1995.08.14 /  dwark@vax.oxfo /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 14 Aug 95 12:16:24 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <40kclo$9sd@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com>, <100437.530@compu
erve.com (Ramon Prasad)> writes:
> 

[snip snip]

> Turning to the larger issue of "western science", I would say that the
> history of science shows that it is extremely unwise to make a premature
> and "once for all time" decision on the basis of one supposed fact. In other
> language, you have no right to be furious. 

  On the contrary, when somebody shows me a "tritium" spectrum from a device
that lacks the energy resolutions to measure one and a "gamma" line from a 
NaI detector that anybody who has ever used such a device can see at a glance
could not possibly be what it was claimed to be; and then accuses me of having 
a closed mind when I don't acknowledge some sort of magic fusion is taking 
place, I have every right to be furious.  I also have every right to ignore
them in the future.   

> There have, since that time,
> been many experiments which have yielded positive results.
> 

We were told that before.  The results were rubbish.  No doubt they would not
be so obviously wrong this time.  How much time should I spend finding the flaw
in the absence of any strong reason to believe that the results are, despite
all the evidence to the contrary, in fact correct? 

> I am not asking for money to be spent on the commercial exploitation of
> cold fusion as there are now a large number of organizations and indiviuals
> who are dedicating themselves to this task. I am suggesting that it might be
> wise for academic science (ie individual physicists) to spend some time 
> investigating these phenomena. 

And I am suggesting that it would be a total waste of time.  I could be wrong,
and if I am it will no doubt someday be known.  In the meantime, I have work
to do.  

> This program should be both experimental
> and theoretical, with the emphasis of the latter trying to explain the former.
> Otherwise academic science leaves itself open to the charge that it prefers
> to have its head buried in the sand.
>

If it works on this it opens itself to the charge of wasting the taxpayer's
money and our time chasing nonsense.  And frankly, the so-called "theories"
I have seen on this newsgroup concerning cold fusion would have to become
considerably more sophisticated to even get into the category of nonsense.
If the proponents of cold fusion really want to get academic physicists
interested then they should learn some quantum mechanics (I mean really learn
it, not just wave jargon around as if the term "non-localization" can explain
any magic) and then either show by some real calculation that some effect
might exist or argue why such calculations, which give such spectacular
agreement with experiment in other very similar cases, are not in fact 
applicable here.  

Dave Wark
 
> Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
> 
> Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendwark cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Richard Blue /  Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off the deep end
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:25:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The notion that cold fusion must be real because it is unlikely
that two "respected" chemists could not possibly screw up a
nuclear physics experiment does not hold water.  Pons and
Fleischmann clearly screwed up in several essential aspects
of their "cold fusion" experiments.

Likewise those who think that opposition to the notion that
P&F demonstrated cold fusion comes only from physicists who
are defending their turf are clearly overlooking the obvious
problems with the evidence available to support cold fusion.

It is a simple matter of common sense that physicists who know
a bit about physical processes and experimental methods are
more likely to spot the flaws in the arguments made in support
of cold fusion.  Those who have never even read a basic
nuclear physics textbook are not as likely to be concerned
about such details as having the energy scale wrong or not
having the right peak shape for the gamma ray response of
a NaI detector.

It comes as no surprise then that the continued interest in
and support for cold fusion comes from engineers, computer
jocks, chemists, and laypersons.

Pons and Fleischmann clearly jumped off the deep end, and then
let their very large egos trap them in very deep water rather
than to swim for shore and admit they were wrong.  That is
not so very unusual in it self.  What is unusual is the
very large number of unwitting followers who have also jumped
in without their water wings.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Bill Snyder /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 17:16:35 GMT
Organization: Internet America

In message <9508141515.AA11638@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:


>It comes as no surprise then that the continued interest in
>and support for cold fusion comes from engineers, computer
>jocks, chemists, and laypersons.

Uh, on behalf of us dumb engineers & computer jocks. I wish to
register an objection.  One doesn't have to be a nuclear physicist, or
even the proverbial "rocket scientist," to realize that unreplicated
claims are not terribly compelling.  And IMO it would be a fairly rare
engineer (as well as a sadly incompetent one) who didn't recognize at
a glance that Rothwellisms like "The instruments don't lie" merely
reflect the ignorance and prejudice of the speaker.

