1995.08.24 / Frank Jordan /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: Frank Jordan <fjordan@spacectr.cbu.edu>
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: 24 Aug 1995 18:18:54 GMT
Organization: Memphis Space Center

mberezetsk@aol.com (MBerezetsk) wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 1995 05:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
>> "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Black Holes suck! Gravity sucks!
>
>
>The wind blows.  It sucks.
>

No, the wind is called 'Maria'!

(Boy, is this thread getting off-topic!)

Frank Jordan
just nosying around


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenfjordan cudfnFrank cudlnJordan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 15:49:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 
     "If you are saying: 'we have made different experiments, and sometimes
     we observe excess heat, and sometimes we observe helium, and sometimes
     we observe nothing' I would accept your statement as a statement of a
     fact."
 
That is what I am saying, except you left out tritium. That is important.
Tritium is easy to detect; we are sure it is not due to contamination; and it
proves that a nuclear transmutation is occurring. Helium-4 is more difficult
to detect than tritium (because it is not radioactive). Helium is hard to
contain and there is a great deal of it the atmosphere. Helium-3 has been
detected in some experiments, which is more conclusive.
 
 
     "But if you say to me 'the excess energy we sometimes observe comes from
     a fusion reaction. . ."
 
I personally would never say that. I do not know where it comes from. I know
we can rule out chemistry and experimental error, and I know that there must
be some level of fusion going on, because it produces tritium and helium, but
I do not know what else it could be doing. Fission maybe?
 
 
     ". . . then I will ask for a repeatable experiment to prove it. . . "
 
You should ask for a repeatable experiment no matter what. You asked for it,
you got it. One of the most difficult and demanding forms of CF is the
original Pd electrolysis version, but if you are skilled in the art, you know
electrochemistry well, and you are willing to devote a couple of years to it,
I am sure you can repeat the experiment and get excess heat a fair number of
times. Your success rate should be roughly as good as it would be if you try
to make a powerful high temperature superconductor or manufacture a new
computer chip. Most of the controlling parameters are now understood, but
there are still inexplicable failures. Just be sure you read the literature
first and talk with the experts, particularly Storms.
 
Now if you want a repeatable experiment that any untrained guy in any lab can
do, forget it! That is like asking for quick, sure-fire, single-page set of
instructions that will allow any untrained person to perform open heart
surgery or write a 20,000 line process control program in C++.
 
 
     "That is the reason why your examples are irrelevant: The light bulb
     worked thanks to the Joule effect (which had been scientifically
     recognized in reproducible experiments), and to the radiation laws of
     hot bodies (same thing). The light bulb was NOT an experiment used to
     put in evidence NEW physical laws."
 
That is an artificial distinction, and -- more important --  you are
incorrect. There was a lot of controversial new science in the light bulb.
Edison made profound scientific breakthroughs while inventing it. That is why
he was viciously attacked by every scientist, scientific journal, magazine and
newspaper in the U.S. and Europe. He discovered that a high resistance
filament would work. Nobody had ever thought of that, so the experts lambasted
him for it. They did not understand it. They denounced it as "a fraud," "a
puerility" (Sci. Am. letter). Edwin Weston called Edison's claims "so
manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric
circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of
electrical machines." If Edison's work had been cut-and-dry circa 1878
physics, there would not have been such a hue and cry from the scientific
establishment.
 
In any case, you are forgetting that after 1879, vacuum tube devices starting
with the light bulb soon launched one of the greatest revolutions in science,
so the light bulb turned out to harbor many mysteries after all. For that
matter, if you talk to the experts at GE today I expect they will tell you
that many aspects of the incandescent lightbulb remain an unsolved mystery
today. Very little of the detailed physics of the bulb was known in 1878.
 
You are demanding that all experiments work with perfect reproducibility from
the start. You demand that we know in advance what all controlling parameters
are before we do the research. Time and causality go the other direction. We
start out ignorant and we learn from experiments. If we followed your rules we
would have to know everything before we learned anything. Science and
technology would come to a dead halt.
 
 
     "By the way, if Mendel used sweet peas instead of (animal) babies to
     study heredity laws, it is also because sweet peas gave near 100%
     reproducibility."
 
That statement makes me think you are no gardener. Also, you have not read
much about Mendel, becomes many modern critics think he fudged his data. The
results are too good to be true.
 
