1995.07.10 / Scott Little /  Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
Date: 10 Jul 1995 20:36:20 GMT
Organization: EarthTech Int'l

Potapov Device Tests - Round 3
EarthTech International
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff
10JUL95

Introduction

For the 3rd series of tests, we modified our Potapov device 
(a Yusmar-1) by adding a "bypass" line that connects the 
vortex chamber to the outlet end of the cavitation tube and 
a diameter reduction at the outlet end of the cavitation 
tube.  Both of these features can be seen in various 
photographs of the Potapov device (i.e. in Infinite Energy 
#2 and on John Logajan's web page).  We used the photographs 
and information obtained during Chris Tinsley's visit to 
Moldavia to design these modifications.

As of this report, we have tried one diameter for the bypass 
line and two different diameters for the reduced diameter 
outlet.  None of the new tests show any detectable over-
unity performance from the Potapov device.

Apparatus

Since this is our third report, a brief review of the 
apparatus is in order. 

The Potapov device is mounted in a vertical orientation 
(with the vortex chamber on top) above an open 55 gallon 
barrel.  The outlet, which points straight down, is 
positioned so it is submerged a few inches under the water 
level in the barrel to prevent air entrainment. The Potapov 
device, which has a 2" ID inlet port, is fed by a 7.5 hp 
centrifugal pump.  This pump has a 1-1/2" NPT (National Pipe 
Thread, an American standard) (1-1/2" pipe has a 1.59" ID) 
discharge port and is connected to the Potapov device with a 
straight 17" long pipe section which contains a 1-1/2" to 2" 
transition fitting.  A 2" suction line runs from near the 
bottom of the 55 gallon barrel to the pump inlet port (which 
is 2" NPT).  The pump must lift water about 22".

The bypass line was constructed from 3/4" EMT thinwall 
electrical conduit which has an ID of 0.825".  A conduit 
bender was used to fashion the line into a shape similar to 
that depicted in the photographs.  The end of the vortex 
chamber was drilled and tapped to 3/4" NPT female and fitted 
with a standard EMT compression fitting with an O-ring in 
place of the usual ferrule.  The other end of the bypass 
line was connected in a similar manner to the outlet end of 
the cavitation tube just before the diameter reduction. A 
1/8" NPT port was installed in the bypass line very near its 
connection to the vortex chamber.  A pressure/vacuum gauge 
was installed in this port.

Two diameter reductions were used in the tests in this 
report.  The first group of tests were performed with a 1-
1/4" outlet pipe which has an actual ID of 1.36".  The 
second group of tests were performed with a 1" outlet pipe 
which has an actual ID of 1.04".

Electrical energy consumed by the pump motor is measured 
with a GE type V-65-S 3-phase watthour meter which we have 
recently equipped with an electro-optical device to count 
revolutions of the eddy-current disc.  For this particular 
meter, one revolution of the disc represents 10.8 watthours 
(38880 joules) of electrical energy delivered to the load.

Procedure

The test procedure described in the first report has changed 
somewhat because of the revolution counter we added to the 
watthour meter.

Instead of the batch-style measurements described in the 
first report we are now able to run the pump continuously 
and simply take readings periodically as the system heats 
up.  Each reading consists of simultaneously measuring the 
temperature of the water in the barrel and noting the 
revolution count on the watthour meter.  The overall 
efficiency is then computed using adjacent pairs of these 
readings.  For plotting purposes, the average of the two 
barrel temperatures is used as the bath temperature.

Results

In the data tables below, the various headings are:

# = reading number
count = count of the watthour disc revolutions
T = temperature of the water bath (Centigrade)
time = hour:minute:second clock time of the reading
P(inlet) = gauge pressure in the feed pipe (psi)
P(bypass) = gauge pressure in the bypass line (psi)

With the 1.36" dia outlet pipe, we took the following 
readings with 358 pounds of water in the barrel:

#      count      T         time      P(inlet) P(bypass)
1         0      52.0     11:18:08      60        -5
2        90      55.0     11:29:40      60        -5
3       432      65.1     12:13:44      60        -5
4       537      67.50    12:27:20      60        -5

Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, 
and average electrical power consumption for each pair of 
readings we get: 

pair     efficiency     avg temp     elec. power
1-2        58.3%          53.5        5.05 kW
2-3        51.6%          60.0        5.03
3-4        40.0%          66.3        5.00

The flow rate with this 1.36" dia outlet pipe was measured 
at 101 gpm.

