1995.07.24 / Bill Rowe / Re: The dodo replies Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The dodo replies Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:51:11 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Barry Merriman write: > > "If I had done Jed's set of experiments on the Griggs device, my > conclusion would be that I had overlooked something, and to try > harder..." > >Very well then, go do the experiments. I have published comprehensive >descriptions of what I did. If you know so damn much, tell us what I did >wrong. How would you improve the technique? You "skeptics" are all hot air and >bluster. You never prove anything and you never do anything. No doubt your >"improvements" would be along the lines of Richard Blue's crackpot "theory" >regarding the Cravens / CETI calorimeter. Blue thinks he can store energy in >water without raising the temperature, and then magically liberate the energy >with electrolysis, so that the temperature suddenly rises 4 deg C. There have >been many stupid mistakes and crackpot ideas batted about here over the years, >but none have been as stupid Richard Blue's. Not even Morrison's idiotic >"cigarette lighter theory." > >How jolly and easy science would be if we could wave our hands hocus pocus >like Richard Blue does, make up any kind nonsense we like, and call it >physics. Unfortunately we can't. Besides, if any CF scientist was to write >something one-tenth as asinine as Richard Blue's "magic disappearing heat" >theory, you "skeptics" would come down on him like a ton of bricks. I have to >hand it to you, you do keep our side reasonably on track in grade-school level >physics. Morrison or Blue can say *anything* and you "skeptics" remain dead >silent, or you kiss their ass the way Tom Droege does. In a way I am grateful >to you for your contempt. You make good enemies. God knows I do not need >allies who let their friends get away with murder. > > > "That is because I have some sense of how much accumulated physics > (theory AND experiment) research backs up modern disciplines like > nuclear physics, etc. . . . > >No, that is because you are a contemptible, patronizing, nitpicking jerk who >knows nothing about history, technology or business. You spout on about >irrelevant aspects of theoretical physics, because you think that theory can >overrule facts. You and Heeter and the other academic twits here have >demonstrated only two skills so far: you have learned to bamboozle the public >with your hot fusion scams and your superconducting supercolliding super-cost- >overrun hole-in-the-ground; and you have learned to fasten yourselves tightly >onto Uncle Sam's teats. A magnificent accomplishment. No doubt it will be your >life's work, and you probably are not good for anything else. There is nothing quite like having your cake and eating it as well. On one had Jed tells us he care little about theory and knows little about theory. All he cares is making profit from the energy created. Yet, here he tries to imply he understands physics better than the "skeptics". As someone else said there are basically two ways Jed can win this debate a) present a set of replicable experiments that answer all of the objections from the skeptics such as Dick Blue, Tom Droege and Barry Merriman. or b) get stinking rich from all the energy created and don't worry about the skeptics -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.19 / Jim Carr / Re: Cold Fusion Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Date: 19 Jul 1995 14:06:44 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article <3ufgb5$a5s@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jenstroll@aol.com (JensTroll) writes: > >Hi bob, Is Bob here? We sure could use some slack ... >The one thing that bothers me about "hot" fusion physics guys making fun >of cold fusion is this. All of your theorys about fusion revolve around >gas/plasma phase materials. Those theorys are obviously correct (H-bombs >do work). Well, I am not a "hot" fusion physics guy. My work is mostly on scattering at intermediate energy and some related nuclear structure calculations, but I know those theories rather well. It is not true that all of the theory work on fusion involves plasma phase materials. >Why do you feel so strongly that your theories apply to the behavior of >matter in the solid phase ?? (Or even the liquid phase for that matter?) You gave a hint yourself. The theories used to predict the behavior of fusion in the plasma phase were based on the extrapolation of data taken at much higher relative energies. Further, they work well in the liquid phase in the case of muon catalyzed fusion. You might find the predictions about piezo-nuclear cold fusion by Van Siclen and Jones [J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12 (1986) 213] interesting, as well as the rather complete set of references on earlier work contained therein. >Let me give you an example to think about. You know that fuel cells can >work. I studied gas phase combustion in graduate school, let us suppose >that fuel cells were undiscovered and somebody tells me that he could turn >Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas into electricity and water in an apparatus >that kept the temperatures at ~ room temperature and most of the work was >done in a wet solid. Should I belive him? Why? You might be interested >to know that fuel cells are very, very touchy about impurities, the right >voltage, , , You would, however, expect to see water, right? What if you were told that it only produced hyrdrogen peroxide and no water? And only a few percent of the H2O2 needed to explain the power output. That would be the analogy to your proposal >Suppose for some unknown reason the reacton ; > >D2+D2 + XX -> He4 + XX +photon (appropriate wavelength) and the question of why regular water seems to work remains unsolved. >Wouldn't the high mass of XX soak off a large fraction of the energy >produced and so lower the freq. (and energy) of the photon. Wouldn't that >help to explain low radiation? It could, but it does not explain the low rate of He-4 production or how such a long-distance interaction can take place on a nuclear time scale. It also does not explain the lack of radiation, since if 20 MeV were shared by mass 4 and mass 110, the alpha carries off the most energy and both would have enough recoil energy to produce ionization and characteristic x-rays. -- James A. Carr | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Record Hi/Lo: 98/67 Normal: 91/71 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Today: 95/72 cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Marshall Dudley theory Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 18:22 -0500 (EST) mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes: -> 2. "linear process"?? There aren't any linear processes which contribute -> to the de-excitation of an excited state, if "linear process" refers to a -> continuous decrease in the energy of the excited state. An excited bound -> state has a discrete spectrum of energy levels. Transitions between these -> levels occur with a given half-life. There are a number of process in which excited particles do not lose their energy via a half-life mode. Betas and alphas are 2 very good examples. If you track their penetration into a substance you will find that all with the same intial energy penetrate similar distances before stopping. If the material has a flat absorption curve vs energy, the energy loss per unit of time will be basically constant. The hypothesis Mr. Blue was comparing the decays to was a cooling by an excited nucleus being in the cloud of electrons of a Pd atom. One would expect that the cooling from such an arrangement to not obey the half-life model at all and probably come closer to a linear or exponential model (if such cooling can indeed happen). -> 3. If the excitation energy is below the threshold for a given decay, then -> that decay doesn't occur. If the energy is above threshold, the decay -> occurs. As the energy approaches the threshold from above, the half-life -> increases smoothly to infinity. In all cases above threshold the decay -> proceeds with a well-defined half-life. Then you are supporting my argument. If we have a process in which a decay has a threshold, and another competing in which energy is removed at a rather continuous rate, then we can no longer simply compare "lifetimes". As I was saying, it is a lot more complicated than that. -> 4. There are no cases where the neutron is emitted "after a consistent -> delay". This again is basic quantum mechanics. I agree there is no evidence for this. What I was saying is that until one can characterise the competing decay or loss of energy modes, you simply can not just compare "lifes" and be sure of getting a good ratio. There are configurations such that you can get a near "constant delay" from one event to another though. This normally has more to do with mechanical configuration than QM though. In fact some delayed conicidence systems can take advantage of this. -> The reason I'm bothering to post this is that Mr. Dudley has given -> evidence of listening to reason :-) Thank you. I have no "pet theories" but an simply looking for possible solutions, whomever may develop them. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Marshall Dudley theory Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 11:15 -0500 (EST) -> As I said in my post, not in the decay of an excited state in quantum -> mechanics. This is not just due to the fact that nobody has ever seen this. -> The absence of such a decay is fundamental to quantum mechanics. I agree with most of what you are saying. But the fact is that if CF exists, there seems to be a lot of evidence that free neutrons are not created in significant numbers. We are looking at a system where for some reason when all is said and done, there is no evidence of (significant) neutrons. I agree with your statements when we are dealing with one excited nucleus. But being captured within a crystal or in the outer shell of a Pd atom must be causing something else to happen. Let me give you an example. There is nothing to support this, and after spending quite some time on this particular hypothesis, I have abandoned it. However it shows just how one could end up with enexpected results, and in fact in this hypothesis there IS a fairly constant delay associated with sequential events. Please do not give me reasons why this hypothesis will not work, I have already determined several reasons myself, all I am doing is showing how there could be some unexpected things happen because of the alignment with the crystal. We have 2 D nuclei in adjacent sites which fuse (forget the coulomb arguments for now). Since they would approach each other from a line which intersects other D atoms, one would expect the emerging neutron to be ejected along this line. This neutron travels along the line of deuterium atoms at a velocity of V until it strikes another deuterium dead center. The He3 travels in the exact opposite direction at velocity V/3. Upon striking the deuterium atom it rebounds back in the opposite direction. The deuterium atom continues in the original direction of the neutron at 3/5V while the neutron reverses direction at 4/5V. Eventually the neutron catches up with the He3 and they strike at a velocity of 4/5V - 1/3 V or 4.67V. This contains only 21.8% of the original energy. The two then combine and now have an excess energy of 4.36 Mev instead of 20 Mev, the rest of the energy is in the inertia of the D and He4 nuclei. A similar hypothesis can be made for a deuterium nucleus trapped in the outer shell of a Pd atom, where the neutron strikes and bounces back from the Pd nucleus, then catchs up with the He3 nucleus approximately one Pd radius away. There are several arguements that this won't happen except for a very very few possible number of events. What I am saying is that there are possibilities which could happen that no one has considered yet. If the data is correct (and at this point I am still taking a wait and see attitude on that) and CF exists without significant neutrons, then there HAS to be a reason, even if no one has figured it out yet. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Marshall Dudley theory Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley theory Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 11:56 -0500 (EST) -> you want to account for, I don't agree with your calculation. I don't know -> what you mean by the decay process being linear. These are quantum systems! -> We are considering transitions between quasistationary states. Such -> transistions do not behave in the fashion you describe. My picture would be -> that we are considering essentially only two states: an excited state at -> roughly 25 MeV and the ground state. There are NO other states inbetween! I -> say there are three possible decay modes - neutron emission, proton -> emission, and gamma emission. The other method was electon cooling with the nucleus smack in the middle of the outer shell of the Pd atom. This is not a random event, but would be similar to the slow down of a beta when passing through matter. That is what I mean by a linear loss of energy mode. Every time an electron interacts with the nucleus and it gets shot off like a beta, the nucleus loses energy. After this has happened 10^15 or so times, the nucleus has cooled down where the other decay modes are non-operative. I agree the 43 number is not realistic, it was only to show how far off a simple comparison between times can be if the modes of energy loss follow different rules. Loss by electron cooling does not follow the half-life rule. On the other hand it probably would not remove energy rapidly enough to prevent the normal decay modes either, which of course is the basis for your argument. Marshall cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / J D / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: "J. D. Brooks" 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: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:11:17 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA Sounds like the Rebirth of the Spanish Inquisition(sic?). Without an open mind able and willing to accept what is found, what is found will be thrown out until about the 5th time around, and todays FG would consider that too much waste, and would not fund past the second finding...... I still pray for guidance when approaching these kind of theories.. it took alot of 'nads' to develope nuke stuff knowing the awsome power of destruction potentially available...but had we not developed it, the Japanese would have, and who knows where we would be today... In the government's view, the unknown is better left there....nothing bothers a politician more than being faced with a situation where he knows not what to do..... 'doc' On 26 Jun 1995, Aaron Prunkard wrote: > Conrad (conrad@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote: > : wallaceb@news.IntNet.net (Bryan Wallace) writes: > > : [snip] > : > Most physicists agree that there is a wave particle problem with > : >regard to light. > > : What do you mean? Real subatomic particles have measured point-like and > : wave-like properties that are well described by quantum mechanics. This > : is often referred to as the wave/particle duality, but I do not know of > : any physicist who considers this to be a "problem". > > : >To date my 1969 Venus radar paper is the only published > : >objective comparative analysis of the data regarding both models. I was > : >forced to use the sparse published 1961 Venus radar data and as my book > : >shows, I was never able to get a more complete set of data from Shapiro > : >or anyone else. The early data was reported to be accurate to around 1.5 > : >km while the current one way signal transit time data from orbiting > : >spacecraft is reported to be accurate to around 1.5 m and the velocities > : >involved are much higher and in the case of the Venus Magellan graft have > : >periods of around 90 min. as opposed to 24 hrs. In the case of the > : >early radar data the differences in the 2 theories was around 200 km > : >while in the case of the Magellan craft it would be about 3500 km. The > : >wrong model would show the craft to be in an impossible elliptical orbit > : >while the correct one would show it in its proper nearly circular orbit > : >as determined by its surface radar data. The one way signal transit > : >times would also make it possible to determine the Earth's motion through > : >the solid vacuum/space/ether if it existed. > > : JPL does the navigation for all interplanetary spacecraft including > : Magellan. They use algorithms based on general relativity, they have > : reported no discrepancies, and they are generating beautiful maps of > : Venus with the Magellan data. How could they possibly achieve this, > : if their determination of Magellan's position was 3500 km in error?!? > > : >I have a simple test to > : >determine if a physicist is a legitimate scientist. If they call for NASA > : >to make a complete objective analysis with regard to both models, I > : >consider them to be true scientists. If they don't they are > : >pathological scientists or politicians. Until this test is done, modern > : >physics will remain