 
     "At the risk of repeating myself: I am quite happy to believe that
     excess heat has been measured in CF experiments . . .
 
Good for you! The excess heat alone, in and of itself, proves that CF is not a
chemical reaction. It produces thousands and thousand of times too much energy
for that; CF devices with the mass of a small match have generated as much
energy as a burning match for weeks at a time, continuously, with little or no
input. The heat cannot prove that CF *is* fusion, but it does prove *it is
not* chemistry, which means that it is a revolutionary source of energy.
 
 
     "What I not convinced of is that this excess heat comes from a fusion
     reaction."
 
Neither am I. Some of it has to, but there is sometimes not enough tritium or
helium to explain it all.
 
 
     "And the only way to convince me of that is to show a reproducible
     experiment . . .
 
I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink. I can show you
experiments, but will you look? The experiments do not prove that CF is
fusion. They prove it is not chemistry. They prove there must be nuclear
reactions, because the process transmutes elements. Perhaps other types of
reactions also occur.  Maybe it is fusion, maybe fission, or maybe something
else. I don't know what it is, and I don't care.
 
 
     ". . . because if identical starting parameters produce identical
     results, there is a chance that the variables you are manipulating are a
     complete set."
 
Ah, ha!!! Wait a second! Not starting parameters. It is nearly impossible to
make starting parameters the same. We do not yet have that level of control.
What you are saying is equivalent to a man in 1878 demanding of Edison:
 
     I want to see the same level of vacuum, I want to see all filaments
     precisely alike, I demand that your method of sealing the bulb always
     work . . .
 
Edison, before tossing the fellow out on his ear would say: "What the hell do
you think we are trying to accomplish here!?! Why do you think we are working
day and night? It is to achieve a level of control that will allow us to
ensure that starting conditions are the same. We just figured out how to
measure conditions!"
 
You are asking too much. CF devices are like atomic bombs; every one of
them goes off with a different bang. Well into the 1960s atom bomb makers
could not predict how big the explosions would be, or exactly what the fallout
products would be. For that matter, nobody today can tell you exactly how much
energy a ton of coal will produce. It depends on where the coal comes from,
how wet it is, and so on. Even the experts do not know all of the controlling
parameters. (Sometimes, coal produces more energy at much higher power than
expected, which is why some Eastern European coal fired power plants explode.
Expert scientists from  the Tennessee Valley Authority are helping them solve
these problems, which are primarily caused by water content they say.)
 
We cannot yet insure *starting parameters* with CF but we can do something
else just as good. We can load the cathodes as much as possible, to some
unpredictable level between 0.80 and 0.95, and then we can diddle with current
density, temperature and other parameters. Data points taken from a loading
level of, say, 0.85 will fall together. Points will cluster, showing a
dramatic and predictable increase in power with increased loading. What we
cannot do is push the thing to one specific loading level on demand. When
loading happens to reach a particular level, results are usually the same as
they were last time that level was achieved, assuming the other parameters are
the same. (The others are usually easier to control.) The critical parameter
-- loading -- drifts around partially controlled, but the data points tell a
coherent story.
 
Naturally, there are many other problems with materials that can shoot down an
experiment, high loading or not. You have to get the basics wired, and that is
not easy! Contamination and cracked cathode material will prevent the
reaction. Surface chemistry, catalysis and electrochemistry are well know for
being fickle and difficult. Tiny, trace levels of chemicals will "poison" the
surface and prevent reactions. Electrochemical deposition is commonly used in
industry and in things like computer chip manufacturing. It is notoriously
difficult: part science, part art form, part black magic. CF is much easier
than quark-hunting or brain surgery, but it does take expertise.
 
 
     ". . . . Then you can start to make science."
 
No, you have it backwards. Then we will be finished making science. At that
point we can start writing textbooks.
 
 
     "The Fermilab experiment gave a result which had been previously
     predicted by theory . . .  CF, on the other side, is a phenomenon that
     goes against theory."
 
How do you know? Many physicists including Schwinger and Hagelstein have told
me it does not go against theory. Why are you so sure it will take new physics
to explain CF? Do you know more about physics than Julian Schwinger did? Have
you reviewed his theory, can you be sure it does not fit into the canon of
accepted science? I myself have not got a clue what it will take to explain
CF. I cannot begin to understand physics at that level. But I do know that
many expert physicists assert that CF does not violate known laws and accepted
theories.
 
