1995.07.05 / 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: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:25:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has come forward with a few more conjectures concerning
the cold fusion reaction, but I wonder how much of this has any basis in
experiment or theory.

High loading of the PdD lattice is supposed to increase the number of
interstitials.  Is this something that can be varified experimentally?
Has it been demonstrated specifically for the Miles experiments or even
for experiments run under similar conditions?  Could you tell us who
has made such measurements?

I have similar questions concerning changes in the phonon spectrum.  In
fact the notion that interstitials enhance the optical phonon branch
does not ring very true within the context of what little solid state
physics I know.  Could someone help me out on that question?

Now, in a sense, you are asserting that something equivalent to my
hoped for "turning green" does occur.  As Richard Schultz correctly
observes, I am asking for an observation independent of cold fusion that
some of these special conditions you assume are, in fact, present when
cold fusion occurs and otherwise absent.  What observations have been
made to confirm a change in the phonon spectrum under CF conditions?

When I suggested that the locating of He-4* in a lattice has as much
significance as locating it in California or Utah, you thought I was
kidding.  I am NOT KIDDING!  The likelyhood that the kinds of changes
in the lattice to which you refer can strongly influence the decay of
He-4* is well estimated by considering the geographic relocations I
mention.  That has been a key point that you fail to grasp.  The nucleus
is extremely well isolated from changes in the surrounding atomic
structure.  I would not have it any other way.  Any assertion that
some special lattice is subtly different in a way that dramatically
influences the nuclear quantum states is very much off the wall.

Among your unfounded assertions is the one that "He-4* is forbidden to
decay under some analyses in the CF literature."  That is pure Bull!
No such analyses exist!  There is, I grant you, as assertion by
Chubb and Chubb that such decays are forbidden, but there is nothing that
qualifies as "analysis" to back up that assertion.  They simply want
it to be true so they say it is true.  That may pass for physics in your
camp, but I don't accept that approach as valid.  As for an analysis,
Chubb and Chubb have not even addressed the problem by writing down the
nuclear wavefunctions involved in the transistion.  Without those
wavefunctions and the appropriate operators how can anyone say the
decay is forbidden?

As for the conflict between Cravens and Miles experiments, I thought the
switch from using H2O as a "blank" to calibrate with, and using it as
fuel which generates excess heat was a bit of a problem.  You, howver,
insert the word "nickel" as if that changes the rules.  Can you explain
why nickel works differently than palladium?  Better yet can you even
venture a guess as to what nuclear reaction is generating the excess heat
in the Cravens experiment?  That little detail seems to be lacking in
all the discussions.

That leaves you with the option of claiming that there are multiple types
of CF reactions, each requiring its own special set of conditions.
If you can't sell one weird idea offer up an alternative?  Right?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / 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
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 16:38:25 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <ts_zemanian-0507950842050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:

>Oh, for crying out loud, Mitch.  I don't see any evidence that Schultz
>(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever employed women to
>distribute swords from a supine position in ponds, or that he advocates
>anyone doing it.

Don't forget:  the quotation I supplied specifically *objects* to
using sword-wielding aquatic tarts as a basis for executive authority,
and goes on to say (as I believe someone else posted) that governmental
authority has to derive from the will of the people.  So my guess is 
that by objecting to my use of the quote, Swartz is revealing his own
preference for the days when rulers were picked by supernatural means.
--
					Richard Schultz

"It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Robert Cormack /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: URWF21A@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: 5 Jul 1995 17:36:24 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote:
>
>   (much stuff deleted)
>
> ...  Merely locating our exited He-4* in a lattice loaded
>with "optically-phonons" is no more significant than locating it in 
California
>or Utah.  ...   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!

>Dick Blue
>

Dick,

I agree with (what I think is) the general trend of your post -- ad hoc 
theorizing with scant connection to tested theory or experimental 
evidence is pretty useless.  On the other hand, EVIDENCE of decay rates 
being effected by adsorption by a solid does not need a theoretical 
explaination to be significant.  IF such evidence is confirmed, then the 
fact that it CAN'T be explained by current theory is very significant -- 
it means that NEW information about the world (ie., not contained by 
current theory) has been discovered.  

Just such a paper was published last year in a physics journal.  The work 
was done at Phillips labs about 20-30 years ago, but not published until 
now.
(Sorry, I can't be more specific about the reference -- I'll find it if 
you are interested).  They spent considerable time and effort following 
up a chance finding -- that the half-life of tritium INCREASED 
significantly when it was adsorbed by titanium.  IF this work can be 
replicated, then any argument (based on theory) that adsorbtion by a 
crystal lattice can't effect nuclear events is moot.

Bob Cormack

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenURWF21A cudfnRobert cudlnCormack cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / 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: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 18:08:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <9507051618.AA21334@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

-"High loading of the PdD lattice is supposed to increase the number of
-interstitials.  Is this something that can be varified experimentally?"

Conservation of mass, isn't it?
 what does not go into gas, and does not
remain in the solution, enters the metal.

  do you disagree with conservation of mass, Dick?

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

- " In fact the notion that interstitials enhance the optical phonon branch
-does not ring very true within the context of what little solid state
-physics I know. "

  why dont you try reading up on the subject.  
are there two spectra (acoustic and optical) in ordinary, unloaded,
metals, like you assert?   How about a reference, Dick?

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

-"Now, in a sense, you are asserting that something equivalent to my
-hoped for "turning green" does occur."

that is correct.  it is what you said, and what happens (although the
wavelength is wrong)

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

-"When I suggested that the locating of He-4* in a lattice has as much
-significance as locating it in California or Utah, you thought I was
-kidding.  I am NOT KIDDING! "

Perhaps you now think astrology (position of moon and mars)
also effects the physics.   
   BS.
You are kidding and wrong.   The lattice has been shown to couple
and astrology has not been so proven.  Or do really have some
data, Dick?

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

-"The nucleus is extremely well isolated from changes in the 
-surrounding atomic
-structure.  I would not have it any other way."

Why of course you wouldn't.   You would ignore "S-orbitals'
and Mossbauer effect to "prove" your point, wouldn't you?

Except your point is wrong.
The nucleus is not isolated or the S-orbitals would be zero at the center
of the nucleus (they are not), and
Mossbauer effect is observed (showing the coupling) which
you already agreed with.

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

-"Among your unfounded assertions is the one that "He-4* is forbidden to
-decay under some analyses in the CF literature."  That is pure Bull!
-No such analyses exist!  There is, I grant you, as assertion by
-Chubb and Chubb that such decays are forbidden, but there is nothing that
-qualifies as "analysis" to back up that assertion."