--
  -- Bill Snyder            [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Nice, France
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nice, France
Date: 14 Aug 1995 18:09:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <40j42s$qr3@overload.lbl.gov>, lack@kanga.lbl.gov (Josh Lack) says:
>
>
>
>I think that this is one of the most interesting newsgroups around and
>admit to having lurked here over a year. Like many, I thought cold
>fusion was pretty much dead. Of course the evidence for
>cold fusion is completely underwhelming but I think it's the enormous
>potential, however remote, that continues to draw interest even from
>skeptics.
>
>The colorful characters and variety of threads here ranging from the Wright
>Brothers to quantum mechanics have continued to make 
>for interesting, sometimes educational and always entertaining reading. 
>Indeed, having just finished my dissertation (in a completely unrelated
>field), I thank everyone for having made the late nights somewhat
>more bearable.
>
>The point of this note is to say that I am going to be in Nice, France
>in a couple of weeks and I thought that it would be a hoot to try to 
>visit the Pons and Fleishman lab.  So, any suggestions on how to accomplish
>this? (even an address or phone number would be helpful). If successful, 
>I'll write up a report and submit it here.
>
>                                - Josh Star-Lack
>                                lack@imasun.lbl.gov

Yes, try to buy a water heater.  We still have $700 in the kity and I
think the group would spring for a P&F water heater.

Tom Droege


>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 14 Aug 1995 18:15:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9508141515.AA11638@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:
(snip)

>It comes as no surprise then that the continued interest in
>and support for cold fusion comes from engineers, computer
>jocks, chemists, and laypersons.

Smile ;^)  when you say that pardner!  Some engineers - say
Scott Little and myself have made good measurements and have found
null results.  I can point out a few physicists (some with great
prizes) that have made some bad measurements. 

Tom Droege

>
>Pons and Fleischmann clearly jumped off the deep end, and then
>let their very large egos trap them in very deep water rather
>than to swim for shore and admit they were wrong.  That is
>not so very unusual in it self.  What is unusual is the
>very large number of unwitting followers who have also jumped
>in without their water wings.
>
>Dick Blue
>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / guiness att /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 18:14:16 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

In article <40h9kc$ibb@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu 
says...
>
>In article <DD3K8y.5C7@nntpa.cb.att.com> guiness.mv.att.com!gfp,
>gfp@docunet.mv.att.com writes:
>>Fusion will likly be realized from an entirely different approach, one 
>>that has not been thought of yet.
>
>Perhaps, but if it is, it will only be because the research being done 
now
>will have given us such a good understanding of the plasma physics that 
>it will be possible to evaluate new ideas with less effort, and to see
>the way to think up that new idea.  I'm afraid you can't simply sit
>down in your garage and invent a better fusion reactor.
>
>>Also, by the way, the latest TFTR 
>>update (are they ever going to shut that machine down?) makes a big 
deal 
>>about reverse shear or something similar-
>
>That's right.  And presumably they'll only shut it down when it stops 
>producing extremely interesting results.  So far that hasn't happened,
>as the enhanced-reversed shear experiments indicate.
>
>>didnt the ZETA of the fifties 
>>use something like that-it didnt work either. 
>
>Actually ZETA was a pinch machine, and worked (or didn't work) 
>in a significantly different way.  Of course, if you actually
>know what you're talking about, I'm willing to listen.  But
>you could at least take the time to refresh your memory and 
>present a clear argument before attempting to damn TFTR 
>with half-remembered confusions.
>
>>I would like to see the results of a  calculation as well-
>
>Try PPPL-3117 for starters.  Or wait until it comes out in
>Phys Rev Letters.  The excitement over the reversed shear
>results stems from a confluence of theoretical calculations
>and experimental evidence.  I posted another article on the
>reversed shear subject earlier today, so you may want to read 
>that.  
>
>>why dont they forget about the "wet 
>>wood burner two component torus"
>
>That's precisely what the reversed shear experiments can
>do for you.  
>
>>and just aim the beams at each other? 
>
>Actually, TFTR does that too.  Where have you been?
>
>>(one D and one T).Power output for $ input might be more cost 
effective.
>
>You can't fly before you at least learn how to crawl into 
>the cockpit.  You get a lot more power output per $ input by
>figuring out what you're doing first.  Plus that way you won't
>crash the plane.
>
>>How is  Q=1 coming, by the way? (20 MW output doesnt cut it).
>
>Actually, one of the Reversed Shear Q=1 (D-T) scenarios
>for TFTR involves only 20 MW of input power, so 20 MW of
>output power would do nicely.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Heeter
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
>http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
>Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.

