer is, if a person can be convinced that he/she is wrong,
>he/she is manifestly not a crackpot.  If you want a more substantive
>answer: There have been a number of instances on sci.physics where
>refutations of somebody who is more or less crackpot appeared to make
>them shut up and go away (or give up in frustration), but they never
>admitted to actually being wrong.
>
>The only instance I can think of is Jack Sarfatti, who insisted at
>great length that it was possible to have instantaneous communication
>through variants of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, but
>eventually admitted that it wouldn't work in standard quantum
>mechanics (he immediately switched to advocating some kind of
>non-linear variant of QM).  One might say that excluding the one and
>only Sarfmeister from a definition of "crackpot" instantly vitiates
>the definition.  I think he's more of a snake-oil salesman than a
>crackpot though.

The correct term is "Sarmeister".

It is true that I tried to get local decoding of nonlocal messages
using only orthodox quantum mechanics in violation of Eberhard's
theorem. Like Nick Herbert, I was playing Devil's Advocate. I am now
persuaded that faster-than-light "telepathic" communication (which can
be precognitive as well) using EPR spin correlations is not possible
within orthodox theory. This has been Henry Stapp's position for a long
time. However, Henry and even Eberhard as well as Brian Josephson are
quite open to the idea that such local decoding is indeed a fact used
by intelligent living matter but that such a phenomenon is a violation
of the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics. Detailed
references are at http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr.

One must clearly distinguish local decoding from storing of information
nonlocally. For example, the very useful emerging technology of
"quantum cryptography" (and "teleportation") using nonlocal EPR
correlations uses only orthodox quantum mechanics. Indeed, Stapp's
"hard problem" the emergence of "qualia", the experience of the "unity
of self" in the light of fragmented processing of peices of perception
over widely separated regions of the cortex, indicate that "we" are
nonlocally stored patterns of information. We are wavefunctions of the
brain.

Local decoding is a stronger conditon required for "free will",
"intent". Free will is not possible in orthodox quantum mechanics nor
in classical mechanics. Free will, by definition, demands a
controllable violation of the statistical predictions of orthodox
quantum mechanics. This is made clear in Stapp's Phys Rev paper of a
year ago. Bohr's idea that the effect of observer on the observed is
fundamentally uncontrollable must be violated for "free will" and
"intent". The math of this is obvious in Bohm's version of quantum
mechanics in which the Schrodinger equation of orthodox theory
corresponds to an approximation in which there is no direct
feedback-control loop from the actual particle to the objectively real
nonlocal quantum potential. Such a feedback-control loop violates local
conservation of probability current. It is essentially an irreducible
nonunitarity required for the existence of creative intelligence in
which the dimension of the space of possibilities is not a constant of
the motion at higher levels of "coarse graining" in the Gell-Mann
Hartle "decoherence" context. In simple terms living systems are "open"
and the coupling to the environment make them essentially nonunitary
while maintaining macroscopic coherence in the wavefunction of the
subset of collective observables that correspond to mental states.

There is a recent paper by Hoyle and Narlikar in Rev Mod Phys Jan 95
I think that I have not read yet in detail - havinf seen the abstract
only on Pinet. But it seems to say that the Friedmann solution of the
standard big bang cosmology of the expanding universe does not obey
the Feynman - Wheeler abosorber boundary condition. This means that
advanced electromagnetic waves from the future can transmit messages
back in time in accord with the Final Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Also before closing, I am not a "crackpot", I am not a "snake oil
salesman", but I am "The World's Worst Physicist" because everything I
say is wrong. For more disinformation :-) see

http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr    



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 04 Jul 1995 22:29:05 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <3t64oj$djj@cnn.Princeton.EDU> rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu
(Richard H. Schultz) writes:

> >"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?]
> 
> I vote for "saliently depraved."  Plagarized [sic] is a second
> choice.
> 
> (Here's another clue for you:  if I put it in quotation marks, the odds
> are that I'm quoting someone.  Doubtless they forgot to tell you about 
> that at MIT.)

Please!  I graduated from MIT too, and I can attest that quotation
marks are part of the curriculum.  The school does have a writing
requirement.  (Not that all MIT graduates are literate, mind you,
or graduates of any other school I know of.)