a farce and does not deserve to be funded by the > : >Federal Government! > > : I have not been able to find your 1969 paper, but I suspect that your > : calculation of the "standard" interpretation of the data does not rely > : on GR. If your interpretation of "standard" physics is incorrect, why > : should I support your call to compare your two models? > : -- > : //===============================\\ > : || Conrad, conrad@hepxvt.uci.edu || > : || You have to decide to live. || > : \\===============================// > > > Har har har. The F.G. will only fund something if they're sure that > it will produce the answer it wants. If there is to be advances in > physics or any other field, it won't come from a gov't-funded program > (unless of course, Uncle Sam feels that we're "ready" for a change). If > the gov't were to support research and not have very strict rules about > how the research turned out, someone might stumble upon something that > threatens the static reality that's been set up for us. > > > > cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjdocbrks cudfnJ cudlnD cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.19 / Jim Carr / Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis Date: 19 Jul 1995 12:26:20 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes: > >First I am not proposing any neutrons being generated at all. The hypothesis >actually does not address what happens to the excited nucleus after fusion. But you had better pay attention to what happens, since the decay of that excited nucleus will give a very clear and sensitive signal of what happened. >However, if neutrons are generated, and they may well be, then I was proposing >why we may not see them. Lets look at each of the isotopes you list above and >see what we would expect to happen. So lets look at one example more closely ... >102Pd + n = 103Pd. > >The highest energy photon of any intensity from this isotope is 23.3 Kev, and >it comprises only 1.94% of the decays. Even if this X-ray made it out of the >sample, it would not be detected with the equipment normally used to detect >gammas. I have no idea where you get these claims. I suggest you get a copy of Lederer and Shirley "Table of Isotopes" and look the situation over more carefully. First, neutron capture will not populate the ground state directly so you should see gamma decay from the excited states. However, people have also considered transfer reactions that might go to the ground state, so lets look further. Second, my handy chart says Pd-103 decays by electron capture with emission of a 357.5 keV gamma. I can't get my hands on L&S at the moment, but if the chart shows a gamma it is common enough to be considered a signature of the decay. Lifetime is 17 days, also a good signature of it. Finally, it is no great feat to find the x-rays from the electron capture or from PIXE even with the chance of resonant absorption (a concern I recall discussing over breakfast in the Indiana Univ. Union within weeks of the first reports) with the sort of detector setups that have been used to look for photons. >Fact is if experiments were looking for 10+ Mev gammas, none of these lines >would have been seen. But the fact is that experiments have been done looking for low energy gammas (specifically the photocapture of n on p in water), including the data published by P&F(&H), and others have looked specifically for x-rays from the isotopes of Pd. Since there are often low-energy gamma rays overlapping the x-ray region, a good survey will include detectors with sensitivity in several overlapping energy regions. -- James A. Carr | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Record Hi/Lo: 98/67 Normal: 91/71 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Today: 95/72 cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Charles Cagle / Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Originally-From: Charles Cagle Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Date: 25 Jul 1995 03:01:11 GMT Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc. barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: >In article <-2007951553350001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com> > (Charles Cagle) writes: >> >> Back off Heeter, GR *is* related to fusion along with SR, >>particularly so if it is a local event which is globally mediated. > >Is it? If so, why don't you spell out more precisely what important >role GR plays in any fusion reaction? I just did. Read it again. "You know - like in Mach's Principle - as in the interrelationships of mass to mass - as in what gets reduced when a fusion event occurs! If that isn't global and related to the whole of physics and therefore fusion, pray tell, what is?" Suppose that Mach's Principle is true. I'm not saying that it is, only that one should consider it a real possibility. I personally think that it is but let that be aside for the moment. If it is true then a fusion event effects the entire cosmos. It shouldn't be a long reach to suspect that it might be a globally mediated event since it has global effects. The next question to ask is how can the interaction of charges be globally mediated? email to gr-qc@xxx.lanl.gov put "get 9506070" in the subject and leave the message body blank. This paper discusses the concept of correlated conjugate viewpoints which could be related to global and local events. Do another email and get 9410153. More food for thought. >Certainly the local fusion reaction itself involves only the strong >and EM forces. You assume the so called 'strong' force is a locally mediated force. Why? You see globally true or related things all around (like charge) and don't make the connection to local events. >About the closest I could imagine is that the sun is a gravitationally >contained fusion reactor, but even that has nothing to do with GR >and little of interest to do with gravity. You keep regurgitating the party line as if it were the only framework within which you allow yourself to work. Perhaps the sun is not a gravitationally contained fusion reactor. Then what? 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: cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / Bill Rowe / Re: Atomic autoradiographs? Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Atomic autoradiographs? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:05:04 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <3uornb$gav@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote: > >But wait -- you can just look at the electrode, can't you? Doesn't that >give you a direct view of the lattice? Okay, the resolution is pretty >bad, but it's still a direct view isn't it? But isn't the resolution so poor that saying this is a "direct view of the lattice" very misleading? It doesn't seem to me you will get much information about the lattice at all. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / Bill Rowe / Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bogus 12-sigma statistics Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 20:24:32 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <3urdvq$jlg@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) wrote: >Just a few comments on the Mitchell Swartz posts to this thread: > >Swartz quoted Miles as follows: > >:These experiments yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x 1011 4He/s*W after >:correcting for background levels of helium measured in control >:studies (Table II). > >2.0 +/- 0.5 ? Doesn't this appear to be a 4-sigma effect? Is the complete >text (including tables) available on the net? A 4-sigma effect is the >classic borderline result, at least in my exerience in experimental >physics. That is to say intriguing but not conclusive. I think you are dividing 2.0 by 0.5 to arrive at 4 sigma. If so, this is not a 4 sigma measurement. You are dividing the mean, 2.0, by the standard deviation (sigma), 0.5 which results in a value of 4 for the coefficient of variation. To arrive at a x sigma measurement relative to a background the difference between the mean background and the reading should be divided by the background sigma. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Jim Bowery / Re: Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 01:46:39 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Pamela S. Magidson (magidson@pobox.upenn.edu) wrote: : I'd suggest Congressman Walker look in the mirror. I cannot imagine an : institution that that has promised so much yet delivered so little : as Congress. Change "Congress" to "federal government" and you'll be on target. You miss the obvious conclusion -- don't stop with the fusion program -- disband the federal government and allow all powers devolve to the states. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / prasad / Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Date: 24 Jul 1995 17:32:40 GMT Organization: sometimes In article <3ursht$p90@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: |> In article <-2007951553350001@ip-salem2-23.teleport.com> |> (Charles Cagle) writes: |> > |> > Back off Heeter, GR *is* related to fusion along with SR, particularly so |> > if it is a local event which is globally mediated. |> > |> |> Is it? If so, why don't you spell out more precisely what important |> role GR plays in any fusion reaction? Well, after all it was GRavity that condensed the sun from galactic dust, and led to fusion, didn't it? :) cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / prasad / Re: The dodo replies Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The dodo replies Date: 24 Jul 1995 17:48:25 GMT Organization: sometimes In article , siegman@ee.st nford.edu (A. E. Siegman) writes: |> > But Jed will, undoubtedly learn his lesson, as Scott Little's |> > experience with the Potapov device should suggest.... |> |> Maybe. As someone said to me the other day, the old definition of a |> fanatic is "Someone who, once he's proved wrong, redoubles his efforts." The unkind comments appear no more scientific or justifiable than their content, irrespective of whom they refer to. A non-working Potapov device that is not even identically constructed resolves nothing of the GG mystery. I'm sure Scott, though aware of the possibility of such inferences as yours, would definitely hesitate to stretch his conclusions this way. An Edison is one who, once his filament proves wrong, redoubles his efforts to make one that works. cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Dick Jackson / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 14:49:44 GMT Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes: > >As several people have informed me by email that they missed >my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me >to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information. How does one represent a scream of despair in ASCII? Dick Jackson cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Tom Potter / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: 25 Jul 1995 15:14:24 GMT Organization: Netcom In <3uprj4$73p@george.orbonline.net> theblufs@orbonline.net [Martin Zinser] writes: > >In <3ucerv$ou8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes: >> >>>Are you saying that: >>> time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X) >>>and distance <> time * C >>>AND mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G >>> >>>???????? >> >>but at least you will have thought about the fundamentals, >>and will be richer for the experience. > > >I find it amusing the your name spells 'Pret T Moot' > > > > Martin Zinser at theblufs@orbonline.net ^ /\ > Scarborough,Ont.,Canada _|PM|__ > ^ / > " How small can the world become ? " ^ / -- * > / - ** >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V~~~~~~~~~~~ I find it amusing the your name means asshole in Alieut. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Tom Potter / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: 25 Jul 1995 15:27:30 GMT Organization: Netcom In <1995Jul25.144944.29132@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes: > >In article <3uk85a$rf2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes: >> >>As several people have informed me by email that they missed >>my original posts on "cycles", and several others have asked me >>to elaborate on my "theory", I am reposting some of this information. > >How does one represent a scream of despair in ASCII? > >Dick Jackson As you may have noticed, although I responded to a number of questions posed to me by email and in the newsgroups, I have been reluctant to keep this post alive, because I have observed that as people like you and "Ben Joe" Bullock can't get girls, because of your pimples and crooked teeth, you need to ego trip on posters to build up your egos. Don't feel bad about it though, I've named one of my body parts after you. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / Grant Edwards / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 18:52:06 GMT Organization: Fisher-Rosemount, Rosemount Inc. Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.com) wrote: : : Untrue. In fact modern high speed modems usea whole bunch of parallel : : carrier frequencies. And any modem that communicates over an analog line : : is going to need to modulate an analog signal. That process can, by : : implications of the Nyquist theorem for instance, always be considered as : : a single carrier sine wave modulated by one or more lower frequency sine : : waves. : I believe The first widely used high speed modems from Telebit used a : proprietary technology based on many carriers. Their performance has been : out paced by open technology from the CCITT. The proprietary technology may : not have much of a future. : V.32 modems use a single carrier. Full duplex transmission uses different : carriers in each direction. If you mean different carrier frequencies, then that was the case up through Bell 202/212 modems (1200 baud). But, newer modems use a single carrier _frequency_ for both directions (if you know what you're sending, then you subtract that and what's left must be what the other end is sending). : They change the phase and amplitude to encode several bits. For example if : there are 8 different combinations of amplitude and phase each position in : the complex plane represents 3 bits. These changes occur so rapidly that : they exploit the full bandwidth of the line and sound like noise. I believe : that 28,800 baud modems work similarly but have a more complex eye pattern Yup. (I think it's usually called a "constellation" pattern rather than an eye pattern. We always used the term eye pattern when looking at Manchester encoded data on a scope, but I'm sure it's used elsewhere also.) -- Grant Edwards | Microsoft isn't the | Yow! I am having FUN... I Rosemount Inc. | answer. Microsoft | wonder if it's NET FUN or | is the question, and | GROSS FUN? grante@rosemount.com | the answer is no. | cudkeys: cuddy24 cudengrante cudfnGrant cudlnEdwards cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Richard Schultz / Solar-panelled highways Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Solar-panelled highways Date: 25 Jul 1995 19:17:29 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <3v1tut$su@otis.netspace.net.au>, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >My thoughts ran in this direction, because roofing would remove >light from the road itself, making driving more difficult (Unless the >solar roofing panels were semi-transparent (translucent?). Wouldn't having translucent solar panels kind of defeat the purpose? I mean, how do you propose to actually collect any energy if you're letting all of the light through? Unless you're proposing to use Edmund Scientific-style radiometers (you know, those things that spin around when the sun shines on them) to run turbines. -- Richard Schultz "an optimist is a guy that has never had much experience" cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Matthew Kennel / Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: NO GR POSTINGS - Says Heeter - What Gall! Date: 25 Jul 1995 19:02:18 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote: : You keep regurgitating the party line as if it were the only framework : within which you allow yourself to work. Perhaps the sun is not a : gravitationally contained fusion reactor. Then what? I don't know. Suppose the sun isn't a gravitationally contained fusion reactor. How does it work then? And how is it that conventional nuclear physics and stellar dynamics predicts many things about stars, like the HR diagram and novae and supernovae quite correctly? cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 04:04:31 GMT Organization: Improving On Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:19:52 GMT, ederd@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Dani Eder) wrote: [snip] >In the US we have 24,000 square kilometers of surface area tied up >in roads. With photovoltaics averaging 18 MW/square km, you could >generate 432,000 MW by roofing over roads with solar panels. Since >roads are already black, mostly, the absorbtion wouldn't be any >higher than it is now, and you can power the microwave transmitters >to feed power to electric autos conveniently. >Then there is the roof area of houses and buildings and parking lots >to consider. I suspect you could supply all the power you want >for the US just by re-using surface area already covered in asphalt. >Dani Eder This may be a bit far fetched, but would it be possible to replace the road surface itself with solar panels, protected by a transparent layer? My thoughts ran in this direction, because roofing would remove light from the road itself, making driving more difficult (Unless the solar roofing panels were semi-transparent (translucent?). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / John Vetrano / Re: What's up with P&F? Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John Vetrano) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's up with P&F? Date: 25 Jul 1995 19:39:13 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article <5bGiBoZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: (much deleted before and after this quote. hope it is not out of context) > That is true. As I recall, Shockley and Bardeen did not do much after 1952. > - Jed Well, except for the SECOND Nobel Prize in Physics that Bardeen managed to secure in 1972 (along with Cooper and Schrieffer) for developing a theory of superconductivity. You're right, of course. That's pretty minor and doesn't really deserve a mention. He also was a mentor to many graduate students, one of whom (Nick Holonyak) invented the LED. I was a grad student at the University of Illinois while Bardeen was a professor and though I didn't get a chance to speak with him much, it was pretty impressive just to walk around the same hallways as the man. Sorry, Jed, you just "recalled" incorrectly. No flame intended, just wanted to point it out. Cheers, John Vetrano js_vetrano@pnl.gov -- The above opinions are mine, all mine. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Dieter Britz / Re: Follow Up Originally-From: Dieter Britz Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Follow Up Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 09:33:55 +0200 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote: > Dieter Britz writes: > > -> Ah. I'm a rank amateur where this sort of stuff is concerned, but there are > -> a fair few theory papers in the bibliography on this very point. I recall > -> reading one, for example, that takes the electrons between two deuterons to > -> be a continuous dielectric medium, effectively shielding the deuterons from > -> each other. > > I believe you mean conductive medium, dielectric mediums provide no > electrostatic or magnetic shielding. OK, I guess you're right. The paper, as I recall, said "dielectric shielding". Sorry. > -> This may be close to the truth at large d-d distances, but as tw > -> d's approach one another, the dielectric would become a set of discrete > -> particles (electrons); closer still, you have maybe one electron in between > -> the two d's. > > I don't believe you can view the electrons in the shells as discrete electrons, > but because of their high orbital velocity (and QM considerations) as a shell. [...] Well, that's what the theory papers do, though, they work on a single electron (or muon, or erzion, or X-particle) trying to pull two deuterons together. We are getting onto philosophical ground here, the dual nature of particles and all that. "Shell" is not to be taken as meaning that an electron exists as a hollow shell. I believe it defines that part of space where there is a finite probability of the electron to be. The electron itself can act as a particle or a wave. Between two deuterons, it's a particle. I am on shaky ground here, I know. > -> At this point, effective electron mass arguments come in, but > -> fail to provide evidence of sufficiently close approach for appreciable > -> fusion rates, unless one wants to invoke "somehow" high effective mass (I > -> recall that a factor of about 8 is needed). > > Could you elaborate on this a little more? Not me, but S.E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg can and did, in Nature 339 (1989) 690 (29-June issue). You might like to read that paper. I was wrong with my factor 8 for the reduced mass of the electron needed to produce F&P-level fusion rates; looking at the table in the paper, 5 is enough. This begs the question of how such a factor might arise, "said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer". -- Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.26 / Barry Merriman / Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis Date: 26 Jul 1995 00:23:14 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes: > > Now for the question. Where does that 1E-40 number come from? Is it > experimental or theoretical? I don't believe it is experimental since > electronics are hard pressed to measure times shorter than 1E-13 seconds. > Even using track length measurements of a particle traveling near the speed > of light cannot do better than probably 1E-20 second. Well, such estimates for the time required to execute an energy level transition usually follow straight from the uncertainly principle, via delta E * delta t ~ h so that give the energy scale involved, you can put a (lower) bound on the time an event takes to transpire. (It could take longer than this bound, but it typically doesn't). For nuclear transitions, delta E ~ 1 MeV ~ 10^-13 J, h ~ 10^-34 J.sec, and delta t ~ h/E ~ 10^-21 sec. Thus, this is the basic timescale for nuclear changes of state. (Of course, some state with a specially symmetry that excludes most transitions may take much longer to drop to an unexcited level). > Thus the time must be > theoretical, right? And if not backed up by experiment, how much trust > can we put in this number? > > On the other hand, you entire argument is based on speculation, which is one big step removed from theory. So how much trust would you put in your own conclusisons? That is why I think at this *late* stage in the game, the question of whether P&F style cold fusion works is best addressed by experiment, not by looking for loopholes in existing theories or speculating about mechainism for which there is no existng support. The time when that was interesting is long gone for this particular problem---precisely because there is serious doubt to whether the phenomena even exists. Such speculations would get more interesting again if it were established that the base effect (d+d fusion) really does occur. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: New Gravitational force Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: New Gravitational force Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 22:09:33 GMT Organization: Improving On Sat, 22 Jul 1995 07:14:54 GMT, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) wrote: >In article <3ua60k$ckd@otis.netspace.net.au> rvanspaa@pop.netspace.net. u (Robin van Spaandonk) writes: >>On Thu, 13 Jul 1995 06:46:02 GMT, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) >>wrote: [snip] >No, although it is a characteristic of charge. My conjecture is that >particles have both "imaginary" and "real" grainy distributions, where >the "imaginary" distribution is in operator like. The conjugation of >the two distributions produce a quantized time existence for the >particles. In the case of electron or positron, such particles are >not capable of existing (certainly not electrons) in any universe >without its opposite sign particle. If we put all of the universe >in a black box, and attemped to remove just one electron or postitron >from that box, it could not be done. The reason is that the role of >and electron for example is to be a sort of pack-man which must gobble >up the information stream coming from the nucleus, in a precise count >of grains for each and every one of its quantized time frames of >existence over its lifetime, thus neutralizing the lifetime info output >(electric field flux) of one positive charge) of a proton, for example. >So if one electron comes out of the box, then the box is net positive, >which simple means that there is not a sufficient number of electrons >to neutralize the information being generated within the matter therein >contained. Consequently, this information, by logic law of physics, >must follow this "removed" electron so as to be annihilated, and thus >the electron remains connected. (Okay, todays yokels call this an >electric field (Partial_A_/t) So an electron (or a positron) is >an operator array which either creates or annihilates a precise number >of grains of information depending on its sign. Franklin has it >correctly specified. Creation postive ... Annihilation negative. >The absolute number of grains which are generated per time frame per >operator is the number "charge". So when you look at