Change you mind, have you?
  "pure Bull", you say;  but you then pirouette and
agree that Chubbs have already discussed it.   So have other
papers.  Simply because you want it to be false does not make it false.  
Try proving your point.  Read their paper and show where they
are wrong.
You never have, and we doubt you will.

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

-"As for the conflict between Cravens and Miles experiments, I thought the
-switch from using H2O as a "blank" to calibrate with, and using it as
-fuel which generates excess heat was a bit of a problem.  You, however,
-insert the word "nickel" as if that changes the rules.  Can you explain
-why nickel works differently than palladium?"

Now you claim Miles used H2O and Nickel as a blank, when
he did not.  People who have read the literature on this understand the
difference -- and the reasons you TB-skeptics NEVER point out that the
light water experiments are with a different metal.
 Try not to compare oranges and apples.  Both are fruits,
but different, right?  The little detail of different metals
seems to be conveniently lacking in several of your discussions.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Ben Weiner /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 14:10:18 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

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

>(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."  ...

>God, you apologists for the establishment make me tired! ...
   [enormous amounts deleted]
>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!

I didn't say he was a crackpot.  I said he was wrong.  Saying someone
is wrong is a scientific judgment (not an objective judgment, but it is
scientific).  Saying someone is a crackpot is a psychological judgment.
Crackpots usually can't tell the difference.

>Here again we have an apparent card-carrying member of the establishment
>defending the establishment. 

I am proud to be a card-carrying member.  But not of the geological
establishment.  Certainly not of the US hot fusion establishment.

(Do you know who popularized that "card-carrying member" phrase by the
way?  It was somebody who persecuted people for their beliefs - often
for beliefs they had held in the past but given up.  Which is more or
less what you're accusing me of.)

     [nearly Proustian amounts deleted]

>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. 

Nice list of examples.  Thank you.  Bye now.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Scott Little /  Potapov Device Test - Round 2
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
Date: 5 Jul 1995 13:07:24 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Potapov Device Tests - Round 2
5JUN95
EarthTech Int'l
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff

Introduction

After our preliminary report was published on the Internet 
in sci.physics.fusion, a great variety of suggestions, 
recommendations, and comments have been received.  We would 
like to thank every contributor and assure all of you that 
we have given each response due consideration in choosing 
directions for additional testing.  Special thanks go to 
Chris Tinsley for providing first-hand information about the 
desired operating parameters from his recent visit to 
Potapov's factory in Moldavia.

We selected temperature, pressure and flow rate as the most 
important parameters to vary in the 2nd series of tests.  We 
have covered a range of temperatures up to 70 degrees C and 
a range of flow rates from 54 to 106 gpm.  The flow rate was 
altered by restricting the outlet from the Potapov device 
which did increase the inlet pressure somewhat.

We have also conducted a control experiment in which the 
Potapov device was replaced with a simple valve, adjusted to 
provide a similar pressure drop.

After performing the tests in this report, we discovered 
that our Potapov device, originally thought to be a 
Yusmar-2, is actually a Yusmar-1.  The Yusmar manual 
recommends a flow rate of 8.0-12.5 cubic meters per hour 
(35-55 gpm) and a head pressure of 32-50 meters of water 
(46-71 psi) for the Yusmar-1.

None of the results obtained thus far show any significant 
evidence of over-unity performance of the Potapov device.

Procedure

Please refer to the first report for a description of the 
testing apparatus used in these tests.

As described in the first report, our Potapov device, 
consists of three major components; a vortex chamber, the 
main outlet tube (which may function as a swirl chamber), 
and the inlet transition cone.  To restrict the flow rate, 
we installed an orifice immediately after the vortex 
chamber, between the vortex chamber and the main outlet tube 
(see Discussion below).

In all of these tests, the bypass line was absent (see 
Discussion below).

We conducted tests with two sizes of orifice; 15/16" 
diameter and 1-1/8" diameter (the main outlet tube has an 
inside diameter of 2"). The smaller orifice provided a flow 
of 54 gpm and a pressure of about 67 psi.  The larger 
orifice yielded 65 gpm and about 65 psi.

When the larger orifice was in place, we varied one of the 
tests by bubbling approximately 125cc/min of air into the 
open end of the suction line.  This caused the inlet 
pressure to drop significantly (due, presumably, to the 
effect on the pumping efficiency) and it created a fine, 
milky froth in the collection barrel.

A control experiment was conducted by replacing the Potapov 
device with a 1-1/2" gate valve adjusted to provide a 
similar pressure drop.

In all of these tests, we ran the system for a sufficiently 
long period of time to warm the water bath up to 60-70 
degrees C.  During the run, observations were taken 
periodically according to the procedures outlined in the 
first report.

Results

In the table below, data from the first report is included 
for completeness.

The heading abbreviations and units are as follows:

F = flow rate (gallons per minute)
P = pressure (pounds per square inch)
Ti = initial bath temperature (degrees Centigrade)
Tf = final bath temperature (degrees Centigrade)
time = pump running time (minutes:seconds)
Ein = electrical energy input (megajoules)
Pin = electrical power input (kilowatts)
Eout = heat energy collected in bath (megajoules)
eff = overall efficiency (%)

 F    P    Ti     Tf    time     Ein    Pin   Eout   eff
No restriction (tests in 1st report) ("n" on plot)
106   60  25.60  29.60    -      3.89    -    3.03    78
 "    60  29.60  33.90  12:07    3.89   5.35  2.99    77
 "    60  25.95  27.90    -      1.56    -    1.27    81
15/16" dia restriction ("a" on plot)
54    67  31.62  36.62  17:00    3.89   3.67  2.83    73
 "    66  36.62  41.40  17:43    3.89   3.66  2.87    74
 "    66  41.40  45.85  17:52    3.80   3.63  2.67    69
 "    66  45.85  54.05  35:52    7.78   3.62  4.92    63
 "    65  54.05  61.15  36:14    7.78   3.58  4.26    55
 "    65  61.15  64.35  18.25    3.89   3.52  1.91    49
1-1/8" dia restriction ("c" on plot)
65    66  47.50  49.45  16:23    3.89   3.96  2.50    64
add 125cc/min air to pump inlet ("x" on plot) 
 "    55  53.6   57.00  16:28    3.89   3.94  2.18    56
remove air input ("c" on plot)
 "    65  68.75  71.20  16:29    3.89   3.93  1.57    40
P device removed, gate valve substituted ("v" on plot)
 60   65  26.35  28.75   8:39    1.94   3.74  1.56    80
  "   65  38.30  40.50   8:41    1.94   3.72  1.43    74
  "   65  54.80  56.45   8:43    1.94   3.71  1.07    55
  "   66  68.00  69.20   8:50    1.94   3.66  .78     40   

The plot below shows how the overall efficiency varies with 
the average bath temperature in these tests.