In any case, even if it violated every law going back to Newton, it would
still be real, because evidence always beats theory. The S/N ratio of the data
is very high, so it must be real, so any theory that predicts it cannot be
happening is wrong. When there is a conflict between well established data
and well established theory, the data always wins, the theory always loses. No
Exceptions Granted.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 24 Aug 1995 20:40:27 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <41hrm2$aqd@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:

>      Your comment on the quark discovery at Fermilab has its part of
> truth in it. However, reproducibility is a diferent problem in that
> case, because the experiment can be checked against theory. The
> Fermilab experiment gave a result which had been previously
> predicted by theory, and therefore it acts as a single (until it is
> repeated) confirmation of a theory.

Two different confirmations of a theory, actually: the CDF and D0
collaborations independently observed top quark production.  And note
that their values for the top mass agree with those obtained by the
completely independent method of radiative corrections to electroweak
observables at the Z resonance.

Note, finally, that there is a very big difference between "nobody has
tried to replicate this result" and "those who have tried to replicate
this result have failed to do so."
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 17:09:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The level of reproducibility and predictability in CF experiments is much
better than it was in other fields at this stage in their development. Ed
Storms reports that roughly half of his pre-tested cathodes work. All of
Patterson's cathode arrays work, because they include thousands of individual
beads, both good ones and duds. After 20 years of research into electric
lighting, and after 5 years of intensive R&D in semiconductors most of units
produced did not even work at all. Think about the situation with incandescent
electric lights. Research began in 1858. Twenty years later, despite the best
efforts of some of the leading scientists working with the best vacuum pumps
and materials on earth:
 
Many bulbs did not glow at all.
 
Some bulbs glowed feebly for a little while, then went out.
 
Some lit up brilliantly for a second and then burnt out.
 
Some glowed for hours, occasionally flaring up, and then dying down. You will
see this happen today with an old light on the verge of dying.
 
A few glowed brightly for weeks.
 
Performance data, in short, was all over the place. Performance was
unpredictable. Nevertheless, I am sure that not a single scientist anywhere in
1878 would have claimed that incandescent lights do not exist. The effect
could always be reproduced, but you never knew how many shots it would take or
how well it would work. They said that the control parameters for lights was
not well understood. They said that the incandescent light require an
impossibly difficult level of high tech equipment both to manufacture them
with reasonable quality control (pumps, glass sealing machines, and so on),
and to use them (generators, transformers etc.) The critics of 1878 were
scientists; the objections they raised were sound. Unlike today's scientists,
they did not claim that because you cannot make a thing work exactly the same
way twice, that means the thing does not exist. That idea is irrational,
unscientific, and it flies in the face of common sense and everyday
experience. If you think that is true then you cannot believe in souffles,
firewood, begonias or babies, because they always come out differently.
 
Those scientists back in 1878 were quite right that electric lighting required
an impossibly difficult level of high tech precision and scientific knowledge.
It was impossible for them, but not for Edison. He ordered the best vacuum
pump from a university (ordered, took delivery but did not pay for -- that was
his way of doing business). He promptly improved it to levels of performance
unheard of. He solved several other "impossible" problems, and in a few years
he transformed the uncontrollable, inconsistent lamps into commercially
viable products.
 
I find it annoying when Mario Pain writes that CF "does not exist as a
SCIENTIFIC OBJECT. With more research, CF could became scientific, but only
when this experiment is found." By his standards, transistors did not become
SCIENTIFIC OBJECTS until the late-1950s, thirty years after research on them
began, and a couple of years after the the Bell people got a Nobel prize for
inventing them! He would dismiss all of the scientists and all of the work
done on incandescent lights before Edison. That's absurd. Even Edison would
not have done that.
 