If someone graduated from MIT and still doesn't realize that words
within quotation marks are quotations, that's no reason to blame the
school.  Following Bob Dole, I would tend to blame the influence of
the mass media.  Newspaper reporters sometimes seem to have only a
sketchy idea of just what quotation marks mean.
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmatt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 04 Jul 1995 22:40:17 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <3tbr6l$6e3@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes:


> Also, It is extremely rare when people in established heirarchies,
> willing accept truths which will displace them or lower their status.

In my experience, doing research on a new theory that someone else has
introduced (which, for practical purposes, is all that "accepting" a
theory really means) almost never lowers a scientist's status---if,
that is, the theory is actually correct.  More likely, in fact, it
raises the scientist's status: you can rack up lots of publications
generalizing the theory, discussing possible variants, working out its
implications and its applications to other fields, designing
experiments that probe it, and so on.  A new theory is a particularly
good way to gain that sort of status, because you'll be able to make a
name for yourself in areas that other people haven't yet studied in
depth.

Even if a new theory turns out to be incorrect, working on it still
isn't very likely to lower one's status.  At this point there's no
direct evidence that supersymmetry is correct, but lots of people have
worked on it anyway.  If it ever does get disproved and if someone
manages to drive a stake through its heart, nobody's career is going
to suffer.
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmatt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Erik Francis /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 95 12:12:43 PDT
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

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". This quote is almost verbatim, as I appear to have lost
> the original quote in NEWSWEEK "The Good, The Bad, and The Published"
> about a year ago.

That doesn't mean that everyone who has had ideas that were ridiculed 
by the establishment has always been vindicated in the end.

Sometimes people are ridiculed because their ideas, although correct 
(or at least more correct), go against the mainstream and sound very 
strange.  However, most of the time they're ridiculed because their 
ideas are just plain wrong.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA   GIGO, Omega, Psi, Universe   ICBM:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`-  ftmfbs ccpm mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Sergio Pomante /  THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it (Sergio Pomante)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 22:32:57 GMT
Organization: Cineca


 Yes, goodbye Quantum Mechanics.

 Albert Einstein was right, a new , more complete, causal , theory is
 born.
 
 This is : The Wave theory of the Field.
 
 It' s available in http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html.

 Some extract....

 MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model show
that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetics interactions are absent,
because are absent the waves that characterize electrical
interactions.This implies a different point of view for the forces in
act.From this different view we can support an original explication
of COLD FUSION.

 Good reading, and ... please, destroy it , if you are be able.

 The author: Walter E.R. Cassani  e-mail : cassani@linux.infosquare.it








     
 SERGIO POMANTE --- Theoretical physics student -- Bologna University (Italy)

                Address: Via Emilia Levante 118, 40139 Bologna                  
                Phone  : 39-51-548778 /39-85-8937016 
       Internet E-mail : pmne06k1@te.nettuno.it 
                   WWW : http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html
                                                 

cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenpmne06k1 cudfnSergio cudlnPomante cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ or Information
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 00:22:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

[ skip]

>If have heard a lot about "Cold Fusion", I know what "Hot Fusion" is but 
>what is "Cold Fusion". Are there any Theory's on "Cold Fusion", not 
>theory's of the workings of Cold Fusion, but the Theories of what it 
>possibly could do or are trying to do.

From reading this newsgroup as well as various published articles, I think
the best working definition that can be given of cold fusion is it is a
process which produces more energy than can be explaned by known chemistry
which occurs at temperatures much less than those of convential fusion.

Others might point out several experimenters have claimed helium
production commensurate with the measured energy and a fusion process.
However, I don't believe any of these experiments showing helium
production are totally accepted yet. There have been questions of
contamination which do not appear to have been fully addressed.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / M Kagalenko /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 4 Jul 1995 23:13:10 -0400
Organization: Division of Academic Computing, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. USA

 <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
]
]Even if a new theory turns out to be incorrect, working on it still
]isn't very likely to lower one's status.  At this point there's no
]direct evidence that supersymmetry is correct, but lots of people have
]worked on it anyway.  If it ever does get disproved and if someone
]manages to drive a stake through its heart, nobody's career is going
]to suffer.

 That sounds like a summary of what is wrong with today's physics.