   .
   .
 80-      nv
O  .       n   n                               
V  .                                            
E  .                  av                           
R  .             a                             
A70-                       a                    
L  .                                           
L  .                                              
   .                             c            
E  .                             a             
F60-                                               
F  .                                           
I  .                                  xv a     
C  .                                              
I  .                                            
E50-                                          a  
N  .                                             
C  .   n = 106 gpm (P device)                     
Y  .   a = 54 gpm (P device)                          
   .   c = 65 gpm (P device)                           
%40-   x = 65 gpm+air (P device)                    vc
   .   v = 60 gpm (gate valve)                        
   .                                                  
   |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|...
   2         3         4         5         6         7
   0         0         0         0         0         0
                        AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C)


Errors

The same error considerations discussed in the first report 
apply to these measurements.  Thus the expected maximum 
error in the observed efficiencies is +/- 2.6%.

A statistical error analysis has not been performed but a 
rough estimate of the standard error in these energy 
measurements is 2% relative.  It is common practice when 
measurement errors exhibit a Gaussian distribution to define 
detection limit as 3 standard deviations.  Our excess-energy 
detection limit, for the overall system, is therefore about 
6%.  In all of the tests we have performed, a calculation of 
the flow work done on the Potapov device shows that it is 
absorbing about 50% of the total energy used to drive the 
system.  This means that the Potapov device would have to 
produce approximately 12% excess energy for us to observe a 
6% overall energy excess.  Thus our excess-energy detection 
limit for the Potapov device is approximately 12%.

When the observed efficiencies are compared to the mean bath 
temperature (as in the plot above) an additional error due 
to ambient temperature variations affects the correlation.  
The magnitude of this error has not been quantified but it 
should be relatively small since ambient variations are only 
about 2 degrees C.

Conclusions

These measurements reflect the overall efficiency of the 
Potapov device when used to heat a relatively large quantity 
of water in an open barrel.  By overall efficiency, we mean 
the heat energy added to the water divided by the electrical 
energy used to drive the system. The steady decline in this 
efficiency with increasing water temperature is clearly due 
to thermal losses which increase directly with water 
temperature.

The data indicates that our Potapov device, as tested, does 
not produce anomalous energy in detectable quantity.  Within 
the measurement precision of our tests, the Potapov device 
heats water just as efficiently as a simple restriction (the 
gate valve).

Discussion

It has become apparent that there are a great many possible 
combinations of flow, pressure, temperature and piping 
arrangements that could be tested.

Regarding the piping arrangements, there are three issues 
that seem most important at this time.

1. It appears likely that the flow restriction should be 
located not between the vortex chamber and the main outlet 
tube (as we did in the tests described above) but at the far 
end of the main outlet tube.
  
2.  The exact configuration of the bypass line is a mystery.  
We are considering fabricating and installing a bypass line 
that closely resembles those seen in various photographs of 
the Potapov device.

3.  The arrangement of the circulation loop.  It has been 
suggested that a closed loop (as opposed to our open system) 
will result in dramatically different pumping requirements 
which could significantly increase the energy delivered to 
the Potapov device.  We are considering changing to such an 
arrangement.

Regarding the pressure and flow requirements, the discovery 
that we actually have a Yusmar-1 means that most of our 
tests have been above the recommended flow rates.  We will 
make the necessary adjustments in future tests. It is true 
that our pressures never quite reach the 50 meter (71 psi) 
upper figure given in the table of specifications but all of 
our tests have been within the recommended pressure range 
(46-71 psi).

This report shows only a set of operating parameters under 
which the Potapov device does not produce at least 12% 
excess energy.  We continue to seek the correct operating 
parameters for over-unity performance of our Potapov device.  
Any such information would be greatly appreciated.  We 
welcome and benefit from criticism of our testing 
procedures.  Please address all inquiries and comments to:

                EarthTech International
                4030 Braker Lane West
                Austin TX 78759
                512-346-3848 voice
                512-346-3017 FAX
                little@eden.com




cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 15:47:21 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <DB4G0M.IEr@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) 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. 

Oh, for crying out loud, Mitch.  I don't see any evidence that Schultz
(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever employed women to
distribute swords from a supine position in ponds, or that he advocates
anyone doing it.

Are we that silly a society that mentioning an activity is tantqamount to
engaging in it?  He was quoting a sendup of the vastly distorted Arthurian
legend.

Or do you think that since the two folks you mention above cited a movie
as their inspiration, we should excoriate or imprison any who might also
quote that or similar movies?

I see no slur in the Monty Python quote.  If I am in error in this, please
point it out to me.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 14:47:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This discussion of Semmelweis is somewhat off-topic, but I would like to point
out that there are countless similar cases of medical scientists and
scientists in other fields who were ignored, ridiculed, and in some cases
savagely attacked for unconventional ideas. There are examples in history and
in current events as recent as yesterday's New York Times Science Section.
This does not prove that all ideas that are ridiculed are right. But a close
reading of history does support the thesis that most unconventional ideas are
ridiculed, including those which later turned out to be right. A handful of
unconventional ideas made it into the mainstream quickly because of unusual
circumstances. For example, the X-Ray was remarkably easy to replicate and it
did not threaten anyone's economic well-being, so it was accepted quickly. But
most new ideas are irrationally rejected. *All* new ideas, conventional or
not, that threaten people's income are *always* violently rejected by the
people who stand to lose money. The gaslight industry attacked Edison;
mainframe manufacturers tried to stop minicomputers; minicomputer makers tried
to stop microcomputers. This is an iron-clad law of economics. It does not
matter how good the idea is, or how many people stand to gain from it, or how
many lives it will save. The dairy industry stymied pasteurization in many
cities for 50 years, and the automobile industry opposed seat belts, because
in the short term these innovations dairies and automakers a little money,
even though in the long term they improved the product and increased customer
satisfaction (and customer survival!). New ideas in medicine are also attacked
when they apply to the wrong group of patients: that is, to patients who do
not have the money to pay their bills; members of minority groups; women; and
others who are routinely marginalized by the medical establishment.
 