With a 1.04" diameter outlet pipe, we took the following 
readings with 356 pounds of water in the barrel: 

#      count      T         time      P(inlet) P(bypass)
1         0      27.3      9:37:06      64        +5
2        98      31.8      9:49:50      63         5
3       217      37.0     10:06:00      25         3
4       287      39.8     10:19:20      24         3
5       369      43.2     10:35:20      24         3
6       595      51.5     11:17:00      25         3

Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, 
and average electrical power consumption for each pair of 
readings we get: 

pair     efficiency     avg temp     elec. power
1-2        80%           29.6         4.99 kW
2-3        76%           34.4         4.77
3-4        70%           38.4         3.40
4-5        72%           41.5         3.32         
5-6        64%           47.4         3.51

Shortly (~20 seconds) before reading 3 was taken, a sudden 
change in the pump sound was observed (it became noisier).  
Simultaneously, the feed pressure dropped from ~63 psi to 
~25 psi and the electrical power consumption of the pump 
dropped significantly.  Apparently, the pump had begun 
cavitating...or had sucked in a quantity of air.  This new 
operating condition was fairly stable and readings 4, 5, & 6 
were taken with the system in this new state.

After reading 6, we stopped the pump, re-primed it, 
re-started it, and took three more readings:

#      count      T         time      P(inlet) P(bypass)
1         0      52.7     11:28:30      63       +5
2        99      56.0     11:41:40      63        5
3       241      60.2     12:00:45      63        5

Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, 
and average electrical power consumption for each pair of 
readings we get: 

pair     efficiency     avg temp     elec. power
1-2        58%           54.4         4.87 kW
2-3        51%           58.1         4.82

The flow rate with this 1.04" dia outlet pipe was measured 
at 99 gpm with the pump operating normally.  We were not 
able to measure the flow rate during the period of abnormal 
operation.

The graph below shows all our previous results as well as 
these new results.  For the new results, the 1.39" outlet 
data is plotted with an "r" and the 1.04" outlet data is 
plotted with an "s".

   .
   .
 80-      nvs
O  .       n   n                               
V  .             s                              
E  .                  av                           
R  .             a      s                      
A70-                 s     a                    
L  .                                           
L  .                                              
   .                          s  c            
E  .                             a             
F60-                                               
F  .                                sr         
I  .                                  xv a     
C  .                                              
I  .                                     s r    
E50-   s = 1.04" out, .825" bypass            a  
N  .   r = 1.39" out, .825" bypass          
C  .   n = 106 gpm (P device)                     
Y  .   a = 54 gpm (P device)                          
   .   c = 65 gpm (P device)                           
%40-   x = 65 gpm+air (P device)                 r  vc
   .   v = 60 gpm (gate valve)                        
   .                                                  
   |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|...
   2         3         4         5         6         7
   0         0         0         0         0         0
                        AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C)


Error discussion

The new measurement procedure is not expected to adversely 
affect the 2% relative standard deviation estimated in the 
second report.  However, the addition of the bypass line 
appears to have slightly increased the scattering of the 
data points in the curve above.  In the final analysis, it 
is the degree to which a particular data point fits this 
curve (or doesn't fit it) that is our indication of 
anomalous efficiency.  Thus a slight increase in our 
estimate of the minimum detectable amount (MDA) of excess 
energy is indicated. (In future reports a regression 
analysis will be performed to determine the actual standard 
deviation of the data points so a more accurate 
determination of the MDA can be made).

Conclusion

There is no significant tendency for the new data points to 
lie above the curve defined by the other points.  Therefore, 
our Potapov device still has not produced anomalous energy 
in detectable quantity.

Discussion

Our present flow rates (~100 gpm) are quite a bit larger 
than those recommended in the instruction book for the 
Yusmar-1 (33-55 gpm).  However, our feed pressure (~60 psi) 
is not excessively high (the book recommends 46-71 psi for 
the Yusmar-1).  In future tests we will probably arrange an 
additional restriction in the outlet pipe to lower flow 
rates while maintaining inlet pressure.

The behavior of the bypass line is interesting.  The low 
gauge pressures observed near the upper end of the bypass 
line indicates that the main vortex is creating a low 
pressure region in its center.  Since the lower end of the 
bypass line is connected to the cavitation tube just before 
the diameter reduction (where the pressure should be 
relatively high), it is a virtual certainty that water is 
not bypassing the vortex through this line but rather 
recirculating through this line from the outlet end back to 
the center of the main vortex.  It is possible that this 
flow of water into the center of the vortex is a vital 
requirement for the Potapov effect.  In future tests we will 
probably try a smaller bypass line.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correcting Mitchell Jones's Ignorance
Date: 10 Jul 1995 21:03:25 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2906950512430001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

> I suggest you switch
> to the private sector. See how carrying the load feels, and maybe you will
> begin to develop a different attitude toward bloodsuckers who spend their
> lives riding on other people's backs. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

Actually, my wife was an engineer working in the private energy
sector, for General Electric Nuclear Energy. Typically, they
would take ~$100,000 of hardware, and $100,000 of engineering
time, and build some stuff that they sell to the customer
for ~ $1,000,000---here the customer is a Utility company,
and that is money they got from you, by increasing the cost of 
your power.

Contrast this to the publically funded research sector, which
I am in, where we scrounge and recycle hardware, underpay the
researchers by 20-60%, and we take the money out of you
via taxes.