It is amazing how these breakthroughs happen when the appropriations 
cycle is up for review. I am not the first to say this, either. And I am 
not an expert in the field, but I seem to remember that strongly reversed 
shear has been shown over and over to useful in stabilizing fusion 
plasmas, in stellarators, RFP, and now Tokamaks.. Why not apply for 
funding to put a "breakthru" diverter on TFTR also. Might keep people 
employed for another 5 years. I didnt mean to imply that a garage 
crackpot will solve the reactor design problem, but the program is down 
to a tokamak high priesthood, and alternative concepts , with only a 
small percentage of PPPl's budget might just come in from left field with 
a superior method.

When I said "aim the beams at each other" I was half joking, but only 
half so. I meant dont use a torus, confinement coils, etc. Just two beam 
boxes. Might be more cost effective.(10% of of current power output for 5 
% of the cost). 

The analogy to mechanically-scanned TV is apt. Also energy and televison 
are both businesses concerned with the same thing-making (or saving) 
money. As Westinghouse, RCA, Farnsworth, and EMI developed electronic 
television cameras and receivers, others refused to give up their Nipkow 
disks, and spun away well into the 30's. Baird in England actually got 
the goverment to fund his proposal for a 240 line system (not terribly 
bad results actually), but the scanner had to be spun in a vacuum, and 
the lighting was so intense subject actors were burned. He had to procure 
the device from a German company who had abandoned the concept as 
impractical.  
In the tokamak, you could certainly attain ignition, someday, somehow get 
useful energy out, but why bother? The machine is pushing material 
science beyond practical limits (anyone REALLY test a first wall yet, 
with published results?). It is not serviceable on an a day to day 
operations basis- being of worse shape then a pretzel to tear down. Will 
fusion (as currently envisioned) really achieve lower life cycle cost  
than properly designed fission machines?  Why not return to creating 
advanced fission designs for service in the next 50 to 100 years until 
some ORIGINAL thinking comes up with a fusion concept that is more 
workable. No one can tell what breakthrus will occur in the future, but 
throwing all funding at one idea will suppress original thinking. 

My gripe is with PPPl's dishonest and cowardly personnel practices that 
caused me a great deal of financial burden and hardship. The later 
layoffs were even more cruel, I'm told. 

I first saw some sort of toroidal pinch machine, with confinement 
time probably measured in microseconds at the GE World's Fair exhibit in 
1965 and was VERY impressed. As a practical power source (I know the 
difference between the two machines, by the way). the tokamak is really 
not much further along, 30 years later. Its like saying we have a space 
shuttle  with SRB's that "almost" get the STS into orbit, but they still 
just havent got them to stop blowing up yet. We'll get if for sure by the 
year 2040, at the latest, just keep the funding coming. 

How's the latest round of layoffs coming, by the way-I hear managers will 
get it this time too. 

If the staff has truly advanced the art and science of magnetic fusion, 
I'll be the first to congratulate them. 

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Ignition in TFTR
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition in TFTR
Date: 14 Aug 1995 19:54:29 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <DD6txo.JwK@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

 > But it was induced by external coils with no plasma currents as in the
 > case of the tokamak.  However, this was first accomplished on a much
 > larger scale in the "ZT40" machine at LANL and the estimated that 
 > they could achieve a breakeven burn in a machine costing far less than
 > TFTR.   However, they were conveniently, ordered to disbanned and 
 > destroy  (bulldoze into the canyon)  in what now seems to be a vain 
 > effort by DoE and chums to save the tokamak empire.   It is now more
 > likely that the moth balled alternative concepts will be dusted off,
 > given a fresh coat of paint, and some clever "pickens" from the defunct
 > devices of the Los Alamos crew with which to feature their new born 
 > again concepts.   Really funny stuff -- -   ho ho.  I hope Congress
 > sees this crap coming.     