The attacks against new ideas often last for years, and sometimes decades.
They occur in every field of science. Volta was ridiculed as "the frog's
dancing master." Ohm was attacked for many years. Contrary to the mythology of
the open minded modern scientist, this trend has not abated over time as far
as I can tell. It is difficult to judge. When unconventional ideas turn out to
be right and when they triumph, people rush to rewrite history and blot out
the controversy. Revisionist history is popular because people like to read
sugar-coated versions of events. They don't want to hear that their ancestors
and distinguished predecessors were a bunch of back-stabbing intellectual
thugs. And when unconventional ideas are successfully suppressed, they are
forgotten -- or almost forgotten. If you search carefully, you will find
footnotes to history showing that some discoveries have been made and
forgotten many times, and that a few enlightened people were aware of
important ideas long before others. For example, noted physician Oliver
Wendell Holmes Sr. (the father of the famous Supreme Court judge) wrote a
paper titled "On the Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever" in 1843, three years
before Semmelweis. He urged doctors to wash their hands in calcium chloride
and "even to change their clothes" (Segerberg). I have a medical book
illustration of U.S. doctors in mid 1880's using Lister's most advanced
antiseptic spraying techniques. Alas, they are wearing their street clothes.
They finally caught on to the first part of Holmes' advice, but they ignored
the second part. Holmes wrote another paper in 1849 in which he referred to
"Senderein." It is clear from context that he meant "Semmelweis." Word did get
around, even though the names were garbled, and the researchers attacked and
thrown out. There was an "antiseptic underground" in 1843, just as there were
serious scientists working on aviation in 1900, and many hundreds of good
scientists doing CF today. These voice of reason was drowned out in 1840, and
in 1900 and in 1990 by hysterical opposition, but the researchers were there,
and if you look carefully you will find records of them. A few enlightened
doctors and scientists in the first half of the 19th century understood the
need for antiseptic surgery and treatment, even though they did not understand
the mechanism of contagious disease before Pasteur. For that matter, you will
find excellent medical advice on cleanliness in texts written in pre-modern
Japan and in ancient Greece, where people worshiped the Goddess of Health
Hygeia -- from which we get the word and the concept of hygiene (health;
sanitation; cleanliness). Unfortunately for sick people throughout history,
the vast majority of doctors ignored the lessons of hygiene, right up until
the beginning of the 20th century.
 
Needless to say, Holmes' ideas met with "violent opposition" from the
establishment. Merriman might argue that Holmes himself was treated well. Not
only did he continue practicing medicine, but he was a professor of anatomy
and physiology at Harvard until 1882, and a noted popular writer. Ah, but that
begs the point. Most doctors ignored his ideas and went on killing patients
long after the Civil War. The fact that he himself stayed in the good graces
of the establishment makes it all the more remarkable that people ignored him
-- but they did.
 
As I said, it is rather difficult to track these events down because of
revisionism, but I have made a hobby of collecting examples. There are many
notable examples in recent medical history. One of them came to light only
yesterday, in the New York Times and the Associated Press, of all places. In
the Times, see "New Clue to Heart Disease: A Vitamin Lack. New findings may
vindicate a 25-year-old theory." This is an article about a discovery made by
Dr. Kilmer McCully in 1969. Now, I do not know if this discovery will
ultimately be proven to everyone's satisfaction. It is gaining ground, and
attracting serious attention.  I am no expert in medical science so I would
not want to guess the ultimate fate of this research. I do know, however, that
McCully could not have deserved the abuse and neglect he put up with for 25
years, and he should not have been fired from Harvard Medical School in 1979
just because his ideas are unconventional. His evidence was good, his research
was sound, and people should have taken him seriously. As he says, "I was not
ahead of my time." He says the opposition was behind the times.
 
It is now established that the heliobactor bacteria cause peptic ulcers, and
that you can cure this disease with simple, cheap antibiotics. This is no
longer open to question among experts in the field (unlike McCully's
discovery). This discovery was hysterically attacked for many years. In this
case, there is a clear reason for the attacks. Drug companies sell billions of
dollars worth of cures for peptic ulcers, and doctors perform expensive
operations and therapy, costing thousands of dollars per patient. There is
even a booming business in psychotherapeutic "cures" for ulcers based on the
notion that they are caused by nervous tension, which in turn is brought on by
psychological problems or lifestyle. There was some opposition to the
discovery from people who thought that no bacteria can survive in the stomach,
but I think that the main source of opposition has been -- and continues to be
-- simple, old fashioned greed and ignorance. This is not hard to prove. Ask
any drug company for literature on peptic ulcers. Pick up a brochure from your
local pharmacy. You will find lots of absurd medically obsolete nonsense about
nervous tension and spicy foods, but not a word about heliobactor or
antibiotics.
 
There are many examples of poor people, minorities and women being ignored by
medical researchers. Until very recently breast cancer, which usually strikes
women, received only a fraction of the funding and attention it deserves based
on the number of cases and fatalities it causes. People who have an idea that
is both unconventional and one that applies primarily to women or a minority
group face stiff opposition from the establishment. Here is a sad but typical
example of that from a review of the book "The Invisible Epidemic," in the
N.Y. Times Book Review, 11/29/92:
 
     "The reason women with AIDS have been virtually invisible... is that the
     medical establishment has persistently refused to recognize that AIDS in
     women does not look like AIDS in men. As early as 1983, a number of
     female doctors and other health workers... began to notice a strong link
     between severe, recurring gynecological abnormalities and presence of
     H.I.V... But when they submitted research proposals to investigate this
     connection... both government and private funding agencies repeatedly
     turned them down. And when the doctors conducted the research in their
     own time, medical journals and scientific conferences consistently
     rejected their papers."
 
          "Sometimes this official chorus of 'nos' has reflected mere lack
     of interest, at other times hostility. Ms. Corea reports that Judith
     Cohen, an epidemiologist at the School of Public Health at the
     University of California, Berkeley, was told by the chairman of her
     department that if she continued to waste time studying AIDS in women,
     'she had better find another job.'"
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs and P&F: What is Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs and P&F: What is Cold Fusion?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 14:52:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> writes:
 
>What do the Griggs device and P&F experiment have in common?
>They are both called "cold fusion", but why?
 
There is no experimental evidence showing that Griggs and P&F have anything
in common except excess heat. I do not call both "cold fusion" and I do not
know any serious scientist who does. I sometimes refer to them both under
the shorthand label of "CF" or "O-U" (over-unity), but I am not aware of
any experimental evidence that suggests these two phonomena have the same
cause.
 