Given that, exactly what do you think would be the most 
cost effective way to develop a new energy source? Either
way, _you_ will pay for it. If you do it theorugh the private sector,
you will also pay a large profit margin. If you do it through
publically funded research, I suggest much mor eof your dollar
makes it to the project itself.




> the
> financial markets will decide which energy programs to fund and which to
> not fund, based upon a reasonable analysis of the prospects of success,
> rather than on the biased projections of would-be parasites. It's called
> capitalism, Barry, and it is the engine that is hurling us forward into a
> better world. You guys aren't the solution; you are the problem!
> --Mitchell Jones}***   

I suggest you think back a little about the history of technology
development. Most major technologies in this country were driven
by defense spending, precisely because it could alot rapid,
huge investments with no concern for market efficiency. (A second
recent big driver has been health care, which again operates outside 
capitalistic channels, due to medicare and insurance.)


Or, are you suggesting that the financial market made possible
the primary development of aircraft, radar, computers, nuclear
fission power, ....

Show me one major advanced technology that was developed 
entirely in the private sector, idependent of miltary and
medicare spending.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Kevin Sterner /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jul 1995 16:40:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, "Dr. Rich Artym"
<rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Sorry to depart somewhat from the topic, but it seems appropriate here ...
> 
> Not only are there no quarks, but no electrons, neutrons, protons nor
> anything else ...  as far as we know.  Physics merely creates models of
> reality, and when the behaviour of our models matches the experimentally
> perceived behaviour of reality then we have "progress".  Jolly useful it
> is too, but no physicist would claim that the component parts of his
> models actually exist in reality;  when pressed, they'll tell you that,
> at most, "electrons exist" is just a shorthand for a very unweildy claim
> that "there is an excellent match between the behaviour of the electron
> model and experimental evidence".  As evidence accumulates, we get ever
> more confident of the power of our models (as they say, "100 million TVs
> can't be wrong"), but this is as far as our work can take us.  It's not
> a weakness, far from it:  it is this very separation between models and
> reality that allows science to throw out the old when new understanding
> is achieved.
> 
> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 
> 
> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.

You are completely wrong.  OF COURSE electrons exist, regardless of
whether our models are appropriate or not.  "Electron" is the name
given to an experimentally observed FACT; the models were constructed
later.  Electrons were named in exactly the same way as trees and
rivers, and they exist in exactly the same sense.  Most people have
not seen electrons as discrete entities, and so might question their
reality, but I have seen them with detectors.  I have seen electrons
as surely as I have seen distant galaxies and microscopic cells.

Yes, you can get into Cartesian word games and mind games about whether 
the things we perceive with our detectors (e.g. a calorimeter or an eye)
actually correspond to things that exist independently "in the real world 
out there", but by this logic you can never prove that anything exists--a
"tree" is no firmer a concept than an "electron".  You can't even prove
that there *is* a "real world out there"!  The only effect is that you've 
debased the concept of "existence" to something meaningless.

Yes, I can keep telling myself that I can't be sure whether electrons and
trees really-truly exist, I don't see how keeping this in mind advances 
physics at all.

-- K.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensterner cudfnKevin cudlnSterner cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.09 / James Burrows /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: sciclub@coho.halcyon.com (James Burrows)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 9 Jul 1995 16:35:39 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:

: 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.

While true, I think you are being an apologist for closemindedness.  If
discoveries of great value lie within the realm of "crackpot ideas," then
it *is* worthwhile to investigate crackpot ideas.  No question.  I think
it's wrong to imply that the presence of real crackpot stuff makes any
consideration of them waste of time.  The few new discoveries hidden among
the "crazy" areas will make the consideration of crackpot ideas pay for
itself. 

I'm not saying that researchers as a whole should be forced to wade
through crackpot rantings in search of the occasional Wegner or Wright
Bros.  I'm saying that Science should accept that a certain percentage of
crazy ideas do prove valuable, and should take this into account in
funding practices.  If a researchers has a neat little idea for testing 
psychokinesis, or for extracting energy from empty space, there should be 
sources of funding and routes to publication.  These of course do exist 
already, but not anywhere near to the extent they should.

So, if there is treasure in the garbage, we should hire some people who 
*like* dealing with garbage, and have them do the sorting.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Beaty                               SCIENCE HOBBIST PAGE
sciclub@halcyon.com                      http://www.eskimo.com/~billb


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensciclub cudfnJames cudlnBurrows cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.09 / E Corp /  Re: Has anyone 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: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 9 Jul 1995 18:10:01 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services

: In article <DB3wsp.EE0@midway.uchicago.edu>, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu says:
: >
: >In article <3t6uha$ngo@stud.Direct.CA>, pweis@Direct.CA (Peter H. Weis) writes:
: >>In a fairly recent brief to the Supreme Court (regarding the value of 
: >>scientific evidence in court proceedings), Stephen J. Gould and 11 other
: >>eminent science historians stated that, "Most of today's widely accepted
: >>theories in science were originally considered the excentric thoughts
: >>of heretics"..... (snip)
: >
: >This is very nice and very misleading at the same time.  The implication seems
: >to be "so and so (insert the name of your popular historical figure here) was
: >ridiculed by his peers but later was proved right.  Therefore, since I'm
: >currently ridiculed by my peers, I'll also be proven right, eventually".