    As I said, I approach this from a different mindset, but that
doesn't mean that Paul and I don't basically see the same facts.

 > Except, that it's in the same device, and it has the same total field
 > energy to expend, and where will not be the total particle inventory.

  Yes, but the density profile can result in an enhanced burn rate.
A factor of ten should be achievable, and that would make ignition
like conditions, if not ignition, achievable in TFTR.

   > > 4) What are TFTR's chances of achieving ignition, even with an
   > > extension of DT run-times?

  > None!

  Hmmm... Since there is no simple theoretical limit to the possible
increase in burn rate, I would rather say slim to none.  But to use an
analogy, they should be able to pour enough gasoline on the bonfire to
get it pretty hot, even if the logs don't catch fire.  (A situation
where most of the nucleons in the core of the plasma come from the
neutral beam injectors.)

  > This is a well timed publicity gimmick.  I must say they are reaching
  > for this one.

    As I said, I take a different viewpoint.  The results were worthy
of announcement, but that no one was clueless or unethical enough to
claim a theoretical or engineering breakthrough.  They just calmly
wrote up what amounts to "a tokamak used as a field reversed pinch
machine is better at fusion than a tokamak used as a tokamak."

   (I said:)

   >    When I saw the first reports from Princeton I was also surprised
   >at the lack of comment here.  Even if it is an experiment first
   >attempted in the sixties, Princeton deserves full credit for finally
   >achieving the mode.

   Paul said:

   > Not a chance, although since they have shut off LANL, I suppose
   > they can crow to the four winds as if no one else would remember.

   Hmmm.  I didn't know that reversed shear had ever been reliably
achieved, although I do seem to remember some shots where the problem
was more with interpreting the readings from the instrumentation.  One
thing that has improved a lot in the intervening years is the quality
of the instruments.  Lasers do let you see into the plasmas a lot
better than neutron detectors.

  > Too bad the NM champs or the Board of Regents of the University of CA
  > can't sue Princeton for theft and misuse.   

   But they could probably write a paper comparing the design and the
results.  I'd LOVE to see that paper published!  (Even if it did find
significant differences.)


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 14 Aug 1995 20:10:34 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <40h9kc$ibb@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:

  > Actually ZETA was a pinch machine,...

  Yep!

  > ...and worked (or didn't work) in a significantly different way.

     Nope!  Or at least the preliminary data from TFTR seem to
indicate that the advantages of the reversed shear mode come directly
from pinch effects.  The central plama current replaces the Z
discharge, but from a plasma point of view the effect is the same.  As
the core gets more compact, the self-confinement force increases.
This can only happen if the plasma is not wall stabilized--in other
words does not fill the entire confinement volume.  Of course you need
a stability enhancer that doesn't depend on the walls, and the
reversed shear can do this.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
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: 14 Aug 1995 19:55:36 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <40g915$8f5@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
Potter ) wrote:
> In <40cv52$n2t@hawk.le.ac.uk> mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes: 

[deletia]

> >>Maybe you had another reason?
> >>Perhaps, dipping into your uncles LSD stash?
> >
> >Hrmm, a direct accusation: fortunately testable as I havent had my
> >hair cut since my post. Care to back up your accusation that I
> >have broken the law by paying for the appropriate residue test?
> >
> >Or maybe this was just a "childish flame" that "wastes the time and
> data
> >capacity of people all over the world"?
> 
> Yes, this was a "childish flame", as I try to interact with people in
> the mode they establish. Of course, the reference to your uncle, was a 
> tongue in cheek reference to Timothy O'Leary.
> 

The name of the Harvard professor to whom you refer is Timothy Leary.  No
"O" about it.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 /  prasad /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 14 Aug 1995 21:01:50 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <9508141515.AA11638@pilot01.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
|> ...
|> of cold fusion.  Those who have never even read a basic
|> nuclear physics textbook are not as likely to be concerned
|> about such details as having the energy scale wrong or not
|> having the right peak shape for the gamma ray response of
|> a NaI detector.
|> 
|> It comes as no surprise then that the continued interest in
|> and support for cold fusion comes from engineers, computer
|> jocks, chemists, and laypersons.
   ^^^^^
Thanks for the compliment, Dick, and thanks for giving Jed et al
renewed opportunity to argue.