This issue is of no importance to me, however. I do not care what causes the
excess heat, or whether it is nuclear or some other natural phonomenon. As
long as I am sure it is not experimental error or chemical energy, I do not
care what it is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Jan Bielawski /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: jpb@iris85.biosym.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 19:00:17 GMT
Organization: Biosym Technologies, Inc.

In article <3sptct$86i@kilroy.id.net> tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
<
<The main problem, with fools beating up on real and imagined crackpots,
<is that true geniuses are inhibited from presenting their ideas to
<the world, for fear of critism.

But it doesn't mean someone who feels inhibited that way is a genius.

<Even Newton was inhibited for making many of his ideas public for
<many years because he was so hurt by criticism.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the delay that 
for a while he was unable to prove convincingly that uniform spherical 
objects could be treated as point masses in gravity?
-- 
Jan Bielawski
Biosym Technologies        )\._.,--....,'``.
San Diego, CA             /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.       | ph.: (619) 458-9990
jpb@biosym.com        fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'       | fax: (619) 458-0136
-- 
****************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is       * 
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. * 
****************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjpb cudfnJan cudlnBielawski cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 19:24:37 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <1995Jul4.130712.2028@cathy.ijs.si>, matej.pavsic@ijs.si
(Matej Pav{i~) writes:
>In article <DAy7qn.6IK@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>> In article <3sqe60$799@electron.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@electron.rutger
.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.

Nice story, and it even may be true in some instances.  However, I do know from
my personal experience as a referee that things usually don't work this way.
As a rule, the judgment of whether the paper is interesting or not is the
referees business, not the editor's.  The role of the editor is to direct the
manuscripts to the appropriate referees and/or screen away the stuff that seems
obviously "crackpotty".  Since this last function involves judgement calls,
obviously mistakes do happen, but they are far less common than anecdotal
evidence would imply.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 15:51:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matthew Kennel <mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> makes an analogy:
 
     "If, on the other hand, Intel claims to have a 10 trillion SPECmark
     Novium CPU at 5 megahertz and my task is to verify that claim I think
     it's reasonable to use my own benchmark programs in my own motherboard
     and my own digital scopes."
 
Yes, of course, but my point is that you would not attempt to replicate the
*CPU chip itself*. You would buy it from Intel. Naturally you use your own
instruments when testing an excess energy device, but to save time and effort
and to avoid mistakes you should start by acquiring the actual device from an
expert, whenever possible. At very least, you must read the instructions and
relevant papers, and confer with the experts. In particular, people who go off
and try Pd experiments without first reading Storms are wasting their time.
 
By the way, Kennel's example is perhaps not an analogy so much as a parallel,
because electrochemical CF is similar to transistor technology. It is a solid
state phenomenon that depends upon subtle, difficult surface chemistry. If an
average scientist had attempted to make his own transistor in 1954, he would
have failed for the same reason you cannot make a CF device today. In 1954, 95
to 99% of all transistors failed. It took many years to learn how to make
them. For that matter a person attempting to build a diesel engine five years
after Diesel's first working model would probably blow his head off (the way
Diesel almost did), and anyone attempting to build and fly an airplane in 1909
without careful attention to the Wright patent and without training from the
Wrights would be committing a complicated, messy and expensive form of
suicide.
 
 
     "For instance, if the hypothesis is that churning water in a
     particularly odd way makes anomalous heat because of some unknown
     physical force--- then replicate the conditions for churning, but not
     the particular design details of the calorimeter and other measuring
     devices.  If the effect is authentic, then the replicator ought to see
     quantitatively similar results.  If it is due to some hard to pin down
     but boring interaction in the measurement apparatus, then the replicator
     might not see the same results."
 
This is a good idea, but there is an important caveat with regard to
electrochemical Pd experiments. There is good evidence that these reactions
only occur at high temperatures, above 80 deg C. Therefore, you should not use
an isothermal calorimeter. If the instrument itself keeps the Pd sample at
room temperature, then it effectively prevents a CF reaction, except in rare
cases where a small (even microscopic) portion of the sample retains heat, and
then self-heats enough to trigger a substantial burst. The better your
isothermal calorimeter works, the more it will clobber the reaction. That is
why Pons and Fleischmann use a calorimeter that allows the temperature of the
sample to rise. You can select any form of calorimeter you like for a Pd
experiment: flow, static or thermoelectric, but you must engineer the
instrument to allow the sample to heat up.
 
To summarize, Kennel's advice cuts both ways. You must not select an
instrument that you know will cause a boring interaction, but you must *also*
not select an instrument which you know will interfere with the reaction, or
prevent it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 /  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: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 19:59:35 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <1995Jul5.190017.27563@biosym.com>, jpb@iris85.biosym.com
(Jan Bielawski) writes:
>In article <3sptct$86i@kilroy.id.net> tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
><
><The main problem, with fools beating up on real and imagined crackpots,
><is that true geniuses are inhibited from presenting their ideas to
><the world, for fear of critism.
>
>But it doesn't mean someone who feels inhibited that way is a genius.
>
><Even Newton was inhibited for making many of his ideas public for
><many years because he was so hurt by criticism.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the delay that 
>for a while he was unable to prove convincingly that uniform spherical 
>objects could be treated as point masses in gravity?

As far as I can recall (not from first hand knowledge, of course, only reading
about it) he simply didn't much care about making his ideas public.

Anyway, yeah, criticism is indeed horrible.  Just think, if it wouldn't be for
criticism we could already have FTL space ships with fifth force generators
powered by cold fusion.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 20:17:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul5.190017.27563@biosym.com> jpb@iris85.biosym.com (Jan Bielawski) writes: 

>
>In article <3sptct$86i@kilroy.id.net> tdp@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
><
><The main problem, with fools beating up on real and imagined crackpots,
><is that true geniuses are inhibited from presenting their ideas to
><the world, for fear of critism.
>
>But it doesn't mean someone who feels inhibited that way is a genius.
>
><Even Newton was inhibited for making many of his ideas public for
><many years because he was so hurt by criticism.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the delay that 
>for a while he was unable to prove convincingly that uniform spherical 
>objects could be treated as point masses in gravity?

It should be obvious to anyone with intelligence, that "truth" in societies 
where flamers are active will be biased toward the concepts of 
bold and boorish people. Boorish flamers contaminate science, politics, religion,
morality and all other "truths".

I certainly intend to expose flamers at every opportunity as they
are the problem, rather than the solution.

They inhibit shy and modest people from sharing their ideas.