-- 
                        Save the Earth - kill a lawyer
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmkagalen cudfnMichael cudlnKagalenko cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device photos now on-line
Date: 5 Jul 1995 03:11:37 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (wspage@msmail.dsis.dnd.ca) wrote:
: I do have some question about the 5th picture. You label it as a
: picture of the "cores" of the the vortex tube. Each "core" in the
: picture looks like it might be one of the devices described by
: Scott Little. I see the rectangular input port, for example. But
: your use of the plural suggests there may be more than one such
: core per "vortex tube". Also, I don't recall Scott specifically
: mentioning this *tube* as such. Is it some sort of housing for
: the cores or is it more integral to the operation of the device?

Sorry, I just made up names since I wasn't sure of the correct terminology.
I guess I wasn't very consistent. :-)  I suppose I could have called
them "hearts" just to add confusion.  But "hearts", "cores", and
"tubes" all refer to the same thing.  Take the things in the 5th
picture, paint them orange and you have the things in the previous
four pictures.

I can't answer any of your other questions because I don't know.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 / Joshua Levy /  Griggs and P&F: What is Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs and P&F: What is Cold Fusion?
Date: 3 Jul 1995 17:06:26 -0700
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp.

What do the Griggs device and P&F experiment have in common?
They are both called "cold fusion", but why?

Could cold fusion be whatever "power from nothing" scheme that 
Rothwell and Mallove are chasing this year?

Remember there has never been an coherent theory to explain 
"cold fusion" -- even Jed admits this, so if two things are going to be 
called "cold fusion" they need to be related in some way we can
see.   Which is the modivation for the question above.

Remember: if it really is going to answer the question, it should
include an answer to the nickel and water "cold fusion" the
titanium under pressure "cold fusion" and the other major cold
fusion "experiments" as trumpetted by Rothwell and Mallove.

The experiments listed above involve three different metals (and
no special metal), they involve light water, heavy water, and no
water.  What experiment would not be considered "cold fusion"?
It seems to me that any experiment which gives apparent extra energy,
and which is grabbed hold of by cold fusion supporters, can be
considered cold fusion.

Joshua Levy <joshua@centerline.com> no matter what the header says.  
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy 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 19:08:45 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <-3006950418370001@ip-salem2-21.teleport.com>,
<singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) wrote:

> In article <3snvq4$ncu@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu
> (Ben Weiner) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> What about S. Warren Carey?  He is considered a 'crackpot' by most modern
> geologists or geophysicists even though his tireless lecturing across the
> U.S. was an influential factor in getting western geologists to accept
> continental mobility.  Now that he has pushed on ahead to even more
> comprehensive ideas and derides subduction as a myth he is now considered
> a ratbag by many.  But what is interesting is not that geologists consider
> his ideas looney but that they take him as a threat.  So he is not simply
> ignored but openly and vehemently hated.  If there was any single person
> that could threaten the house of cards the subduction theorists have
> built, it is without doubt this man.  There are many who have rallied
> around him but at the cost of loss of personal credibility in their own
> academic careers.
> 
> In fact, to attempt to secure the high ground against his relentless
> assualts on their assine ideas they now declare "not the theory of
> subduction but the fact of subduction" when foisting their drivel upon the
> unsuspecting PBS audiences.  Their reliance upon bad science is virtually
> ignored and they tend to believe their own press and documentaries.  They
> have stuck their necks so far out on this phoney subduction crap that any
> theory presented to oppose it is met with violent opposition.  
> 
> Here's the deal.  Planets grow.  Read S. Warren Carey's book: Title = 
> "Theories of the Earth and Universe"  {A History of Dogma in the Earth 
> Sciences}  Published in 1988 by Stanford Univ. Press.  Cost is about $45 
> U.S.
> 
> ISBN 0-8047-1364-2  
> 
> S. Warren Carey is the author.  He is Professor Emeritus of Geology at 
> the University of Tasmania; an Honorary Life Fellow of the Geological 
> Societies of America, London, and Australia; and former President of the 
> Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science; 
> also Fellow of the Royal Society, I believe.
> 
> He has been collecting the evidence for an explanding planet for longer 
> than many of us have been alive.
> 
> Regards to All,
> 
> -- 
> Charles Cagle
> Chief Technical Officer
> Singularity Technologies, Inc,
> 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
> Salem, OR 97304
> 
> Ph/Fx 503/362-7781
> 
> 
> I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
> Hid privily, a measureless resource
> For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound
> 
> email> singtech@teleport.com