Your interpretation.  I took the above quote to mean that it's unwise to
thoughtlessly ridicule ideas which are obviously crazy, because the arena
of crazy ideas is also frequently the birthplace of great ones.  History
teaches that the majority of crackpot ideas are what they seem.  It also
teaches that sometimes the opposite is true, and the experts of the time
were unable to detect the presence of the great discoveries, and so they
were suppressed along with the crackpot ones.  (By 'suppressed', I mean
ridiculed, refused funding, and refused publication.)

This is not a good situation.  By assuming that we are all unerring 
judges of the value of new work, we will duplicate the serious mistakes 
of the past and will stifle creativity and progress.  What can be done?
I think a small first step would be to acknowledge that science is not
perfect, that great discoveries really have been ridiculed and held
back, and that it would be a good thing if this situation could be 
improved.

It seems to me that there is a tendency in science to first ridicule and
suppress an unconventional work, and when the work later proves to be
important, *to act as if the ridicule never happened!*   It's a very human
tendency to wish to be on the winning side and to try to save face, but it
is a very negative tendency, and we should expose it for what it is.  Such
things do not belong in science.  When one makes a mistake, one should at
least acknowledge it, and even better, try to fix the problem.  One should
not become an apologist for those who erred, and should not defend the
mistake and make it out to be a good thing.

As long as we remain in denial that modern science is imperfect, we will
not be able to work towards its improvement. 

--
===================================+==================================
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:
cuddy9 cudeneaton1 cudfnEaton/Cutler-Hammer cudlnCorp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Ru Igarashi /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: ru@skatter.usask.ca (Ru Igarashi)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jul 1995 17:46:42 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

KAnko (kanko@aol.com) wrote:
: Now, Mark, take a look at the book "The Experimental Foundations of
: Particle Physics" by Cahn and Goldhaber.  For most of the past 200 years,
: experiment has driven theory.  NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!  Quarks were
: not postulated first.  Two experimental results, the particle zoo and
: electron-proton scattering, were responsible for the quark idea.  Just
: like the periodic table, the particle zoo was most easily explained by
: hadron and meson constituates, ie the quarks.  And Feymann and others
: proposed the partons, or quarks, to explain the electron-proton scattering
: data.  

However, Kevin, the particle zoo is just a table of constructs due to
observations of something that looks like particles with different
behaviors.  I'm being overly extreme.  But i think the point of the
post was not really that those particles don't exist or that theory
drives science.  I think the point was that everything that science
says is always subject to question because its models are subject to
error/limitations of human conceptualization.  Even the concept of the
electron is a THEORETICAL label and contrivance to explain beta rays
and electricity and a whole bunch of other stuff.  The experimental
part is "we see tracks in a cloud chamber that bend this much in a
magnetic field" or "we charge up this capacitor, short it out, a spark
jumps and this meter says we have current".  The theory is "aha, this
is electrons" etc.  Sure there is ample evidence that the electron
exists, but "electron" IS a construct of the human mind and whether 
it exists as we perceive it is always a question.  You said it yourself
Kevin: ">proposed< the partons", "to >explain< the electron-proton 
scattering"...the words "proposed" and "explain" are the theoretical
side of our business, hence are subject to doubt.  The only part
of science that isn't subject to this kind of doubt are the observations.
We don't observe electrons, we observe their tracks (major major
evidence) or the work they do for us in machines. Remember the history
of the model of the atom and of the nucleus/nucleons.  And as someone
pointed out, the subsequent flexibility is what allows science to
progress and improve.

: You have probably never seen a molecule either, but does that mean they
: don't exist.  Have you ever seen Juan Carlos of Spain???  Does that mean
: he does not exist???  Take some time to read up and get educated before
: you start flaming physics.  For the most part, experimentation drives
: these theories.  Not always, but for the most part.  When there are
: periods with little new experimental data, some theorist have a tendency
: to go a bit blackboard crazy, but get your history straight.
: Dr. Kevin Ankoviak

Might you be over-reacting to someone that was overstating the point 
to just emphasize a point, and over-reacting to the wrong point, even?  
To me, it seemed the point was: what is sometimes said to exist might
actually be something that was constructed/modeled to fit the observations
but isn't actually what we think it is.

ru igarashi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenru cudfnRu cudlnIgarashi cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 /  prasad /  Re: Any cool cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any cool cold fusion?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 12:42:10 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <3toep2$aj2@otis.netspace.net.au>, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au
(Robin van Spaandonk) writes:
|> On 7 Jul 1995 13:05:26 GMT, prasad, 71155.3116@compuserve.com wrote:
|> 
|> [snip]
|> >Sure.  The invention & patent is mine alone, so if you're serious about
|> >exploring more may contact me directly.
|> 
|> Prasad,
|> 
|> Could you post the patent number, so that we can look it up?