Meantime, I'll wait for a more old fashioned interpretation of
"cold fusion", like melting titanium at liquid helium temperatures...
After all, Jim Griggs seems to have taken a few steps in the
general direction with Al and hot water.

-------
// -- the "let 'em all squabble and entertain" prasad
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / 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: 14 Aug 1995 01:47:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <21cenlogic-1308951142020001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: 
>
>In article <405jep$dq8@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom
>Potter ) wrote:
>
>> 1. TIME(X) = an external reference cycle count / the cycle count of
X
>
>***{Ok, Sam is 20 years old. The time of Sam, or TIME(SAM), by your
>formalism, would equal 20, right? The "external reference cycle" is 1
>orbit by the earth around the sun, and thus equals 1, right? And the
>"cycle count of Sam" is equal to 20, right? Therefore, TIME (SAM) =
the
>cycle count of Sam/the external reference cycle count = 20/1 = 20. But
>that's not what you said; it is the reciprocal of what you said. What
am I
>missing? --Mitchell Jones}***

Two kinds of time can be associated with systems. One is analogous to
the period and one to the decay, of a pendulum. A stable external
"period time" is used to measure both of these times.

The time used in the equations of physics is not global, but is unique
to the system under observation. A separate time exists for every
system. It is called the natural period of the system.

Sam is a composite, entropic system in which many systems are decaying,
or giving up energy to the universe at different rates. Simple isolated
systems are periodic. When they exchange energy with the universe
homogeneously, they change exponentially. Composites systems, with
non-homogeneous interfaces with the universe, commonly have a "bathtub"
curve decay characteristic, They have a steep "infant mortality rate",
a flat entropic life rate, and a semisteep "wearout" rate.

The external reference ( The Sun ) used to "time " Sam has cycled 20
times between the point on the curve called birth and "now".

Time(Sam) = 20 cycles(Sun) / interval(birth till now)

As can be seen, entropic, or decay times, involve intervals, whereas
cyclical times involve periods. Period time is in the explicate order
whereas decay time is in the implicate order and is a statistical
process.

>> 2. Two bodies interact about a common point, in a common time.
>
>***{Is this a statement about orbital mechanics? In that case, if we
>ignore the other planets, we can say that the Sun and the earth orbit
a
>common center of mass with a period of about 365 days. Is this an
example
>of what you mean? --Mitchell Jones}***

All pairs of bodies interact about a common center. While the Earth and
Sun are interacting about their common center in 365 days, both are
interacting with all other bodies in the universe.

>>    a. The common time is the natural period of the system.
>
>***{I.e., the "common time" is the common orbital period (365 days)
shared
>by both bodies, right? --Mitchell Jones}***

Yes.

>>       ( The number of counts ( Cycles ) of an external reference
>>         for each cycle of the system. )
>
>***{E.g., the number of rotations of the earth on its axis
corresponding
>to one orbit of the earth (or the sun) about the center of mass of the
>assumed two-body system, which is about 365, right? --Mitchell
Jones}***

Although, I have implied that bodies interact about a common center of
mass or gravity, neither of these is absolutely correct. The common
point can be better referred to as the center of time, and this can be
computed simply and accurately.

>>    b. Interaction time is the number of counts ( Cycles )
>>       between when a change is observed in a body, and when
>>       a causal change is observed in the system.
>>
>> 3. TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME / ( 2 pi )
>
>***{I have several problems with this:
>
>(1) At the beginning you said that these "tangents" are functions of
mass
>and time, yet here I see no reference to mass. If you are referring
>narrowly to the area of orbital mechanics, period and orbital radius
are
>usually measured, and mass of the central body is inferred from that.
So
>what about distance (radius)? How do you reduce distance to time? Are
you
>expressing distance in light years (or light minutes, light seconds,
>etc.)?

As you have observed, the "tangents" are actually cycle ratios,
which can be more simply expressed as time ratios. Mass is a three
dimensional perception of tangents and the external reference. Of
course, the tangent can be approximately computed as:

   tangent(Earth) = ( mass(sun) * G / ( Period / 2 pi ) )^.33333 / C^3

The relationship between distance and time is determined by the units
used for "C". Furlongs per fortnight, meter per second, miles per
second, etc.

