1995.08.15 / Bob Casanova / Re: Off the deep end Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Off the deep end Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:07:54 GMT Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation In article <40o0r1$ans@news.iadfw.net> bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes: >From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) >Subject: Re: Off the deep end >Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 17:16:35 GMT >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. Thanks. You saved me the trouble, and were *much* nicer. ;-) >-- > -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] Bob C. * Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) * cudkeys: cuddy15 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / U Corporation / Q: Low inductance current measuring shunts? Originally-From: umc@primenet.com (Unitek Miyachi Corporation) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Q: Low inductance current measuring shunts? Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 09:27:46 MST Organization: Primenet I am looking for the manufacturer names and contacts for coaxial low inductance current shunts. I need to measure pulse currents to 10,000A with risetimes of 50 - 100 microseconds. Thanks. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenumc cudfnUnitek cudlnCorporation cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / Mitchell Jones / Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time" Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) 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, 15 Aug 1995 12:29:01 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic Tom, I am writing yet again in reference to your table of solar system values. First, I finally made a lucky guess and managed to decipher a whole row of data in your table. My guess was that if T is the period of a planet's orbit in seconds, then TIME(C) = T/2¼. Next, since the table value of VELOCITY(B) for the earth is obviously the orbital velocity of the Earth in m/sec, and since (with the assumption of a circular orbit) that is equal to 2¼r/T, I applied the exponents you gave [(L,M,N,O) = (0,1,1,0)] to the formula: PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O Result: PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^0*TANGENT(B)^1*TIME(C)^1*C^(0+1)/G^0 Since anything to the 0 power equals 1, we have: PROPERTY(X) =1*TANGENT(B)^1*TIME(C)^1*C^(0+1)/1 = TANGENT(B)*TIME(C)*C Since, PROPERTY(X) = VELOCITY(B) = 2¼r/T, and TIME(C) = T/2¼, we have: 2¼r/T = TANGENT(B)*T/2¼*C Solving for TANGENT(B), we get: TANGENT(B) = (r/c)/(T/2¼)^2 The above formula for TANGENT(B) has to be correct, in order to produce the correct value for orbital velocity. Unfortunately, there is a problem: you said in your introductory remarks that TANGENT(X) = INTERACTION TIME(X)/COMMON TIME/2¼. The denominator of this expression--which I assume, in spite of the ambiguity, to be COMMON TIME/2¼--is not squared, and yet the denominator of TANGENT(B), derived above, *is* squared. Thus the derived formula for TANGENT(B) flatly contradicts the clear implication of your generalized description of these things which you call "tangents." Worse, when we try to use the derived value elsewhere, it doesn't work! For example, take MASS(A) in your table, which seems to give the mass of the sun in kilograms, in each and every column of the table. Going back to your generalized formula: PROPERTY(X) = TANGENT(A)^L*TANGENT(B)^M*TIME(C)^N*C^(L+M)/G^O Substituting MASS(A) for PROPERTY(X) and the given exponent values (0,3,1,1), we get: MASS(A) = TANGENT(A)^0*TANGENT(B)^3*TIME(C)^1*C^(0+3)/G^1 Since anything to the 0 power equals 1, we have: MASS(A) = TANGENT(B)^3*TIME(C)*C^3/G Substituting the formula values into the above, we get: MASS(A) = [(r/c)/(T/2¼)^2]^3*(T/2¼)*C^3/G = r^3/{[(T/2¼)^5] G} Is the above formula correct? Well, the standard formula for the mass of a central body is derived by setting the centripetal force (F = mV^2/r) equal to the gravitational force (F = GmM/r^2), solving for the mass (M) of the central body, and then substituting 2¼r/T for V, giving the following: M = 4(¼^2)(r^3)/G(T^2) = r^3/{[(T/2¼)^2] G} Comparing the two expressions for mass, we see that the version implied by you contains a spurious factor of (T/2¼)^3 in the denominator. I haven't bothered to attempt a numerical calculation using your version, but I know (a) that it can't give the right answer, and (b) that the answer in your table is correct. Therefore, it looks to me as if you need to use (L,M,N,O) = (0,3,4,0) to generate the right expression. [Or else alter the value of TANGENT(B) to equal (r/c)/(T/2¼), which is more in line with your generalized description. If you do that, of course, then your calculation of VELOCITY(B) no longer works, and you will have to tinker with it as well!] Another problem: despite investing several more hours thinking about your table of data, I still do not have any idea what the values for DISTANCE(A) and VELOCITY(A) represent (they are identical), and I still do not know why the values for DISTANCE(B), whatever that is, are equal to those for VELOCITY(B), since the latter values obviously represent the orbital velocities of the planets in meters/sec. Also, your comment in note 2 seems strange: the radius of a planet (or of its orbit) is not the same as its orbital velocity in meters/sec. Therefore, what radius are you talking about? In addition, you show computed masses for Mercury and Venus, despite the fact that these two bodies have no natural satellites, and you give no data for artificial satellites. To my knowledge, there is no simple way to compute the masses of such bodies, and yet you seem to imply otherwise. This is another aspect of your post that leaves me scratching my head. In any event, I think I understand what you are attempting to do, despite the fact that you seem to have made numerous mathematical errors applying your own idea to the generation of solar system data, and you seem to be claiming more results than you can calculate. Therefore, let me make some generalized comments about the idea itself, rather than