As I mentioned in the earlier post, it's been recently filed,
and not yet issued.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Chris Kostanick /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:20:28 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong) writes:

>The message is not going out somehow what is wrong ?

They must have put you in the global Usenet kill file.

HTH

Chris Kostanick
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudlnKostanick cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / 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,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 20:55:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <ts_zemanian-1007950838050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@pnl.go
 (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 

>
>In article <3tpqpb$def@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
>Potter ) wrote:
>
>> In <ts_zemanian-0907951207060001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
>ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 
>> 
>> >It is common for the mad bomber to justify his violence by claiming to be
>> >the defender of the weak and downtrodden.  It's still inappropriate. 
>> >Claiming a lofty goal does not exonerate one's actions.
>> >
>> 
>> Why not?
>
>Well, I'm sure you've heard the usual chestnuts about the ends not
>justifying the means, and I'll not insult you by drawing the obvious
>parallels to terrorism, _etc._  The point is that the argument rings false
>when someone behaves abominably, and then claims it's okay for him to do
>so as he's a freedom fighter protesting the poor treatment of the
>Khufiristani people by their evil Rongovian overlords.  Spuriously
>claiming a trump suit simply doesn't work beyond an emotional level.

It is my perception that tit^n for two tats works best,
and in the long run, makes for a better society.

Turn your cheeks a couple of times and if they persist, 
let them know that you are serious.

You can thank the mad bombers throughout history,
more than you can thank the Kings, 
for shaping a better society.

They keep tyrants and bullies honest.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recent cases similar to Semmelweis in N. Y. Times
Date: 10 Jul 1995 21:19:00 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3tf5oi$6ro_001@dialin-ttyqb.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob  
Sullivan) writes:

> 
> Good post Jed! Thanks. We do need to be aware of history, because we, as a 
> species, apparently have a need to repeat it.

Actually, I think we have a need to see our present circumstances in 
prior historical contexts.



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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Barry Merriman is irrational and unscientific
Date: 10 Jul 1995 21:31:10 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-0207951849140001@austin-2-9.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > 
> > Again, I stick by my approach: ours is not to reason why,
> > ours is but to do the energy balance correctly in the experiment.
> 
> ***{Barry, I don't want to seem unkind, but I must point out that your
> attitude arises because you live in a world where such experiments are
> "funded" with money looted from other people. In the private sector, where
> in the long run our spending cannot exceed our income, things are
> different. There we try to answer our questions analytically, rather than
> by spending more money. Of course, in the child's world that you live in
> where money is provided by others, you don't have to waste your time
> thinking. However half-assed an objection to a past experiment may be, the
> solution is always the same: throw more of other people's money at it.
> --Mitchell Jones}***
> > 

All one needs to do is _redo_ the experiment Jed did, but
simply keep track of the energy in during the warmup phase. 

I don't see why you classify this as extravagant---its
scarcely more work than Jed expended in his original
experiments.

By the way---most desried fusion experimental work does
not get done, precisely because it is so difficult to get 
funding for them. One is very wary of proposing any 
experiment of significant size in fusion, as it is a
long , many year uphill battle to get it funded.







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


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 22:11:05 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3ts436$8gb@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
Potter ) wrote:
> In <ts_zemanian-1007950838050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 
> 
> >
> >In article <3tpqpb$def@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
> >Potter ) wrote:
> >
> >> In <ts_zemanian-0907951207060001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
> >ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 
> >> 
> >> >It is common for the mad bomber to justify his violence by claiming to be
> >> >the defender of the weak and downtrodden.  It's still inappropriate. 
> >> >Claiming a lofty goal does not exonerate one's actions.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Well, I'm sure you've heard the usual chestnuts about the ends not
> >justifying the means, and I'll not insult you by drawing the obvious
> >parallels to terrorism, _etc._  The point is that the argument rings false
> >when someone behaves abominably, and then claims it's okay for him to do
> >so as he's a freedom fighter protesting the poor treatment of the
> >Khufiristani people by their evil Rongovian overlords.  Spuriously
> >claiming a trump suit simply doesn't work beyond an emotional level.
> 
> It is my perception that tit^n for two tats works best,
> and in the long run, makes for a better society.
> 
> Turn your cheeks a couple of times and if they persist, 
> let them know that you are serious.

Okay, I tried twice and still failed to get through to him.  I'll try once
more, and then throw in the towel.

Mr. Potter, defending yourself, or others, is one thing.  Doing violence
to garner attention, that you might then shout polemic is another thing
entirely.  You seem to feel that this polemic excuses the wrongs done in
its name.  I disagree, as does most of the rest of the world (thank
heavens!)

Now, do you really not see a contradiction between :
> 
> You can thank the mad bombers throughout history,
> more than you can thank the Kings, 
> for shaping a better society.
> 
> They keep tyrants and bullies honest.

and:

>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.