They are the main cause of noise in the system; due to their posts,
the indignation of the people they attack, and the posts of people,
like me, who can't tolerate their negative impact on society.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 20:39:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-0507950842050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian), Battelle PNL wrote:

-  "I don't see any evidence that Schultz
-(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever [zip] ---Tom"

  OK.  Good Point, Thomas.
Given your expertise would you care to explain, 
either what is your or what you think the
gov's position is on

       "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>]

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

since that is actually began some of this, before Schultz's 
MontyPython two-step.    


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 22:05:50 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <DB9G1J.8yq@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) wrote:

>   In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-0507950842050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian), Battelle PNL wrote:
> 
> -  "I don't see any evidence that Schultz
> -(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever [zip] ---Tom"
> 
>   OK.  Good Point, Thomas.
> Given your expertise would you care to explain, 
> either what is your or what you think the
> gov's position is on
> 
>        "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>]
> 
>     -rs  ".. you've never lived in
>     -rs  that part of the country.
>     -rs    If you had, you'd realize
>     -rs   that it's nothing
>     -rs  more than a simple statement of truth."
>                [Richard Schultz]
> 
> since that is actually began some of this, before Schultz's 
> MontyPython two-step.    

I do not speak for the government, and I try to ignore off color jokes.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Dr Raphals /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: lar20@cus.cam.ac.uk (Dr L.A. Raphals)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 5 Jul 1995 22:48:37 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <MATT.95Jul4154017@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
 <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>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.  

True.  Foolishly accepting a load of utter crap, on the other hand,
DOES tend to lower one's status, which is why scientists are reluctant
to go along with most crackpot theories.  Perhaps this is what
Potter was referring to.

Really John Baez (baez@math.ucr.edu) 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlar20 cudfnDr cudlnRaphals cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Frank Philpot /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: berty@demon.co.uk (Frank Vachell Philpot)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 00:42:20 +0000
Organization: berty

In article <3s44e4$r97@xcalibur.IntNet.net>,
wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) wrote:

>KAnko (kanko@aol.com) wrote:

snip

>If you have an even number of positive and negative electrons the charge 
>would cancel, if there is an extra + or - electron, then you would have 
>its uncancelled charge.  The number of pairs needs to be determined along 
>with the question of how much mass goes into binding energy.
>
>The neutron is not stable outside of an atomic structure, it decays into 
>a proton, electron, and the binding energy.  The protons and neutrons are 
>also made from electrons.  A major question for the particle physicists 
>to decide is:  Can the matter and anti-matter in protons neutrons be 
>transformed into energy?

Frank philpot

I agree that protons and neutrons must be made of electrons and positrons.

The neutron is a little heavier than the combined mass of an electron and a
proton but the extra mass could be due to the very high speed that the
electron orbits the proton.  There must be an allowed orbit very close to
the proton. The neutrino given off when the neutron decays could be a very
short wave length electromagnetic photon.

Protons themselves have been probed by scattering of high velocity electron
beams. They appear to have three distince centres of mass which are called
quarks. I can only belive that these will turn out to be formed of  groups
of electrons and positrons ( one more positron than electron ).

There can be no question that mass, either in the form of matter or anti
matter, can be transformed into energy. Both transformations occur in
particle colliders every day.

Frank 
berty@demon. co.uk



cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenberty cudfnFrank cudlnPhilpot cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 95 23:03:46 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <RIzcHBS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>This discussion of Semmelweis is somewhat off-topic, but I would like to 
point
>out that there are countless similar cases of medical scientists and
>scientists in other fields who were ignored, ridiculed, and in some cases
>savagely attacked for unconventional ideas. There are examples in history and
>in current events as recent as yesterday's New York Times Science Section.
>This does not prove that all ideas that are ridiculed are right. But a close
>reading of history does support the thesis that most unconventional ideas are
>ridiculed, including those which later turned out to be right. A handful of
>unconventional ideas made it into the mainstream quickly because of unusual
>circumstances. For example, the X-Ray was remarkably easy to replicate and it
>did not threaten anyone's economic well-being, so it was accepted quickly. 

[....]

Good post Jed! Thanks. We do need to be aware of history, because we, as a 
species, apparently have a need to repeat it.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Emory Bunn /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2.berkeley.edu (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physic
.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:04:14 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

In article <AC20E1EC96681D3BF@berty.demon.co.uk>,
Frank Vachell Philpot <berty@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Protons themselves have been probed by scattering of high velocity electron
>beams. They appear to have three distince centres of mass which are called
>quarks. I can only belive that these will turn out to be formed of  groups
>of electrons and positrons ( one more positron than electron ).

Surely you mean 1/3 more positron than electron: that's the charge
one finds on quarks.

-Ted
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <3tf9vr$t4l@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3tf9vr$t4l@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<3tf9vr$t4l@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:20:20 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DB992G.8KE@world.std.com>,
mitchell ("Jinbad the Jailer") swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

> How about a reference, Dick?

You once stated that the observed products of CF correlate with 
certain properties of the lattice, e.g. purity and "coherence
length [sic]".  Would you care to give a reference (you don't have
to discuss the paper, just give the reference) to the names of the
scientists who measured these correlations and the journal
(name,volume,page numbers) where these results were reported?
(Also known as "sauce for the goose.")

>>"Now, in a sense, you are asserting that something equivalent to my
>>hoped for "turning green" does occur."

>that is correct.  it is what you said, and what happens (although the
>wavelength is wrong)

You mean that it is possible, by making some measurement independent
of excess heat output, to predict whether a given sample will show
excess heat under "CF" conditions?  What measurement is that, and
what value must it have for the sample to be capable of producing
excess heat?

>Why of course you wouldn't.   You would ignore "S-orbitals'
>and Mossbauer effect to "prove" your point, wouldn't you?

>Except your point is wrong.
>The nucleus is not isolated or the S-orbitals would be zero at the center
>of the nucleus (they are not), and Mossbauer effect is observed 
>(showing the coupling) which you already agreed with.

In an earlier post, I showed that a Moessbauer-type coupling (note
the correct spelling of Moessbauer) has a typical value that is
*fifteen orders of magnitude smaller* in energy than the size of 
the coupling you need to affect the 4He* nucleus in the way you want.
So far, you have not responded to the presentation of my calculation,
even to demonstrate that it was wrong; and if it was wrong, I 
would honestly appreciate being shown where.  Nor have you explained
what logical process would enable you to make an extrapolation over
fifteen orders of magnitude in energy.

>>There is, I grant you, as assertion by
>>Chubb and Chubb that such decays are forbidden, but there is nothing that
>>qualifies as "analysis" to back up that assertion."