Wow, way to go, Charles! I have been a proponent of the "planets grow"
theory for years, just on commonsensical grounds: the earth has been
sweeping up thousands of tons of meteorites and space dust a day for
billions of years. How, therefore, could it *not* grow? And, if it grows,
then are not cracks going to appear between the light crustal material on
the surface? As the interior expands, do not the surface blocks
necessarily separate or "drift" apart? Take an analogy: suppose that you
blow up a white balloon to a certain size, and then paint its surface with
red paint. Then, when the paint has dried, you blow the balloon up some
more, say until its size has doubled. What happens? The answer: cracks
appear on the surface, and "continents"--regions of red paint--appear and
"drift" apart. At the end you have "crustal blocks" of red paint,
separated by white "intercontinental" regions that are analogous to
Earth's sea floors. That is the commonsensical view of the issue, but I
find your posting absolutely wonderful because I had no idea that anyone
was actually going around collecting evidence to support such a
theory--or, indeed, that anyone else had even thought of it! (I don't read
much geology, I'm afraid.) This is exactly the kind of informational
material that needs to be posted in a forum such as this. It isn't off
topic, because the subject matter of this newsgroup is unorthodox and
anti-establishmentarian. Thus people who participate here need to focus
their minds on the massive problems posed by establishmentarian
activities. Every example that serves to drive that point home is
absolutely on-topic here! Thanks again for an informative, exhilarating
post!

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / John Logajan /  Potapov device photos now on-line
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device photos now on-line
Date: 4 Jul 1995 01:56:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

There are five photos of the Potapov device now on-line via the worldwide
web at the url below.

These photos were taken by Chris Tinsley in Moldova in May '95.  The
photos are owned and copyright by Cold Fusion Technology, Inc /
Infinite Energy Magazine and are posted there with permission.  Scanned
by Jed Rothwell.

Thanks all around, and have a look.  If you don't have www access yet,
time to think about getting it.  

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /  BILLC /  Re: Where's the CNF water
     
Originally-From: billc@execnet.com (BILLC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 95 09:09:00 -0500
Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 198.232.143.136

AP>> Remember folks, Mr. Plutonium as actually a dishwasher at Dartmouth (this
AP>> was verified by another poster to this newsgroup). Looks like the network
AP>> administrator at Dartmouth is either very loose with handing out internet
AP>> accounts or has a strong sense of humor!

The real question is in which Department does he/she wash dishes.
Hopefully something scientific :/>
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Old Chemists never die!  They just reach Equilibrium.

cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenbillc cudlnBILLC cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 04:01:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <-0207951958390001@ip-salem2-18.teleport.com>,
<singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle) wrote:

>I think it far more instructive to understand the whys and wherefores of
>resistance to changes in scientific models not as a natural and 'good'
>evolutionary process that eventually bears sweet fruit but rather as an
>'evil'  process that stems from the fears of individuals at the prospect
>of the loss of control, power, prestige, credibility, reputation, and
>position.  Each man can be defined as a collection of ideas that resides

I am sure there are a few who resist new ideas to maintain their power and
prestige. However, I strongly believe this is a small minority. That is
not to say I don't believe the majority tend to resist new ideas. However,
I think happens for a much different reason.

Learning new ideas requires significant effort. Also, experience indicates
a large number of ideas which appear to be crackpot ideas are crackpot
ideas. But it can take considerable effort to demonstrate this. All of us
have limited time and energy to pursue and learn new ideas. I believe most
people reject new ideas that appear to be crackpot ideas not to maintain
their status but to conserve their time, energy etc for ideas they feel
are more promising.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 08:58:15 +0200
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 3 Jul 1995, Richard Schultz wrote:

> 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.
> 
[...]
> 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?

(Once again, I have "cancelbotted" groups other than this one out of the 
header; Mitch, are you there?)

At last! Some actual fusion content (I think) in this endless series of 
bickerings between these two gentlemen. Please, one or two personal
exchanges might be OK, and I certainly go for humour; but both of you carry
the bickering to extremes. I for one am bored by this.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 / 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: Tue, 04 Jul 95 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: Micro Services

r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu "David L Burkhead " writes:

> >There is a story that, during WW2, a particularly good invention from a
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>      There are _always_ stories.

Well, in this particular case, I got it straight from the horse's mouth,
as it were. I won't go into details, since the originator has since died.
The real point is that it is a good story (whether it is true or not does
not really matter). It illustrates a particular bureaucratic/stifling
mentality.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenBen cudfnBen cudlnNewsam cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul  5 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