???

Which is it?  Do you value or despise irrational flaming?  Is the
difference perhaps merely whether you are the perpetrator or someone else?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 /  Denty /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: denty@charmed.demon.co.uk (Denty)
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Subject: New Gravitational force
Date: 10 Jul 1995 10:07:48 GMT
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 02:38:10 GMT
Organization: none
Organization: AIP

In article <1995Jul9.023810.5608@pinet.aip.org>, ejeong@pinet.aip.org 
(euejin_jeong) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: charmed.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!news.sprintlink.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!pinet!ejeong
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Subject: New Gravitational force
Message-ID: <1995Jul9.023810.5608@pinet.aip.org>
Organization: AIP
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 02:38:10 GMT
Lines: 4
|> 
|> 
|> The message is not going out somehow what is wrong ?
|> 
Oh yes it is and so's the previous one. Everythings dandy as far as I can see...
Denty
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendenty cudlnDenty cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
     
Originally-From: wjrowe@ccgate.hac.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convinced A Crackpot??
Date: 10 Jul 1995 23:04:27 GMT
Organization: Hughes Space Company

In article <3tp0gr$rao@news1.halcyon.com>, sciclub@coho.halcyon.com (James
Burrows) wrote:

|Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
|
|: 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.
|
|While true, I think you are being an apologist for closemindedness.  If
|discoveries of great value lie within the realm of "crackpot ideas," then
|it *is* worthwhile to investigate crackpot ideas.  No question.  I think
|it's wrong to imply that the presence of real crackpot stuff makes any
|consideration of them waste of time.  The few new discoveries hidden among
|the "crazy" areas will make the consideration of crackpot ideas pay for
|itself. 

It is not my intent to "apologize" or in any way support closemindedness.
However, you must agree I, you or anyone has finite time/resources in
which to pursue ideas. Consequently, ideas that seem unpromising when
compare to other ideas seldom are pursue as vigorously.


|I'm not saying that researchers as a whole should be forced to wade
|through crackpot rantings in search of the occasional Wegner or Wright
|Bros.  I'm saying that Science should accept that a certain percentage of
|crazy ideas do prove valuable, and should take this into account in
|funding practices.  If a researchers has a neat little idea for testing 
|psychokinesis, or for extracting energy from empty space, there should be 
|sources of funding and routes to publication.  These of course do exist 
|already, but not anywhere near to the extent they should.

Researchers do puruse off the wall ideas and do get funding to do so. You
only have to look at the efforts spent on cold fusion to see this is true.
Many other examples can be found.

By using cold fusion as an example here, I am not trying to say something
about the validity of experiments that have been done. What I am saying is
cold fusion fit well with any of the accepted models for fusion and is
considered by some as a "crackpot" idea. Despite this there are a number
of people doing experiments trying to understand the phenomena better.
People are getting funding to pursue these efforts. Perhaps the funding
isn't what some would like it to be, but it does exist.

-- 
#include std disclaimers
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwjrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 /  gfp /  Someone please show me cold fusion!
     
Originally-From: gfp <gfp@docunet.mv.att.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Someone please show me cold fusion!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 23:27:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Is there a clear, concise set of instruction that will allow me (or any one else)
to 
1) Build a cold fusion device that generates net power?(more than 1/2 of 1% of the 
input, maybe even more).
2) Generates helium (3, or 4 ,it doesn't matter). Not 5, though.
3) Demonstrates isotope shifts.
4) Has cathodes that can take autoradiographs, but only after use to generate power.
5) Is repeatable? Or works just once would be ok also.

Perhaps, maybe there is just a conspiricy to suppress thia information (like the 
300mpg carburator). jp.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengfp cudlngfp cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / 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,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 23:40:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <ts_zemanian-1007951506070001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@pnl.go
 (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 

>Which is it?  Do you value or despise irrational flaming?  Is the
>difference perhaps merely whether you are the perpetrator or someone else?

1. Although I appreciate mad bombers, I am not one.

2  I think it is healthful for a few of them to be present a society
   in order to keep tyrants and bullies honest.

3. Mad bombers rarely work their magic on low level irritants such as me.
  
4. I confine my flaming to tyrants, bullies and boors. ( Institutional bullies )
   Mad bombers tend to like guys like me.

5. All my life, I have fought for and defended people abused by bullies, 
   and self-serving institutionalized phonies. I have found that bullies
   and tyrants are basically insecure people who derive their security 
   from being part of a group which that think will support them.
   They do not have the balls and independence to be mad bombers.
   I do not flame the weak, timid and the loner. I only flame people
   who hide behind some symbolic structure or large organization
   and use it as a club.