There is another aspect of this problem that I find hilarious. Many of the
scientists who criticize CF for being "irreproducible" and unpredictable are
high energy physicists. These people look for quarks or what-have-you at
places like Fermilab. They use one-of-a-kind unique machines, not duplicated
anywhere in the world. They repeat the test trillions upon trillions of times,
bombarding a target with countless particles. They run for months, and they
say the laws of nature make it impossible for them to predict whether they
will get a result on any given day, or in any given month, or during any
giving fiscal year for any given billion dollars. And they have the gall to
accuse *us* of running irreproducible experiments!!! Good Grief! According to
the standards they apply to us, the whole of high energy plasma physics should
be tossed into the garbage. By 1990 CF had been reproduced by dozens of labs,
including Amoco, TAMU, SRI and many others. A year after the Quark experiment,
who has replicated Fermilab? Where is there another Fermilab quark-finding
gizmo? These findings have not been reproduced!!! Therefore they do not exist.
Can they show me a quark any time, on demand, with 100% reproducibility? No?
Then it isn't science *by their standards that they apply to us*.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.23 / J Vaneskahian /  Student Solutions Manual?
     
Originally-From: jvanes01@fiu.edu (Jean-Marie G. Vaneskahian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Student Solutions Manual?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 23:44:21 GMT
Organization: Shadow Information Services, Inc.

I have been going crazy looking for the student solutions manual to:

Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems
By: Jerry B. Marion     Stephen T. Thornton
4th Edition
ISBN# 0-03-097302-3

I know the student solutions manual is published by the same author
(Marion) and its ISBN#:

ISBN# 0-03-097304-X

My bookstore does not have it and the publisher said they would have
it October 6th, 1995.  Does anyone know if their bookstore has it in
stock or anyone know who I can call to find out?   Thanks a million
for the help...

                                                Sincerely yours,
                                                Jean-Marie Vaneskahian


*******************************************************************************
*                           Jean-Marie G. Vaneskahian                         *
*                        Florida International University                     *
*                          Physics Major (Spring 1997)                        *
*                         Email Address: jvanes01@fiu.edu                     *
*                 WWW Home Page URL: http://www.fiu.edu/~jvanes01             *
*******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjvanes01 cudfnJean-Marie cudlnVaneskahian cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Tom Droege /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 24 Aug 1995 01:05:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <41db44$n8g@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) says:
>
>
>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>
>>4.  We are developing a solar stove device for use primarily in 3rd-world
>>countries.  Do you realize that half the world's people cook and heat by
>>burning biomass (primarily wood and dung)? -- and that this results in some 
>>5 million deaths of children
>>per year due to respiratory problems?  Our goal is a cheap, effective solar
>>heating unit, for boiling water, frying over, etc.  
>
>In a similar vein I've always thought that solar-powered refrigerators,
>to preserve food in remote areas, would be of great benefit to 3rd world
>peoples.  But could such a device be efficient enough to be practical, 
>and could it be mass-produced cheaply?
>
>
Does anyone remember the Servelle (sp?) refrigerator?  It was gas powered
and worked by a "bubble" pump as I recall.  I think not so efficient, 
but I think it competed very favorably with electricity considering the
difference in price of gas and electricity.  Should work just fine with
solar heated fluid.  As I recall the hot side did not have to be all that
hot.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Tom Droege /  Re: CF Project
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Project
Date: 24 Aug 1995 01:07:35 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <41elvt$b6p@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> says:
>
>realmikel@aol.com (REALMIKEL) wrote:
>>I am a student doing a project trying to creative positive results with a
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>>CF device or theory. Can anyone help or guide me, please email
>
>I can only give you one piece of advice: forget it !!!
>
>
>M. Pain
>
>
I disagree!  You will learn a lot about science independant of whether
you get a positive or negative result.  Still, I would not predict a
positive result.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.23 /  MBerezetsk /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mberezetsk@aol.com (MBerezetsk)
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: 23 Aug 1995 22:37:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>On Sun, 13 Aug 1995 05:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
> "Ammons@cris.com" <Ammons@cris.com> wrote:


>Black Holes suck! Gravity sucks!


The wind blows.  It sucks.




cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmberezetsk cudlnMBerezetsk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 07:56:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <41b7np$d17@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>Jeffrey A. Dracup (attilasw@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: I'd have to agree with Mr. Budnik.
>
>Pehaps ypou are confusing Paul Koloc with Paul Budnik,
>[...]
>: If the goal is to increase the net standard of living for our
>: particular species, we will require a) more land and b) more energy. 
>: There has always been a direct correlation between the average quantity
>: of usuable energy available per capita and the global average standard
>: of living.