>Change you mind, have you?
>  "pure Bull", you say;  but you then pirouette and
>agree that Chubbs have already discussed it.

What he said was that they *assert* it.  Why don't you check your Webster's
and report back to us what it says about "assert" and "discuss"?
   
>Simply because you want it to be false does not make it false.  
>Try proving your point.  Read their paper and show where they are wrong.

Simply because you want it to be true does not make it true, either.  
Try proving your point.  Read my post and show where I am wrong.

>You never have, and we doubt you will.

See?  I told you there were two of him.  (Apologies to Dieter --
I really did try, but it's just too easy a target.)

> Try not to compare oranges and apples.  Both are fruits,
>but different, right?  The little detail of different metals
>seems to be conveniently lacking in several of your discussions.

Sage advice.  The little details, things like 15 orders of magnitude,
Special Relativity constraints, etc., seem to be consistently lacking
in *any* of your discussions.
--
					Richard Schultz

"P&F are getting so much heat that you hardly need any calorimetry at all."
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 19 Jul 1992
"The palladium based systems are a useless dead end. Who cares about them?"
			--Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 10 Dec 1992
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / E Corp /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: eaton1@chinook.halcyon.com (Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 6 Jul 1995 00:46:15 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

Dr L.A. Raphals (lar20@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <MATT.95Jul4154017@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
:  <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:

: >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.  

: True.  Foolishly accepting a load of utter crap, on the other hand,
: DOES tend to lower one's status, which is why scientists are reluctant
: to go along with most crackpot theories.  Perhaps this is what
: Potter was referring to.

But isn't this thread (now) about theories which are obviously utter 
crap, but which later turn out to have merit?  Supersymmetry seems to me 
to be well within the bounds of acceptability, while other more 
'heretical' theories really will lower one's status.  How many 
researchers dare touch Cold Fusion, UFOs, perpetual motion, antigravity, 
Gaia, psychic phenomena, etc.  Until recently Ball Lightning was in the same 
class, but now has gone legit.  If the majority is convinced that all these 
things are impossible and are fit only for crackpots, then serious research 
in any of these areas is precluded, even if there may be interesting 
phenomena to be investigated.

--
===================================+==================================
Bill Beaty                            Science Hobby Page
billb@eskimo.com                      http://www.eskimo.com/~billb
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 /  meron@cars3.uc /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 01:30:54 GMT
Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637

In article <3tfbon$gb@news1.halcyon.com>, eaton1@chinook.halcyon.com
(Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.) writes:
>Dr L.A. Raphals (lar20@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <MATT.95Jul4154017@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
>:  <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>: >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.  
>
>: True.  Foolishly accepting a load of utter crap, on the other hand,
>: DOES tend to lower one's status, which is why scientists are reluctant
>: to go along with most crackpot theories.  Perhaps this is what
>: Potter was referring to.
>
>But isn't this thread (now) about theories which are obviously utter 
>crap, but which later turn out to have merit?  Supersymmetry seems to me 
>to be well within the bounds of acceptability, while other more 
>'heretical' theories really will lower one's status.  How many 
>researchers dare touch Cold Fusion, UFOs, perpetual motion, antigravity, 
>Gaia, psychic phenomena, etc.  Until recently Ball Lightning was in the same 
>class, but now has gone legit.  If the majority is convinced that all these 
>things are impossible and are fit only for crackpots, then serious research 
>in any of these areas is precluded, even if there may be interesting 
>phenomena to be investigated.

This is true.  However, the fact remains that it is way easier (especially for
a person that's willing to ignore existing evidence) to come with an idea than
to verify one.  Also, historically, most of these ideas turn out to be wrong.
Therefore, if the research community did feel obligated to jump in and try to
verify (or falsify) every claim somebody may come with, you'll have most of the
community dealing with nonsense most of the time.

The problem really boils down something that every experimentalist knows from
his/her experience, namely separation of signal from noise.  If you don't
discriminate against noise, you get unintelligible data, if you discriminate
too much you may miss something important.  So, how much is just right?  There
is no clear cut answer to this, its mostly a matter of rules of thumb and
intuition.

One very good rule, however, is as follows:  Whenever somebody comes witha
theory that contradicts established theories and/or experimental date, it is up
to this somebody to explain first where did all his/her predecessors went wrong
before I'll take his/her stuff seriously.  From the examples you've mentioned
above, cold fusion, perpetual motion and antigravity are certainly in this
category.  A bit weaker case is this of theories which, while not clearly
contradicting existing knowledge, don't seem to be supported by any significant
evidence (Gaia, UFOs, psychic phenomena).  As for the last one you've
mentioned, Ball lightning, I disagree.  It was recognized as a real phenomenon
long time ago, even if there wasn't much research going into it.

In general the approach is : the more outlandish your claim the stronger should
be the evidence and it is your duty to provide it.  Yes, in the court of
scientific opinion a new idea is guilty until proven innocent, and rightly so.


Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu	|  chances are he is doing just the same"
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmeron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.06 / Bill Page /  Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov Device Test - Round 2
Date: 6 Jul 1995 01:15:31 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <3te2qc$lvo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) says:
>
>Potapov Device Tests - Round 2
>5JUN95
>...
>
>In all of these tests, the bypass line was absent (see 
>Discussion below).
>

Do you mean that the small outlet was closed?

>...
>
>Discussion
>
>...
>  
>2.  The exact configuration of the bypass line is a mystery.  
>We are considering fabricating and installing a bypass line 
>that closely resembles those seen in various photographs of 
>the Potapov device.

In view of the similarities between the Potapov device and the
Hilsch Tube heat pump, I think it would be interesting to
look for any temperature differences between the small outlet
and the large outlet. Can we assume that the "bypass line"
(Is that the terminology used in the Yushmar literature? Or
it this your assumed function of the line?) is there to feed
water already at a higher temperature around the vortex?

>
>3.  The arrangement of the circulation loop.  It has been 
>suggested that a closed loop (as opposed to our open system) 
>will result in dramatically different pumping requirements 
>which could significantly increase the energy delivered to 
>the Potapov device.  We are considering changing to such an 
>arrangement.
>

I think this is a good idea.

>Regarding the pressure and flow requirements, ...

How difficult would it be for you to attach some sort of
transducer (microphone) to the vortex tube? The purpose being
to attempt to detect changes in the operating conditions.

>
>This report shows only a set of operating parameters under 
>which the Potapov device does not produce at least 12% 
>excess energy.  We continue to seek the correct operating 
>parameters for over-unity performance of our Potapov device.  