continue to focus on the mathematical details of your example: (1) It appears to me that a portion of your idea can be made to work. You simply figure out the various "properties" you are interested in and then select the specific formulas you need using the exponents (i.e., L, M, N, O, etc.). Such a system lends itself to the writing of computer programs, where the various mathematical elements would be stored in tables (arrays), and referenced by the index numbers. Nevertheless, the practice of storing mathematical operators in tables and using index pointers to select them is not new, and your specific scheme is so similar to some I have seen that it is probably not new, either. (2) The conversion of all distances to light-times seems contraintuitive, and I suspect that it renders the mathematics unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand. (The various mathematical errors you made in constructing your table seem to support this.) I see no reason why the procedure of constructing tables by using exponential indexes to select mathematical operators cannot be used just as well with the standard formulas. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / Tom Droege / Re: Q: Low inductance current measuring shunts? Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Q: Low inductance current measuring shunts? Date: 15 Aug 1995 17:43:22 GMT Organization: fermilab In article , umc@primenet.com (Unitek Miyachi Corporation) says: > >I am looking for the manufacturer names and contacts for coaxial low >inductance current shunts. I need to measure pulse currents to 10,000A with >risetimes of 50 - 100 microseconds. > >Thanks. Such devices are widely used in High Energy Physics. Looking in the Cern Courier for October 94 I find two adds on page 23. One for Pearson Electronics, Inc, (415) 494-6444 (Palo Alto CA) advertises 1 Hz to 20 MHz. The second is from Bergoz USA phone (415) 368-4884. It goes down to DC. If you search the IEEE transactions on Nuclear Science you will find an occasional reference to this type of device. The general scheme is to take a torroid and wind several windings around it. The conductor you want to measure goes through the hole in the torroid. With three windings you can cover DC to very high frequencies. You can also achieve great accuracy. I have used 10,000 amp units that a DC offset in the few milliamp region and were quite linear to 10,000 amps. I do not know if such devices are made commercially. Again response times of a few tens of ns. Others in this group may also have more information. Tom Droege cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / Simon Rowland / (no subject) Originally-From: Simon Rowland Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics.fusion Subject: (no subject) Date: 15 Aug 1995 02:50:41 GMT Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site ______________ORIGIONAL ARTICLE \/____________________ Yipppie!!!! They're planning to build an experimental nuclear fusion plant outside my house in Southern Ontario, Canada!!! There is currently a thermal plant which was built in the big 1960's power plant rush, which is sitting there, unused, and a big international organization is going to spend almost $10 billion over the next 30 years to build and carry out experiments (while generating power) there. The refurbishment of the old plant will go on between 1998 and 2008. (WOW!!!) It's particularily great because the existing building is very big and needs to be guarded, heated and lighted/maintained, even though it hasn't been used *at all*. Great planning on the part of those 1960's people. Also, we've just quashed (a few years ago) a plan, with the help of the old NDP government (the conservatives are in now... )-: a plan to build a *thirteenth* (count 'em-13) nuclear fission plant in that building, with all it's radiatioactve by-products and everything, even though the twelve others are running at a fraction of capacity (go figure-the hydro company won't admit it made a mistake). Anyway, I'M SO HAPPY :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) !!!!!!!!! Signing off, a VERY HAPPY Canadian-person-interested-in-physics P.S. Sorry if I'm incoherent, I'm understandably excited... _____________ORIGIONAL ARTICLE /\___________________________ >You're happy that they're going to put a fission reactor in your back yard. I'm >majoring in nuclear engineering, but still, I'd wa= nt to be as far away as >possible. > >melt down, alert, melt down. Huh, there goes my house. But hey, fission >reactors are great (yeah right). Look, I don't mean to be rude but...LOOK IDIOT, READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU REPLY!!! If you hadn't noticed by a) the title b) the fact that everyone hates fission reactors c) the fact that I said that the fission plan got quashed (and I was glad), so why would I be happy about a NEW fission plan (and wh= y would they reinstitute one?) d) there are already 12 fission reactors in Southern Ontario, more than we need (like I said in the article) e) they never build more of the fission reactors in North america f) since when are fission reactors EXPERIMENTAL? (ie Experimantal fusion reactor being built outside my house -> title) g) I clearly siad I was against fission-why should I, at the top of the document, be for it? h) Fission plants don't cost $10 billion bucks, nor do they take over 10 years to use, nor do they carry out experiments in the core= of it. In other words, THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE!!! P.S. I sure hope you don't, someday, sit at the controls of a nuke plant. ("melt down, alert, melt down") cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenrowland cudfnSimon cudlnRowland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / Matthew Kennel / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: 15 Aug 1995 19:17:31 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote: : Actually it is a hybrid form of fusion energy which produces no : neutrons. The fuel is protium (ordinary hydrogen) burned with the : most abundant form of boron (^11B). About a liter of it is : required to power a plant for a day operating at 10 gigawatts : electric. Storage is a problem since UPS could tranport the needs : and they could be stored in a closet. Suppose, in 2005, after the Libertarian party wins in Congress, the capital gains tax eliminated and your company is innundated with millions of investment dollars, the Iraqi government decides to buy one of your p-B11 ignition-capable Plasmak burners fresh off its Korean assembly line. :-) Would there be major problem if they decided to set it up in a basement in Tel Aviv, fuel it instead with D-T, set a timer and hop on the first plane to Baghdad? : +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ : | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037 | : | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 | : | VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** | : +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / Kennel / Re: Cold fusion!? Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold fusion!? Date: 14 Aug 1995 23:41:21 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > -> Well said. I would add that some of the results are now routinely > -> repeatable, as evidenced by the Patterson Power Cell at ICCF5, which > -> according to reports (I wasn't there) performed reliably throughout the > -> conference. Is it a Patterson Heat Cell or a Patterson Power Cell? Extra thermodynamic work or just low-grade heat? I.e. how hot can it burn? Can it make excess heat at say 300C? Or just 45C? cheers Matt 4 megajoules is the energy content of a jelly doughnut. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / Kennel / Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program Date: 14 Aug 1995 23:53:46 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) wrote: > In article <3vojno$5je@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes: > >I beg to differ. Communication technology is on the verge of eliminating > >many of the advantages of large urban centers. > This is true, but there are other advantages that are not decreasing. > Various forms of telecommunication cannot entirely displace the > advantages of face to face meetings for business and social purposes, > although they help decrease the absolute necessity in *some* cases. I have internet in TN. It sure as hell doesn't make up for things like Peet's coffee shops, intelligent people, music, cool restauraunts, et cetera. cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / CoolWar / Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma Originally-From: coolwar@aol.com (CoolWar) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma Date: 14 Aug 1995 22:07:24 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) A patent on a Warm Fusion Electrodynamic Generator was filed in June of 1995 by Amercian Cold Fusion Engineering and Supply, P.O. Box 191394, Sacramento, CA 95819-1394. The system utilizes the unique properties of deuterated carbon fullerene molecules as a seed. Orientation in a Magnetic Field produces a vortex and surrounding electrodynamic plasma. The inventors developing prototype systems and computer simulations in an effort to reduce to practice both theory and apparatus. All inquires for additional information are available via post at the above address or at 1-800-713-9345 during business hours. Warren Cooley, Inventor cudkeys: cuddy14 cudencoolwar cudlnCoolWar cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / Bill Rowe / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 19:26:39 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-1208950956330001@austin-1-5.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >***{Buy a "Hydrosonic Pump" from Griggs, create a calorimetric setup as >per your specifications (you know: one where you account for the energy >invested in the warmup phase), use the flow, input water temperature, and >power specs recommended by Griggs, do a steam run, and see if you get >excess heat. Simple. If you then get a percentage COP of 160 or so, as >reported by Jed, then you are in business. I would love to see you do it, >Barry. Of course, if you got the percentage COP of 160, your "hot fusion" >colleagues would tear you limb from limb, but why worry? That's a small >price to pay for making history, right? :-) --Mitchell Jones}*** Yeah, simple if you have independent funding, have no need to account for expenditure of that funding and don't mind investing your time etc. I would assume the Barry's funding like that of most of us doesn't come from venture capitalists. Rather it comes from fairly hard nosed project managers who want to see the work is useful to the organization and is likely to have some benefit. Getting funding for evaluation of the Griggs device which is most likely not an over unity device, isn't very likely at all. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / Bill Rowe / Re: Repeatability of cold fusion experiments Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Repeatability of cold fusion experiments Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 20:16:53 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <9508131602.AA20626@pilot08.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) wrote: >There is no single simple test that cold fusion experimental >results must pass before they can be certified as being correct >"beyond a reasonable medical certainty." The question of >repeatability of results provides a fine example for clouding >the issues by citing evidence that is largely of no consequence. > >It should be obvious that it is possible to devise an experiment >that gives incorrect results in a very reproducible manner. In >that case the mere fact that the result is reproducible tells us >nothing as to whether the result is, in fact, correct. [ skipped] >It is easy to say that cold fusion results suffer from a lack of >reproducibility. That clearly is the case, but the mere fact >that Cravens and Griggs have devices that heat water in a seemingly >reproducible way does not address all the issues that can be >lumped under the question of reproducibility. For example, we >really need to know why electrolysis of ordinary water in the >Cravens configuration gives an entirely different result from >the