the hand >you position in front of your face and then put the same hand behind >your back, the reason it no longer lingers in the front, has a lot >to do with the little scrubbers (electrons) that whiz around nuclei >picking up all that excess stuff generated, frame after frame by the >protons. >It keeps things neat, and it helps keeping you from running into >yourself! [snip] Hmmm... So who gobbles up all the info spewed out by solitary protons winging their way through the universe? And shouldn't it get a bit crowded? :-)}}} Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.26 / Barry Merriman / Re: Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Date: 26 Jul 1995 01:27:40 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3v0sa5$hg1@netnews.upenn.edu> magidson@pobox.upenn.edu (Pamela S. Magidson) writes: > I sent the following message to National Public Radio's All Things > Considered (atc@npr.org) after hearing Rep. Walker's comments on > fusion funding. > > Dear All Things Considered, > > I heard PA Rep. Robert Walker's comments on 7/20/95 ATC that dollars for > fusion research should be cut not because the results have created > no value but because the fusion researchers had overpromised and have not > yet delivered. > > I'd suggest Congressman Walker look in the mirror. I cannot imagine an > institution that that has promised so much yet delivered so little > as Congress. That is pretty funny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The politicians love to focus on things that have no fiscal impact on balancing the budget, like fusion, funding for public television, etc. (I don't care whether these are good or bad---its still true that they and the myriad little programs like them would do little to balance the budget even if they all were eliminated) while skirting the bigger issues of healthcare funding, defense funding, and reform of social security. If one is serious about balancing the budget, one must spend ones time on the BIG ITEMS, not the little items, like making sure that NASA's SETI research is cut. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.26 / Barry Merriman / Moessbauer Effect? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Moessbauer Effect? Date: 26 Jul 1995 03:04:08 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE I realize I'm a little late in coming to the Moessbauer discussion that has been going on here recently...hopefully someone will take pity and explain a few things. Now, I never thought much about the Moessbauer effect, beyond its spectroscopic application. However, as I gather, the basic effect is that an excited nucleus, which would in vacuo de-excite by emitting a gamma and recoiling, will when bound in a lattice instead emit a (higher energy) gamma and not recoil (significanlty). This would seem like a good example of a chemical lattice mediating a nuclear event. (a) is there any reason it is not a good example of such (b) is there a intuitive, causal way to understand the Moessbauer effect? I have a hard time seeing naively how the effect is achieved. I would expect the de-excitation to occur as in vacuo, with a gamma emitted and doppler shifted down in energy as the nucleus recoils, and then some time much later the recoiling nucleus would collide with the coulomb fields of lattice nuclei and electrons, and gradually dissipate its recoil energy. How should this picture be ammended to result in no recoil and the emmission of a higher energy gamma? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Barry Merriman / Re: The dodo replies Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The dodo replies Date: 25 Jul 1995 00:35:39 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: > Barry Merriman write: > > "If I had done Jed's set of experiments on the Griggs device, my > conclusion would be that I had overlooked something, and to try > harder..." > > Very well then, go do the experiments. I have published comprehensive > descriptions of what I did. If you know so damn much, tell us what I did > wrong. How would you improve the technique? You "skeptics" are all hot air I have said it before many times, and I'll say it again: The number one flaw in Jed R.'s steam tests of Griggs device: Four Words: uncontrolled warm up period You neither measure nor quanititatively bound how much energy is stored in the device during warmup. You say it doesn't matter, because the ~20 minute warmup phase is outweighed by the hours and days the device has run steadily. That might be true, but such runs were not part of your experiment or analysis. So, you have an experiment with a hole in its protocol, and an anecdotal account to plug the hole. That is not sufficient to establish such a radical conclusion. > > > "This is because I have some sense of how much accumulated physics > (theory AND experiment) research backs up modern disciplines like > nuclear physics, etc. . . . > > No, that is because you are a contemptible, patronizing, nitpicking jerk who > knows nothing about history, technology or business. Which other causes are you an advocate for? I bet your persuasive rhetorical techniques are tremendously effective at gaining converts. > you have learned to bamboozle the public... > and you have learned to fasten yourselves tightly onto Uncle Sam's teats. You really should write some promotional copy for CF. Your advocacy talents are wasted in this limited venue. > > > "In his [Jed's] mind, one thorough---by his standards---set of > experiments by himself, plus the word from a few other novice > investigators . . ." > > You know nothing about the other investigators. You have no idea who they > are or what they have done. As usual, you make up facts to fit whatever > nonsense comes into your head. I use the word novice mainly because its hard to imagine _anyone_ who is an expert at performing a detailed power balance on a device such as Grigg's. It reminds me of Joe Newmans motor several years back---it would behoove you to become aquanted with his story---which supposedly produced more power out than it took in. It too was certified by several ``experts''. When NIST finally got around to testing it, they found it produced voltage spikes that confounded standard test equipment, and they had to use extremely specialized high voltage, high time resolution equipment to test it properly. When they did, it was found to be a somewhat subpar electric motor. Just out of curiosity, why aren't you also an advocate for newman's device? Surely the local experts that tested it are more trustworthy than the scientific welfare cheating stooges that work at NIST. Newman himself says they tested it improperly, and stands by his claims. There is yet another fortune to be made, waiting for you. > > > But Jed will, undoubtedly learn his lesson, as Scott Little's experience > with the Potapov device should suggest...." > > Scott Little is testing a configuration which is completely different from > Potapov's. He flow rate is three times higher; pressures, temperatures and > other critical parameters are also not the recommended values. I do not see > how anyone could consider his experiment definitive. I don't. But he's had 5 shots at it and still can't get it right. An easy to achieve state it is not, I'd say. Makes you wonder how they ever keep these things operating at far over unity in the field. How do they know if the thing has slipped out of it3 %300 excess mode, and into the %70 efficiency mode that Little observes---there seem to be no obvious indicator that this has occured. > I have not learned, but you never will learn, because you decide > beforehand what you will belive and then you manufacture "facts" and > "evidence" (like the qualifications of people testing the Griggs device) to > fit. Ok: quote me the qualifications of any of the Griggs testers who have a history of testing purported over unity devices, and finding the flaws in such. As far as I have ever heard, only NIST has ever done this sort of thing in the past---though Scott Little is on his way to becoming an expert in this area. If you take someone who has never had to ``debunk'' a device, what makes you think they will be a good debunker? Applying standard test equipment and methodologies is only the first step to a true debunking investigation. As the NIST example shows, you also need the ability to quesion your own testing techniques. > This is how modern "skeptics" think. You are not skeptics at all really, > you are "debunkers," In my mind, a debunker is someone who devotes themselves to exposing deception---either intentional or unintentionl deception. With such exotic claims as Griggs, this is exactly what is needed, not someone whom simply applies some standard techniques and pronounces everything sound. The debunker has to iterate on applying techniques and assessing what could have gone wrong, as many times as is necessary. If the device really works, the true debunker will be left in an infinite loop of failed attempts to account for its behavior. The true believer usually stops after 0, one or two attempts and pronounces it solid. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Barry Merriman / Re: What's up with P&F ? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: What's up with P&F ? Date: 25 Jul 1995 01:56:45 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <3uva7b$6h2@manuel.anu.edu.au> Dave Davies writes: > barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > > > >Does anyone know what is going on with Pon's and F.? > >...how much longer they can go without issuing some > >sort of detailed status report. > > > As long as their masters damn well like. Can you give me one good > reason why a commercial organisation should boast about success until > they had a commercial device ready to roll? uh, to keep their stockholders informed? To stake out a market niche. To foster interest in new potential customers, investors or partners. Why do you think almost all software products are pre-announced by a substantial (even years) margin? > I can give you good reasons > why they do not. I can think of a few myself. Of course, one of them is that they can't reliably characterize their process sufficient to the point where they feel confident to stake company reputation on its future...I.e., they still have not ruled out that it is an artifact. > you can say little other than they are not in a marketing phase. That is true enough. But why suspect there ever will be a marketing phase? 2 years ago, Jed R. told us they were months away from a 20kW P&F hot water heater. If they were that fired up two years ago---enough to leak it to Jed, months away, etc---one has to wonder what went wrong. Moreover, P&F actually exhibited a CF hot water heater to the press 3--4 years ago? Its not seen the light of day since; some collectors among us may still have the photo. > > > > > Again, tea-leaves and guesswork. In the absence of clear statments from the principles, P&F, that all we are left with. Yet another reason for them to issue some clear statement, to stave off spread of negative rumors or growing doubts. >I agree with Jed here that F&P do not seem > to be the leading edge here but might be stuck in a rut. I don't care if they are in a rut...even if they are they should be able to demonstrate their process exists by now, and demonstartae some detailed characterization of what occurs (byproducts generated, etc). Unless you are suggesting that their rut is so deep that they can't even produce the effect sufficient to study it scientifically (forget making Mr. Fusion water heaters). > Everyone else learns from their mistakes. how can others learn from their mistakes when they have no clear idea what P&F have even done, due to their lack of exposition? > > ...comments such as yours reveal a lot about how remote > many academics are from the commercial world. No wonder that the word > 'academic' has taken on the meaning of 'pointless' or 'irrelevant'. You manage to draw a fairly broad conclusion here. I guess you are saying that CF has already been proven to exist---i.e. that it is completely demonstrated that through some form of electrolysis or water stirring you can produce far more energy (>> 100% efficiency) than is put in? If not, I think you would value the academic fixation on demonstration of existance beforing worrying too much about commercialization. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Jim Bowery / Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A conspicuous House Budget Item Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 01:39:33 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Barry Merriman (barry@starfire.ucsd.edu) wrote: : In article jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) : writes: : > The fusion act replacement that I was circulating : what was the content of that act, and to whom were you circulating it? A number of prize awards (10 in all if I recall correctly) for a series of "sequential" milestones, to be judged by the NAE -- each prize award was $100,000,000, and there were provisions for creating special business entities, dedicated to the advancement of fusion technology, that would receieve matching federal funds led by private investment -- as opposed to the other way around, the way these things usually go. In all I beleive it was far too threatening to the current paradigm of government since it was moderate enough to be taken seriously, unlike a lot of ideological posturing, and it attacked the root of the problem: Politically argeted appropriations empowering those most capable of political leadership and least capable of technical leadership. It was circulated to all members of Congress on the appropriate committees as well as being posted on the net for supporters. It was sent to various publications including technical journals as well as newspapers. Unfortunately, the government doesn't pay for my travel to Washington, unlike the folks currently receiving funding from the government. I think this failure was instrumental in finally convincing me to follow my prior inclinations to stay away from politics and focus on technology -- an inclination that I temporarily abandoned at the cajolling of some very misguided libertarian friends of mine. The government is in a positive feedback loop that cannot stop until a severe catastrophe point is reached. I've seen it up close and personal. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.25 / Jack Sarfatti / Re: The Farce of Physics Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) 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: 25 Jul 1995 13:56:12 GMT Organization: Netcom May The Farce Be With You. cudkeys: cuddy25 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / Rich Hawryluk / TFTR Update July 21, 1995 Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk) Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion Subject: TFTR Update July 21, 1995 Date: 24 Jul 1995 15:02:58 -0400 Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Status (July 21, 1995): Since the last update further DT experiments have been conducted to study the stochastic threshold for alpha ripple loss in DT experiments. In addition, further analysis of the Enhanced Reverse Mode (ERS) experiments has been performed. The D-T experiment "Effects of q(r) Profile on Alpha Ripple Loss" (DT-51) was successfully done. The idea of this experiment was to test the expected dependence of the stochastic threshold for alpha ripple loss on the q(r) profile shape and on the alpha gyroradius. There were over 40 low power D-T shots made in only 2 days. All of the DT-51 shot list was completed, except for the lowest and highest TF cases (2.8 T and 5.6 T), which can be done later. The current ramp results were similar to those in DD, i.e. the alpha loss at a fixed q(a) was reduced in the current ramp-down shots (2.2->1.4 MA) and increased in the current ramp-up shots (0.6->1.4 MA), with respect to the constant 1.4 MA shots (all at B=4.8 T). The alpha pitch angle distribution showed a reduction in the ripple loss signature for the current ramp-down shots, as expected. There was one current ramp-down D-T shot with a larger alpha loss, which was correlated with a different density and temperature evolution and a lower locked mode (stationary magnetic perturbation) size. Thus there is also a possibility that locked modes can affect alpha loss. The toroidal field scan from 4.8 T to 3.5 T at 1.4 MA showed relatively little change in the alpha loss. Similar behavior was seen in DD. In DD there was a large change in the alpha loss and its pitch angle distribution at 2.8 T, which has not yet been tried in D-T. A short burst of alpha loss was seen at each of the large sawtooth crashes in the low toroidal field (low q(a)) shots. Scans were also made of plasma major radius and alpha gyroradius at a constant q(a). The smaller major radius shots showed a lower TF ripple loss signature, as expected. The gyroradius scan showed only small changes in the alpha pitch distributions, i.e. did not show the expected behavior (assuming the q(r) profiles were the same, which has not yet been checked). The Pellet Charge Exchange diagnostic (collaboration with GA and Ioffe Institute) obtained data on the current ramp-up and ramp-down cases, which showed a variation in the radial location of the edge of the