Keep up the good work!

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: To Steve Jones: What happened to Journal Muon Catalyzed Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: To Steve Jones: What happened to Journal Muon Catalyzed Fusion?
Date: 3 Jul 95 10:13:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3st8ec$93@soenews.ucsd.edu>, 
barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> I noticed our group library has about 6 issues of the Jounral
> Muon Catalyzed Fusion, and that it only prsisted 1987-92;
> you were listed as an editor...what led to the termination,
> and is there any active muon work still going on?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
> 
> 

Funding for mu-c-fusion dropped dramatically around 1992.  The output of
research papers dropped also, and the separate journal "Muon Catalyzed Fusion"
was discontinued.  Papers now are published mostly in "Hyperfine
Interactions," where our group's latest paper (on muon-alpha sticking) was
also published in 1994.  There was an international meeting on mu-c-f in
Dubna, Russia last month.  Research continues slowly, mostly outside
the USA.  An ISTC grant to the Russians for experiments at Dubna was
recently approved; our group participates in that effort (but with no
external funding as yet).
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.03 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1995Jul3.101110.2308@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1995Jul3.101110.2308@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 95 10:14:09 -0600

cancel <1995Jul3.101110.2308@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.04 /  HMICRO /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: hmicro@aol.com (HMICRO)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 4 Jul 1995 23:51:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu writes
 >TFTR produced 33MJ of fusion power in one day
  A joule is a unit of energy, not power.
  The proliferation of the confusion in terminology (watts of energy,
joules of power) is the main reason for the widespread belief that, hot or
cold, fusioneers don't really know what they are doing.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhmicro cudlnHMICRO cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / E Corp /  Re: Eskimo.com discussion list down
     
Originally-From: eaton1@chinook.halcyon.com (Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eskimo.com discussion list down
Date: 5 Jul 1995 04:13:37 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp. (eaton1@coho.halcyon.com) wrote:
: Sorry, but my internet provider is currently offline and the vortex-l
: discussion list is down.  They had a serious breakin, and are supposedly
: fixing security holes before going back online.

The list is up, but logins are not.  I can't read my email, waah!  Seems
that someone didn't like something some user said on an IRC chat channel,
so he broke in and trashed the system.  He also phoned the owner to taunt. 
If he's caught, the FBI is interested, as are 3000 users who've been 
offline for days.

billb@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / David Davies /  Re: a ZPF primer
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a ZPF primer
Date: 5 Jul 1995 15:57:50 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

rschultz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) writes:

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

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

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

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

I hope not.

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

As far as I could see you totally missed my point. Try reading the Puthoff
article and addressing that. Then we might have the basis for a debate.

Now where did I put that article? I'd better read it again myself. 


dave

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Peter Weis /  Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Can anyone convince a crackpot?
Date: 5 Jul 1995 08:36:06 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.


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

   When I grew up in Germany, I had *gedanken*. When I came to Canada, 
I had thoughts. As a German-Canadian, I guess I am naturally entitled
to have gedanken thoughts. Since gedanken thoughts sound so much more
important than just plain old thoughts, I think that I will have gedanken
thoughts from now on. Thanks, mitchel. And no slight whatsoever intended;
I just think it's a fabulous idea.
peter;
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpweis cudfnPeter cudlnWeis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.05 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Implications of Miles result
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles result
Date: 5 Jul 1995 12:06:42 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DB79or.18I@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) continues on with
>his "theory" against cold fusion. 

>  -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.

As I understand what Dick Blue was saying, he was asking for a set of
conditions in which it is possible to predict beforehand that these 
conditions will lead to excess heat (e.g. glowing green) that are independent 
of whether excess heat has already been observed from that sample.  What
you appear to be saying is that the production of excess heat depends on
the conditions, but the only way you know that you have the proper conditions
is by observing excess heat.  To me, that sounds suspiciously like a 
circular argument (I will refrain for the moment from quoting Isaac 
Asimov's statement about circular arguments).  What am I missing?

I also fail to understand your claim that the burden of proving that 
a Pd lattice cannot perturb a 4He* nucleus sufficiently to change the
branching ratio from near zero 4He to near 100% 4He is up to the skeptics.
A number of people have given cogent and reasonable arguments for why this
is a reasonable assumption.  One that I have been most interested in
exploring is that the coupling you give as an example of lattice effects
on nuclear energy levels is some fifteen orders of magnitude smaller than
the effect you want to mediate.  If I made a mistake in my calculation, 
please demonstrate it to me; or at least explain what process of 
induction allows you to extrapolate over fifteen orders of magnitude in
energy.  A second argument, if I understand it correctly, is that the
forces that control the nucleon-nucleon interactions are of extremely
short range and high energy.  This makes it unlikely that merely putting
it in a lattice (where, as Jed Rothwell is fond of pointing out, the
typical energy scale is eV) will have much of an effect on what is going
on inside the nucleus.  And indeed, that is exactly what has been seen
in every instance of which I am aware so far.  While the electronic 
environment of a nucleus in a lattice can affect the nuclear energy
levels by some minuscule factor, the lifetimes of excited nuclei in
various lattices are, as far as I have been able to determine, not
affected by the lattice in which they find themselves (e.g. the 57Fe*
nuclear lifetime for which such a calculation was once done here in s.p.f.;
I do not believe that the lifetimes of various excited nuclei in, say,
the 238U sequence are affected by the nature of the lattice in which 
they find themselves either).  A third very serious objection to your
hypothesis was mentioned by Steven Jones, who did a calculation and showed
that Special Relativity implies that the 4He* cannot dump all of its
energy into the lattice in the form of phonons.  Your attempt to refute
that last argument failed miserably, which led Professor Jones to ask
in exasperation if you knew any QM whatsoever, as I recall.

The point is that these objections are objections from first principles
and of high weight precisely because they *are* from first principles.
Now you might be right that He in a Pd lattice is a special magical state
for which what had previously been the assumed laws of nature do not apply.
And it may even be that experiment may long outstrip theory in this
regard -- after all, superconductivity was discovered nearly half a century
before any sort of reasonable explanation for it was offered.  But the
issue that we have been addressing is whether your hypothesis is likely to
provide any sort of reasonable explanation; and so far, the answer has been
"no," in part due to the kinds of objections outlined above.  It seems to
me that your choices are to either answer the objections to your hypothesis,
as your current attempts (which basically translate into "then a miracle
happens") have been inadequate, or to admit that your hypothesis does not
provide a good explanation for why nuclear fusion might occur inside a
lattice.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul  6 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