>I disagree. To accomplish a higher standard of living will not necessarily
>require more energy per capita in developed countries. It will not
>require more land. It will require wiser use of the resources we have.

The two points of view may not be so incompatible.  
There is a lot of land in developed countries and elsewhere that would
benefit from the application of high efficiency and high power density
application of energy to promote the sustainment of far higher average 
biomass density. 

This could be done for the benefit of mankind, beast, and flora, 
including expanding wildlife reservations.  The key items are 
efficiency and high power density.  We don't need polluting energy 
sources, either causing land obscuration or thermal, chemical or 
nuclear polution.  

P.B seems a bit pessimistic about government developed fusion, (and 
I agree), but he apparently doesn't share my enthusiasm for early 
aneutronic energy developed by private enterprise, or perhaps joint 
efforts with the innovative lead driven by industry.  

>Paul Budnik
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.23 / Bruce TOK /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 23 Aug 1995 14:16:20 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I wrote:

: Do the computation again, this time including only mature forests.  A
: mature forest is defined as one whose morphology is qualitatively
: similar to an old-growth forest (to get that you have to leave a large
: area alone for over a century, and in a place like the NW it would be
: longer).  They do exist; I have seen them.  But their extent is not
: large.  Hint: most people have never seen a mature forest.

and meron@cars3.uchicago.edu answered again:

: You may be right on this.  The real question is, what is the current ballance
: between cutting and reseeding.  I would add to it a second one which is, what
: is currently the "life time" of a patch of forest.  What I mean by this is, 
: assuming a given forest area is cut and then reseeded, how long before we get
: to it again for the next cutting.  Based on what you wrote above, the desireable
: situation would be:
: 1) Reseeding rate = cutting rate.
: 2) Mean lifetime = few centuries.


We could only get this with a cutting/seeding rate lower than the
current one.  Note that (1) above relates to an "energy balance" while
(2) relates to a "confinement time".  In equilibrium, if the confinement
time is shorter you have a lower energy content (tokamak physics,
there).  

In the NW, the timber companies claim through their road signs that the
growth time for their "managed forests" is about 75 years.  Clearly,
they've done some sort of a balance as in (1) and (2) above, and with
short-term projections of product demand (don't ask me how) they've come
up with this 75-year figure (the road signs are something like "last
cut, 1983, next cut, 2060", as I saw them in 1992 while taking in the
devastation).  Also as clear, this 75-year figure is _much_ less than
what a forest needs to regenerate, unless one is content with what NW
loggers call "dog-hairs".

Or, they could be simply lying, since it takes 75 years to call their
claim.  Timber companies like old-growth forest, since that is where
they get the hardest and purest raw lumber.  They will cut all of it,
eventually. 


--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Metal Deuterides
Date: 24 Aug 1995 21:02:27 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote:
: In article <40j23v$3mi@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

:   > Chernobyl exploded.  The fire followed. 

:   > Analysis of the fission products indicated that it was blown apart 
:   > by a prompt-critical fission reaction.  True, it was more like using 
:   > gunpowder rather than plastic explosive because of the lack of a 
:   > tamper, but it did blow up. 

I never meant to assert otherwise; but just that you couldn't
get O(Hiroshima) from a criticality accident.   The original question
was whether a 10cm cube of deuterated uranium could be give 
nuclear explosion.

I wonder though; would it be possible or reasonable to have a very
small fission reactor using deuterated U?  Heavy water works OK, but
if one were to do without the oxygens could one do better?  What sort
of size/enrichment might one need? 

Imagine a design that is subcritical by itself, but could produce net
power given an external input of neutrons.  MIght this be the nuclear
powered car? :-) 

:     By atomic bomb standards it may have been a fissle, but it was
: certainly well tamped and acted like a shaped charge aimed up.  Just
: like the Idaho disaster the trigger involved rapid removal of the main
: control rod, and so the explosion started at the bottom and propagate
: upward.  Does anyone yet have an estimate of the equivalent power of
: the explosion in kilotons?  

Given pictures of the building's size and its destruction "approximately"
about as big as the bomb in Oklahoma, I'd make a really wild half
assed guess of about 1 to 4 ton equivalent of chemical explosive.  Which
is a hell of a lot. 