electrolysis of ordinary water in the original Pons and >Fleischmann configuration. Cravens has not "reproduced" the >Pons and Fleischmann results. I see that as a problem! One >possible explanation is that neither experiment demonstrates >a real effect. For the most part I agree with your post. However, I would pick a little at your choice of wording. It seems to me a reproducible experiment is correct in that the data generated is valid. The problem isn't the experiment or the data when the experiment is truly reproducible. Rather, I see the problem as the interpretation of that data or the conclusions being drawn from that data. To a large extent I agree I am doing a bit of quibbling here. However, I think this is an important point. It seems to me one of the main comments from believers is you can't argue with data, i.e., you can't say the data is invalid. Consequently, I think it is important to separate the data from the conclusions/interpretations. The Cravens and Griggs devices are good examples of the problem. Although these results haven't been truly reproduced in an independent manner, there does seem to be enough data to suggest something that isn't well understood is happening. I don't think the data that has been generated can really be considered "incorrect". However, I also don't think the data shows fusion is taking place yet. Nor am I convinced that either device is overunity. The idea that these are overunity fusion devices is a conclusion/intrepretation of the data which I don't feel is adequately supported. -- William Rowe browe@netcom.com MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383 cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.14 / Joseph Raulet / RE-Cold fusion?! Originally-From: Joseph Raulet Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE-Cold fusion?! Date: 14 Aug 1995 14:59:15 GMT Organization: RAULET Informatique It seems that all the argumemts of the hot fusionners agains validity of cold fusion experiment is that for them it seems that the results of such experiments are not repetable or occure randomly. For a person that are not involved in fusion reserch, it seems that this debate are more emotional than rational. In fact maybe somes cold fusionners should be more cairfull in their interpretations of their experimentals results, but in the same time the hot fusionner and all the scientific community should consider results of such experiment with more attentions and not reject them simply because it do not fit with the spirit of the moment. The fact that cold fusion don't produce results that match with actuals fusion models (not enough neutrons, to much heliums) do not meens that those results are du to experimantals errors. Maybe the day the cold fusionner will be take seriously is when cold fusion powered cars will travel on all roads? Maybe, or maybe not! Joseph Raulet cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / ZoltanCCC / Re: Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fullerene Fusion and Electrodynamic Plasma Date: 15 Aug 1995 02:42:54 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) We would all be awfully curious as to your actual experimental results. What is it exactly that you have achieved so far? Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.08.15 / Ramon Prasad / Re: Yoshiaka Arata Originally-From: < 100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata Date: 15 Aug 1995 07:31:50 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote (amongst other things) >... a "tritium" spectrum from a device that lacks the energy resolution to >measure one >...a "gamma" line from a NaI detector that.....could not possibly be what >it claimed to be F & P made some mistakes in interpretation of their results, possibly due to presenting the results in a last minute rush. These are documented in "Fire from Ice". I am not an experimental physicist, so will refrain from comment except to say that it is not wise to judge on the basis of (admitted) mistakes. >I am suggesting it would be a total waste of time. >If proponents of cold fusion really want to get academic physicists >interested they shoul learn some quantum mechanics... Why must the cold fusion phenomenon fit itself within the currently accepted formulations of quantum mechanics? There are many things that quantum theory cannot explain now, so that modifications will be required. If cold fusion turns out to be a new type of behavior of matter then quantum theory will require, at the very least, some modifications. Julian Schwinger, who published a series of tentative ideas on the cold fusion processes, made the comment: "Have we forgotten that physics is an experimental science?" Have there been no mistakes in the development of other areas in physics? If you personally have never made a mistake in your scientific life, then this is an experience that awaits you. If you have, do you think that others should judge your work only on the basis of these mistakes? It turns out that you want a new discovery to be made by perfect scientists who make no errors of interpretation, and that it should fully conform to the established tenets of quantum theory. Also it shold be such that it will not take up too much of your precious time, as you have other work to do. Is there anything else? If so just let me know, and I will inform the universe just how it will be required to behave in future. I will re-state that I believe that cold fusion demonstrates, on the basis of many experiments carried out on a world-wide basis, a new phenomenon which has no explanation on the basis of currently accepted ideas. Further, academic science has made a premature and invalid decision to disregard it. This should be rectified with all due speed as it holds out the possibility of making a significant impact on the worlds energy production problems. I will also make the prediction that academic science will in due time rectify this mistake and commit itself to documenting and explaining this phenomenon. Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy15 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 16 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------