confined perpendicular alpha population at least qualitatively similar to that expected for stochastic ripple diffusion. Data on the q(r) profiles and the D-T neutron profiles were obtained for all of shots. The analysis of alpha ripple and first-orbit loss will be done using a fast guiding center alpha orbit code developed by R. White. In reversed-shear plasmas, substantial improvements in confinement have been observed in the region where the shear is negative. With ~20 MW of balanced co- and counter- deuterium NBI, reversed-shear plasmas are observed to undergo an abrupt transition to a new confinement regime (enhanced reverse shear - ERS) marked by the formation of an extremely peaked density profile: a central electron density up to 1.2 e20 m^-3 and a peakedness parameter ne(0)/ up to 4.2 have been achieved with only 25 MW of NBI at BT = 4.8 T, and Ip = 1.6 MA. The central density increases by a factor of 2.7 in 0.35 s following the transition. Even with these high densities, the central temperatures remain high, with Ti(0) ~ 20 keV and Te(0) ~ 8 keV. The measured toroidal rotation velocity is relatively low, peaking near the minimum-q surface at about -150 km/s. The pressure peaking factor is ~8 and the calculated bootstrap current reaches ~2/3 of the total plasma current. Transport analysis of these plasmas indicates that the electron particle diffusivity has decreased by a factor up to 50 and is in approximate agreement with the neoclassical value. Assuming the classical ion-electron energy exchange, the inferred ion thermal loss in the core is substantially lower than predicted by neoclassical theory throughout the reversed shear region. The electron thermal loss is not changed significantly, and the inferred chi-e is larger than chi-i or De. Initial measurements by the correlation reflectometer indicate that the amplitude of density fluctuations is reduced with reversed shear. Furthermore, during the reversed-shear phase, there is a complete absence of coherent MHD activity from the core of the plasma. The extreme peaking of the pressure profile has resulted in a maximum beta-N-star of 3.5 in these plasmas, compared to the upper limit of ~2.8 in normal supershots. The value of beta-N is 1.7 and the central beta is 5.4% . So far, these plasmas have only been studied in deuterium. Simple projections, including TRANSP code simulations, indicate that similar plasmas would produce between 4 and 6 MW of fusion power with D-T NBI, depending on assumptions. Theoretical analysis of these plasmas indicates that by optimizing and controlling the evolution of the current profile during the main NBI heating pulse, the beta-limit for these plasmas should be at least doubled by dropping qmin to ~1.3 and qedge into the range 4 - 5. Increasing the reversal radius beyond r/a ~ 0.3 is also predicted to increase the beta-limit and may broaden the volume of reduced transport, resulting in a beta-limit more than three times higher than current experiments. Finally, increasing BT beyond 4.8 T at fixed q-edge and beta could further increase the stored energy by ~45%. If these enhanced stability configurations can be obtained in TFTR along with the extremely low core transport observed in the ERS mode experiment, the fusion performance is predicted to be strongly enhanced and potentially greater than 20 MW. In particular, the central heating of the bulk plasma by the fusion-generated alpha particles is predicted to be significant. Further experiments are required to explore and fully establish the experimental scaling of the stability and transport in this new regime and determine its full potential. _________________________________________________________________________ R. J. Hawryluk rhawryluk@pppl.gov PPPL - LOB 325 Phone: (609) 243-3306 Fax: (609) 243-3248 cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.22 / theblufs@orbon / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: theblufs@orbonline.net [Martin Zinser] Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Date: 22 Jul 1995 03:33:56 GMT Organization: Orb Research In <3ucerv$ou8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) writes: > >>Are you saying that: >> time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X) >>and distance <> time * C >>AND mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G >> >>???????? > >but at least you will have thought about the fundamentals, >and will be richer for the experience. I find it amusing the your name spells 'Pret T Moot' Martin Zinser at theblufs@orbonline.net ^ /\ Scarborough,Ont.,Canada _|PM|__ ^ / " How small can the world become ? " ^ / -- * / - ** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V~~~~~~~~~~~ cudkeys: cuddy22 cudentheblufs cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / Pamela Magidson / Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Originally-From: magidson@pobox.upenn.edu (Pamela S. Magidson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Response to Rep. Walker on NPR Date: 24 Jul 1995 19:29:09 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania I sent the following message to National Public Radio's All Things Considered (atc@npr.org) after hearing Rep. Walker's comments on fusion funding. Dear All Things Considered, I heard PA Rep. Robert Walker's comments on 7/20/95 ATC that dollars for fusion research should be cut not because the results have created no value but because the fusion researchers had overpromised and have not yet delivered. I'd suggest Congressman Walker look in the mirror. I cannot imagine an institution that that has promised so much yet delivered so little as Congress. I ask Mr. Walker to please be more compassionate and reconsider that fusion is worthy of a longer investment horizon because it may save us from many forms of pollution. I ask Mr. Walker to think about the following: If one can die by leaving their car running in their garage, what is happening to our air when billions of cars around the world emit exhaust every day? cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenmagidson cudfnPamela cudlnMagidson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.07.24 / jedrothwell@de / What's up with P&F? Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: What's up with P&F? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 18:53:05 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Dave Davies writes: "Again, tea-leaves and guesswork. I agree with Jed here that F&P do not seem to be the leading edge here but might be stuck in a rut." Well, um, er . . . I sorta get that feeling sometimes. "Tea leaves" is right. I do feel that *other groups* working with pure Pd are stuck in a rut. But I would never write off Pons and Fleischmann! It would not surprise me if they unveiled something extraordinary. Honestly, I do not know much about what they are up to. Last year ABC's top science journalist visited them and did a short segment on "Good Morning America." From the little they showed it was clear that they are miles ahead of any other pure Pd systems. They had a closed cell with recombiner and recondenser which had run in a steady state for weeks. Generally, when researchers want to keep secrets, I leave them alone. I don't bother snooping around or trying to guess what they are up to, because I have no use for the information. I cannot publish it. If they don't want to release details for "Infinite Energy" or "Fusion Facts" then I file it and forget it. Most workers are happy to share results. You do not hear from them for years because scientists like to shut the door and forget about the rest of the human race. When you call they are delighted to talk, but they are too busy to publish. "This often happens with the first into a field. Everyone else learns from their mistakes." That is true. As I recall, Shockley and Bardeen did not do much after 1952. AT&T (Western Electric) never did have much of a lead in transitors. Sony was the first to make a practical device. Texas Instruments introduced the first cost effective transistors in 1954. The first fully transistorized computer was the RCA 501 in 1959, but RCA later quit the computer biz after one of the most memorable flops in the history of that industry. My favorite inventors, the Wrights, did not do much after 1908, although after Wilbur's death in 1912 Orville did go on to invent the stall flaps later used on dive bombers. The patent ran out and he never made a profit, but the nation did, at the Battle of Midway. "To those who believe that they are getting heat robustness is the name of the game." Amen. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 26 04:37:05 EDT 1995 ------------------------------