>(2) Assuming that you are using light travel times to measure
distance, it
>looks to me like you are going to have to divide all times by the
speed of
>light to make such a formalism work. For example, suppose that you
have
>the radius of the earth's orbit: r = 1.5E+11 meters; and you have the
>period: T = 3.15E+7 seconds. In that case, the velocity of the earth
in
>its orbit is roughly V = 2¼r/T = 3E+4 meters/sec. That is simple.
However,
>if you use light travel times to measure distance, the formula
becomes: V
>= [2¼(r/c)]/[T/c] This formula will give the same answer for the
velocity
>of the earth in its orbit as the previous one, but only because the
use of
>light times to measure distances (e.g., r/c instead of r) is
accompanied
>by the division of all times by the speed of light (e.g., T/c instead
of
>T).
>
>(3) The expression  "TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X) / COMMON TIME /
(
>2¼)" is mathematically unclear: a/(b/c) is not the same as (a/b)/c
except
>in the special cases where c = 1 or -1. Which do you intend? I note
that,
>in (2) above, I can bring 2¼ down from the numerator, getting: V =
>[r/c]/[(T/C)/2¼] My guess, therefore, is that (T/c)/2¼ is your "common
>time" or "period."

I used the notation common to spreadsheets and assumed that anyone who
took the time to make the calculations would pick up on that, as you
have.

>(4) In the 4th row, third column of your table of calculated values, I
>find the value 2.97842296E+4, which appears to be velocity of the
earth in
>its orbit in meters/sec, carried out to more digits of accuracy than I
>bothered with above. Your general formula for that table was
PROPERTY(X) =
>TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O. When I apply the
exponent
>values of L,M,N,O = {0,1,1,0}, the formula reduces to PROPERTY(X) =
>1*TAN(B)*TIME(C)*C. Logically, therefore, we have PROPERTY(X) =
>{INTERACTION TIME(B)/[(T/c)/2¼]}*TIME(C)*c. Therefore, [INTERACTION
>TIME(B)]*TIME(C)*c = r/c. Therefore [INTERACTION TIME(B)]*TIME(C)  =
>r/c^2. How do I go further? Well, just guessing, let's say that
>INTERACTION TIME(B) = T/c. If so, then TIME(C) = r/Tc. Result: it all
>works, and you get the right answer.
>
>Unfortunately, the latter stages of this reasoning do not make any
sense
>visually. Something is wrong somewhere, and I quite frankly have only
>a vague idea of what you are talking about, despite spending several
hours
>racking my brain in an attempt to make sense out of your post. Any
>comment? --Mitchell Jones}***

I would suggest that you work out a few examples using the equation:
  PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O

considering that:
1. The tangential velocity of body(A) = tangent(A) * C
2. The tangential velocity of body(B) = tangent(B) * C
3. Time(C) = period / ( 2 pi )

You don't have to worry about G and C as these are just constants
used to express distances and the properties defined in terms of mass
in the desired units. They have nothing to do with physics. The thing
to do is set them equal to one and forget them.

The main point to consider is that, although an external reference
cycle or time, is used to determine the tangents within a closed
system, the common time is unique to each system. In other words,
period time is not a global, homogeneous property.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.10 / Martin Sevior /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 10 Aug 1995 01:38:21 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne.

drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) wrote:

[interesting discussion deleted ]

>The coulomb barrier is not a short range effect and the effect of
>coherence is to increase the impact of the interaction at long range.
>eg energy transmission in a 1D line of resonators peaks sharply at the
>resonant frequency. 
>

[ interesting discussion deleted]

>
>Getting the resonances tuned right is an obvious problem. Surface effects
>that vary the interatomic spacing might be relevant.
>

The MIT patent is based on just this sort of theory and specifies methods of
making surface modifications to "tune" anharmonic resonances. Unfortunately
they don't say anything about the size of any positive effect. Hopefully
now the patent is out they will publish actual results.

Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Dave Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 14 Aug 1995 07:00:44 GMT
Organization: Speaking for MYSELF

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>The MIT patent is based on just this sort of theory and specifies methods of
>making surface modifications to "tune" anharmonic resonances. Unfortunately
>they don't say anything about the size of any positive effect. Hopefully
>now the patent is out they will publish actual results.
>
>Martin Sevior
>
One of the attractions of anharmonic resonators that kept me mesmerized
for years is that they are not harmonic. They will resonate over a range
of frequencies if the energies are right. This makes their behaviour
very rich in transient resonances. The trick I was trying to refine was
to get strong mode-locking to give more stability and hence control. This
is very difficult, even in simulation where you can control all parameters
at will. To do it in a crystal lattice seems very optimistic but good luck
to all who try.

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendavies cudfnDave cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Dave Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 14 Aug 1995 07:00:57 GMT
Organization: Speaking for MYSELF

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>The MIT patent is based on just this sort of theory and specifies methods of
>making surface modifications to "tune" anharmonic resonances. Unfortunately
>they don't say anything about the size of any positive effect. Hopefully
>now the patent is out they will publish actual results.
>
>Martin Sevior
>
One of the attractions of anharmonic resonators that kept me mesmerized
for years is that they are not harmonic. They will resonate over a range
of frequencies if the energies are right. This makes their behaviour
very rich in transient resonances. The trick I was trying to refine was
to get strong mode-locking to give more stability and hence control. This
is very difficult, even in simulation where you can control all parameters
at will. To do it in a crystal lattice seems very optimistic but good luck
to all who try.

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendavies cudfnDave cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Dave Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: Dave Davies <dave.davies@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 14 Aug 1995 07:01:22 GMT
Organization: Speaking for MYSELF

Martin Sevior <msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>The MIT patent is based on just this sort of theory and specifies methods of
>making surface modifications to "tune" anharmonic resonances. Unfortunately
>they don't say anything about the size of any positive effect. Hopefully
>now the patent is out they will publish actual results.
>
>Martin Sevior
>
One of the attractions of anharmonic resonators that kept me mesmerized
for years is that they are not harmonic. They will resonate over a range
of frequencies if the energies are right. This makes their behaviour
very rich in transient resonances. The trick I was trying to refine was
to get strong mode-locking to give more stability and hence control. This
is very difficult, even in simulation where you can control all parameters
at will. To do it in a crystal lattice seems very optimistic but good luck
to all who try.

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendavies cudfnDave cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.14 / Prasad Ramon /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata: Why this sort of thing is unbelievable
     
Originally-From: Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata: Why this sort of thing is unbelievable
Date: 14 Aug 1995 06:50:22 GMT
Organization: -- None --

pain"drfc.cad.cea.fr (Mario Pain) wrote (amongst other things)
>If you believe in that source of energy, there is a very simple
>solution: borrow money, set up your own company. You will be 
>very rich. If you do not believe enough to spend your own money
>why do you think that the taxpayers should?

I am not asking for money for the commercial exploitation of cold
fusion as there are now a large number of organizations and
individuals who are dedicating themselves to this task.

The scientific understanding of the cold fuion phenomenon 
requires the commitment of academic physicists and funding 
agencies prepared to pursue both the experimental and theoretical 
aspects. An outlay of a comparatively small amount of money has
the chance of yielding great benefits once the fundamental
processes are understood.

>A "ZORRO" figure who opposes the "baddies" of the scientific
>estabihment.

In Japan cold fusion and Yoshiaka Arata are part of the 
scientific establishment.

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, Ramon Prasad 
<internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>

-- 
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden530 cudfnPrasad cudlnRamon cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.13 /  JimC /  Re: Cold fusion!?
     
Originally-From: collins@nova.umuc.edu (JimC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion!?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 17:21:34 -0400
Organization: University of Maryland University College

Well, two basic reasons.
The guys that developed cold fusion were chemists and physicists dont
like chemists intruding on their territory. they have very different 
mindsets and models. 
The other reason??? Trillions of dollars invested in the existing 
energy infrastructure. The primary job of many people is preservation of the 
status quo.
If you have problems believing cold fusion, try to beleive that two 
respected scientists would just lose their minds one day and announce 
results that they just made up from thin air. And that the Japanese
would subsequently invest billions of dollars based on those results,
and increase the budget for study of cold fusion year after year.
jimc


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencollins cudlnJimC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug 15 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