I think that in WW2, there was a really bad accident loading
munitions into a warship.  I think that explosion was O(5kt) and
obliterated one ship entirely and blew up large chunks 
of another one hundreds of meters into the air. 

: 					Robert I. Eachus

cheers
Matt
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 17:56:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) asks:
 
    "What is this miracle of physics that defeats the conservation of
    energy laws we've all come to know and love :-)"
 
Nobody claims any miracles. There is no evidence that the Griggs Experiment
is a violation of conservation of energy.
 
 
    "ie: how is this anomoly explained?"
 
Nobody has attempted to explain how it works yet. However, when someone does
finally explain it, we assume the explanation will take into account the First
Law. There is not yet any reason to think that any laws will be violated or
changed by the Griggs machine, or by any of the mainstream cold fusion
experiments. Many theories have been proposed to explain these observations.
These theories stay within the bounds of known physics.
 
Much of the "skeptical" speculation about the Griggs machine that was posted
here violated the Second Law, but that too is uncalled for.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 00:14:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <41i624$25h@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
John Lewis <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> wrote:

>It's very important in this kind of a project to find and address
>*all* of the constraints and parameters.  For example, very few parts
>of the world have sunshine 365 days a year.  What are users of a solar
>stove going to do on cloudy days?

Searching for, finding and hauling back fuel for cooking presently
consumes a large portion of the energy balance of 3rd world societies.
Yes, the sun doesn't shine 365 days a year, but most of the 3rd world
lies in areas where the sun is quite common. The idea is that 80%
of the fuel could be saved with solar technology if it can be reduced
to 3rd world pricing (meaning essentially free -- remember that it would
pay the rest of the world to finance conversions to save the world's
weather!)

>Myself
>and a couple of associates once spent some time on concepts for solar-powered
>water purifiers, which we would have proposed to a programme of the
>Canadian International development Agency.

Another good idea whose time has come -- plastic films are readily
available.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 95 00:47:49 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <RDCj7Pj.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Matt Austern <matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> 
>>I think that a lot of people in this group have no idea what
>>reproducibility means.  When I talk about something being reproducible
>>I mean that two different groups do the same experiment and get
>>the same result.  I explicitly do *not* mean that two groups do 
>>vaguely similar experiments and that both of them get results that
>>seem kinda weird in one way or another.
> 
>Yes, right. Thanks for telling us what you mean. Now why don't you shut up,
>and go read the literature on cold fusion. You will find many examples of
>different groups getting the same results.
> 
>>It's been six years, and I still haven't even seen a single example
>>of replication in "cold fusion".  That's one of the reasons I no
>>longer think it's worth taking seriously.
> 
>No, that is not true. That is not what you mean. Here, let me help you; what
>you mean to say is:
> 
>It's been six years, and I still REFUSE TO LOOK AT A single example
>replication. I AM PRETENDING THE RESULTS DO NOT EXIST, I AM ACTING
>LIKE A 2-YEAR OLD WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN BED AN HOUR AGO. That's
>one of the reasons WHY NOBODY SHOULD TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. I have never
>read anything, I know nothing about the subject, and my postings are
>based on imagination and ignorance instead of science. I am peeved that
>you people insist on doing science instead of make-believe!
> 
>There, is that better?
> 
>Now go to bed. And if you no linger think CF is worth taking seriously,
>don't read the postings in this forum and don't post here either, please.
>Do us a favor and go away.
> 
>- Jed

Jed -- 

It would be much better if you had presented even one single example where 
there is _general_agreement_ that replication has, in fact, occurred. Can you 
do it? The "read the literature" response doesn't work as proof.

Saying things often and loudly does not make them true.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 22:03:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
 
>It would be much better if you had presented even one single example where 
>there is _general_agreement_ that replication has, in fact, occurred. Can you 
>do it? The "read the literature" response doesn't work as proof.
 
Okay, it is generally agreed by people in the field replication has, in fact,
occurred in the work at Los Alamos by Ed Storms. (That is, Storms replicated
P&F and Takahashi). It is generally agreed that Kunimatsu closely replicated
McKubre. Most everyone in the field that I know agree with Miles that in
1989, Miles, MIT, Cal Tech and Harwell replicated P&F fairly well. When you
take into account current density and other parameters, you see that their
results match up nicely.
 