6. I have no problem with returning tit for tat. 
   God gave us tit for tat. Why not use it?
   He ( She ? ) shouldn't have to keep enlarging Hell,
   and working the Karma mills overtime.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / 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: Mon, 10 Jul 95 23:58:59 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <3ts5g4$oa7@soenews.ucsd.edu>,
   barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>In article <3tf5oi$6ro_001@dialin-ttyqb.sky.net> bsulliva@sky.net (Bob  
>Sullivan) writes:
>
>> 
>> Good post Jed! Thanks. We do need to be aware of history, because we, as a 
>> species, apparently have a need to repeat it.
>
>Actually, I think we have a need to see our present circumstances in 
>prior historical contexts.
>
>
>
Actually, I think we have used "need" in two different senses. If you replace 
"need" in "apparently have a need to repeat it" with "propensity" the meaning 
would be clearer to you. Perhaps, I should have placed "need" in quotes to 
indicate that that I was using something other than definition #1.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Dave Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 10 Jul 1995 02:32:01 GMT
Organization: Speaking for MYSELF(TM)

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
..
>
>The point is that the initial kinetic energy of the reacting nuclei,
>whether in a 'beam' or in solid state, is infinitesimally small
>compared to the energy gained from the initial fusion.  This means
>that the 'wave functions of the particles in the excited state' will
>be nearly identical whether or not the initial reacting nuclei
>came in with zero or nonzero relative kinetic energies.  

Variations of this argument have been posted here for years. That doesn't
make them right. They may be an attractive intuitive extrapolation but,
as has been pointed out many times they are only extrapolations and not
strong ones at that. 

To repeat my response in short: Two critical factors in the Quantum Mechanics
of a reaction between two systems are energy AND time. High kinetic energy in
a particle beam collision can mean a stronger interaction but the high speed
of the particles (or energy packets, to be more precise) meants a short
interaction time. A low inergy incident particle could spend more time in 
the vicinity of the target but will be repelled by the coulomb repulsion at
a greater distance than the high energy, faster particle was. This relates
only to the standard nuclear physics collision processes. 

The situation we are iterested in with CF differs from the above both
quantitatively and, most significantly, qualitatively. 

Quantitatively, the energies of D atoms/nuclei trapped in interstitial
location in a metal lattice are lower than can be used for beam collisions
other than for very low energy surface collisions. The qualitative distinction
comes from the observation that with CF we are probably not looking at 
anything that resembles a conventional beam collision because both Ds are
trapped in/on the solid. The interaction between them is not a single pass
collision but a sustained interaction if they are held together by the lattice.
These sustained interactions allow for a degree of resonance coupling that
is not possible in a conventional beam collision experiment.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of Quantum Mechanics will admit that
we are dealing with different situations here so should be wary about making
extrapolations.

>{For example
>does a grenade explode very differently if you roll it at 1cm/sec vs
>having it sit still?  No, shrapnel comes out either way.}

A totally spurious example. Doesnt help at all.
..
>So that's why it's very hard to imagine any plausible physical process
>that can change the branching ratios to such a tremendous degree
..

"The only thing proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination." - Bell

.. more deletions
>
>cheers
>matt

My key point here, as usual, is not to claim that CF is proven or understood
but that it is not rational to totally dismiss it because it is strange.

Neither the E-Quest helium measurements or the Cravens ICCF5 demo have been
effectively argued against, let alone refuted. A wide array of plausible
theoretical arguments/speculations have been published in ICCF proceedings, 
Fusion Technology and other publications. To my knowledge, none of these have
been effectively refuted though they cant all be right. 


cheers,

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendavies cudfnDave cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Craig Johnston /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: caj@tower.stc.housing.washington.edu (Craig A. Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 10 Jul 1995 03:48:16 GMT
Organization: none

In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>,
Dr. Rich Artym <rich@galacta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
>of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
>truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 

Amen.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencaj cudfnCraig cudlnJohnston cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.09 / Charles Cagle /  Re: Migma Reactor?
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Migma Reactor?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 1995 21:42:03 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <DBEAwn.9C1@nntpa.cb.att.com>, gfp <gfp@docunet.mv.att.com> wrote:

> A proposed device for inducing D-D fusion mentioned in the literature
(occasionally) 
> is the "migma reactor". Is there any written reference material on its
principle of 
> (proposed?) operation? Someone in the Princeton-Rutgers community is its
inventor, I 
> beleive.

Bogdan Maglich is the name that comes to mind.  I believe it had a figure
8 design.  Maglich was able to convince some (by now very unhappy)
investors that what he wanted to do was good science.  Sometimes one can
loot the gov't and sometimes one can loot the gullible rich.

Best Regards,

-- 
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
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.09 / Charles Cagle /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 1995 21:54:28 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <1995Jul9.024703.5859@pinet.aip.org>, ejeong@pinet.aip.org
(euejin_jeong) wrote:

>     The propulsion mechanism of an infinitely advanced beings has been
>     thoroughly studied and explained.
>     They may have been visiting us using this method. The reason
>     for this assertion is because the physical law is the same everywhere
>     in the universe.
>     They must be using the anti-gravity force coming from
>     the gravitational dipole moment. Antimatter is not the solution to
>     the problem. Formidable task of creating and storing of antimatter
>     simply rules out such possibility.
> 
>     So, the next candidate is the gravitational dipole moment.
>     The nice thing about it is that it is controllable. There are
>     many other attractive features in the theory as following.
<snip>
>     EueJin Jeong Ph.D.
>     E-mail Address: Euejin@Chollian.dacom.co.kr

Really, Dr. Jeong,

You are assuming a great deal.  Who has been everywhere in the universe to
confirm that physical law is the same.  (I believe that it is, too, but
your assumption is uncalled for.)

You are also assuming that some (beings?) have been visiting us.  Why?  Do
you have any proof outside of eyewitness testimony?  The amazing Kreskin
did a bit on TV a few years back and hypnotized the whole audience and
gave a post-hypnotic suggestion that upon leaving the studio they would
see a UFO.  Guess what?  They did.  Did anyone else? Nope.  Perhaps
mankind is subject to similar suggestive influences which begin merely as
amusing lies but which develop into a world wide suggestion that for some
reason or other certain people are subject to.  No fabric, bit of metal,
alien being or decent photo has ever been presented to establish the
reality of UFO as craft from another civilization.  Why do you believe in
them.  Wishful thinking.  Want a way out and science (but of course
projected into the future) is your replacement for a God that demands
righteousness?

Define gravity.  Define gravitational dipole.  Define gravitational dipole
moment.

Best Regards,

-- 
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
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 04:25:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3td27m$kjv@newsbf02.news.aol.com> hmicro@aol.com (HMICRO) writes:
>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.

I beg to differ with you, but in my book, a day is a period of time
and anytime a quantity of energy is expended per unit time, it can and
should be referred to as power.   So technically, we will just have
to concede the man was correct.  Sorry!   :-(   Of course, a bit of word
smithing might have made clear sense by reordering a couple of phrases.  

I mean, Bob has given his name Heeter to the Griggs folks, judging by
a long running title of a recent string of articles.  So tread lightly,
your in the land of wizzards, genius, innovation and just plain tom-foolery.  
                                       ;-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 /   /  Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 06:21:59 GMT
Organization: AIP


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenejeong cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 /   /  Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
     
Originally-From: ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THE COLD FUSION  is a REALITY
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 06:21:27 GMT
Organization: AIP


This is an extremely interesting discovery if it is true. Does
it explain everything the Quantum Mechanics has been capable of
? Is there any contradiction to the so far explained pheomena by
QM ? Tell us more about it whatever you can.

Euejin
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenejeong cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Internet Master /  Seeking FAQ URL's for Lasers and High C Superconductors
     
Originally-From: Internet Master <internet@weather.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Seeking FAQ URL's for Lasers and High C Superconductors
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 10:30:07 GMT
Organization: Freese-Notis Weather


Please point the way to  FAQ URL's for Lasers and High C Superconductors!

mailto:root@raccoon.com,purple@haze.weather.net



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeninternet cudfnInternet cudlnMaster cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / I Johnston /  Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Experimentalist's Lament
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 14:15:15 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
:  
:      "If only the CF world would decide whether it wants to electrolyze
:      water, pump it, squirt it through a vortex pipe or irradiate it we might
:      be getting somewhere."
:  
: There is no such thing as "the CF world." The scientists working on
: electrolysis CF have nothing to do with scientists working on ultrasound
: cavitation techniques.

True, but the same swivel-eyed nutters act as commercial proponents of
both types. I was not referring to the 'scientists' involved...
:  
: Johnston has grouped together unrelated experiments and unrelated workers, and
: accused the workers of being indecisive *as if* the same scientists were
: simultaneously working on different experiments. 

This is rich, coming from Jed "Electrolysis is CF, no, hang on, the
Griggs  Gadget is CF, wait a minute, that should be Potopov Gadget"
Rothwell.

Where's the F&P Water Heater?

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Tom Potter /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: 10 Jul 1995 15:19:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1995Jul9.024703.5859@pinet.aip.org> ejeong@pinet.aip.org (euejin_jeong) writes: 

>    The propulsion mechanism of infinitely advanced beings has been
>    thoroughly studied and explained.

This is our last warning!
Quit deciminating this information!

The Federation
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 10 Jul 1995 15:43:05 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3tpqpb$def@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
Potter ) wrote:

> In <ts_zemanian-0907951207060001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes: 
> 
> >It is common for the mad bomber to justify his violence by claiming to be
> >the defender of the weak and downtrodden.  It's still inappropriate. 
> >Claiming a lofty goal does not exonerate one's actions.
> >
> 
> Why not?

Well, I'm sure you've heard the usual chestnuts about the ends not
justifying the means, and I'll not insult you by drawing the obvious
parallels to terrorism, _etc._  The point is that the argument rings false
when someone behaves abominably, and then claims it's okay for him to do
so as he's a freedom fighter protesting the poor treatment of the
Khufiristani people by their evil Rongovian overlords.  Spuriously
claiming a trump suit simply doesn't work beyond an emotional level.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul 11 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