As far as I am concerned, replicating P&F means getting excess heat from a
Pd cathode in D2O far beyond the limits of chemistry. I say that any
incandescent light that glows visibly for longer than a few minutes is obviously
an incandescent light, and therefore it replicates Farmer and the other
early scientists who worked on electric lights. I do not demand that it be
*exactly* as bright, or that it last *exactly* as long, I say that if you
can clearly see it, and it lasts long enough for you to be sure it is working,
you have replicated. In CF, I say that anyone who has measured excess heat
ten times greater than chemistry could produce at a reasonably high S/N ratio
has replicated. Whether they see 1 watt for a few hours, 20 watts for months,
or 60 watts for four months makes no difference to me, any more than it
matters just how bright the lamp gets, or just how big the nuclear explosion
is. A clear, undeniable, easily measured positive result far beyond the
limits of chemistry proves the point, and these demands for *precisely* the
same power levels are absurd. You might as well demand that all scientists
wear the same color shirts while performing the experiment.
 
By my standard, dozens of scientists have replicated P&F -- hundreds have.
The people at Amoco stated unequivically that they got heat far beyond
chemistry and tritium back in 1990. They did not say "maybe" or "we think we
did" they stated it as a simple, undeniable fact, because the signal to
noise ratio is so high. People at universities and corporations all over
Japan have seen the effect. People at dozens of U.S. labs and corporations
have. The worst enemies of cold fusion did the experiments back in 1989 and
even *they* saw it! That is best proof the effect exists: MIT, Harwell and
Cal Tech saw it, even though they deny it. Open your eyes, review the
literature and you will see *dozens* of reports, hundreds of reports. Two
years ago the total number of papers exceeded 1500, and most of them are
positive. Anyone who continues to deny the existance of the excess heat
effect in face of so much evidence and so many widespread reports at such
high S/N ratios is living in a dream world. Science can only built upon
experimental evidence! Not theories, not wishful thinking, not denial of
reality. Any skilled electrochemist who does the experiment according to
the protocals and suggestions published years ago *will see the effect*. It
may take a few years of hard work, but it is a heck of a lot easier than
finding a quark.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 19:39:14 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <ZHPDrPl.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
> 
>     "If you are saying: 'we have made different experiments, and sometimes
>     we observe excess heat, and sometimes we observe helium, and sometimes
>     we observe nothing' I would accept your statement as a statement of a
>     fact."
> 
>That is what I am saying, except you left out tritium. That is important.
>Tritium is easy to detect; we are sure it is not due to contamination; and it
>proves that a nuclear transmutation is occurring. Helium-4 is more difficult
>to detect than tritium (because it is not radioactive). Helium is hard to
>contain and there is a great deal of it the atmosphere. Helium-3 has been
>detected in some experiments, which is more conclusive.

This is exactly what critics mean when the say CF experiments have not
been replicated. The only commonality seems to be more heat than can be
explained by known chemistry. This just isn't sufficient to consider CF
experiments as being replicated or an instance of fusion.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 25 Aug 1995 01:23:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <B-EALDJ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>I will give the "skeptics" all the fuel they like. Let them say anything they
>like about me. My statement was not half strong enough. Dick Blue has spent
>six years denying the most obvious, most fundamental, most basic laws of
>science. He has done this in order to deceive people and to derail rational
>discussion. He wants to replace the science of calorimetry with his voodoo
>theories of magic energy storage in water. He wants to tear out all the laws
>of physics going back to the days of James Watt and J.P. Joule.

Apparently Jed never looks in the mirror...

 -----------------------------------------------------
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Matt Austern /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 24 Aug 1995 09:05:27 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <hZAAzvb.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> The level of reproducibility and predictability in CF experiments is much
> better than it was in other fields at this stage in their development. Ed
> Storms reports that roughly half of his pre-tested cathodes work. 

I think that a lot of people in this group have no idea what
reproducibility means.  When I talk about something being reproducible
I mean that two different groups do the same experiment and get
the same result.  I explicitly do *not* mean that two groups do 
vaguely similar experiments and that both of them get results that
seem kinda weird in one way or another.

If one group boils water in an electrolytic cell and find an excess
of He(3) but no excess of neutrons, while another group boils water
and finds neutrons but no He(3), then this is not a replication.  It
is a contradiction and it suggests that at least one of the
experiments is wrong.

It's been six years, and I still haven't even seen a single example
of replication in "cold fusion".  That's one of the reasons I no
longer think it's worth taking seriously.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Mario Pain /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 24 Aug 1995 09:54:20 GMT
Organization: cea

 bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
 >Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
 >>
 >>Sorry, but my posting was perhaps not clear enough. A repeatable experiment
 >>means that EVERY time the experiment is tried with the SAME parameters it
 >>gives the SAME result. The fact that "many" experiment have given "similar"
 >>results is not enough. Example: If I throw a ball, and it only falls to 
 >>the ground in about 50 % of the cases, I still can say that "many experiments
 >>give similar results". But gravity is a scientific fact since the ball falls
 >>in 100 % of the cases.
 >
 >Unless you "throw" it hard enough to achieve escape velocity.  :->  And, 
 >depending on the density of the ball, windspeed, angle of throw, etc, etc,
 >it probably won't land in the same place 100% of the time.
 >
As the English say, "I rest my case, mylud". I think my argument is clear
(if you read it in good faith...)

 
 >> ...
 >>every time it is tried you cannot do scientific work. That does not mean you
 >>cannot continue the search for hidden parameters in your experiment so as to
 >>devise THE experiment that could put CF in the scientific field. It only means 
 >>that CF is not AS YET scientific.
 >

In the sense that it can (and should!!!) be conducted with scientific methods, I
do agree.

Thanks for listening

Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Doug Merritt /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 03:16:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <41c94e$f0g@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk writes:
>In article <dougDDMBz2.Gxw@netcom.com>, Doug Merritt <doug@netcom.com> wrote:
>>The Unabomber writes of visiting remote areas in the Sierras, so I
>>guess he doesn't actually say "too crowded"; he just dislikes technology
>
>	has the unabomber made public statements?  i'm afraid i've
>	only heard of this person via the net and the fbi most wanted
>	page.
>	is there anywhere on the net where i can read them?

Information officially provided by the FBI:

	http://www.usdoj.gov/fbi/unabom.html

A site with newspaper articles, copies of the manifesto excerpts,
etc, maintained by someone who thought more should be online
than the terse FBI stuff:

	http://pages.prodigy.com/CA/gvmm68e/home.html

The background on the "public statements" is that some newspapers
decided to publish excerpts from a long work that the Unabomber
requested be published. There have also been a couple of letters
that have been made public.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendoug cudfnDoug cudlnMerritt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.25 / Bruce Simpson /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 03:33:29 GMT
Organization: FaxMail Technologies

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote:

>For those here that are not up to date in the Griggs device:

>It is a machine that rotates a cylinder full of holes. The device heats
>water by working against the hydrodynamic resistance (it stirs the water)
>and it apparently generates more than ten percent excess heat over the
>work the pump puts in. It has been replicated a number of times and it
>produces consistant results. 

What is this miracle of physics that defeats the conservation of
energy laws we've all come to know and love :-)

ie: how is this anomoly explained?


*----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----*
|     bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz     |
*--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-*

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Jim Davidson /  Re: Nuclear Contamination
     
Originally-From: Jim Davidson <jimd@electrotex.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Nuclear Contamination
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:15:01 GMT
Organization: EasyNet

Excellent response.  Your advice is rational and well delivered.

Jim Davidson
http://www.phoenix.net/~nuclear

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjimd cudfnJim cudlnDavidson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 05:29:05 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <41gj8o$mc6@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov says...
>

>Does anyone remember the Servelle (sp?) refrigerator?  It was gas powered
>and worked by a "bubble" pump as I recall.

I believe that the Servel trademark for gas-fired ammonia-absorption
refigeration is now owned by Arkla Industries (Evansville, Indiana, USA).
The domestic Servel fridges are out of production lo these many years,
but the ammonia absorption cycle had a come-back in RV refrigerators
(easy changeover 120VAC/12VDC/LPG!) of mostly Japanese manufacture.  I
see a small (3.1 cu ft) unit in J.C. Whitney for $700.

Considering that Whitney is not a high-markup distributor, I'd say it
would be hard to peddle this technology to third-world applications
without some major cost breakthrough.

Cheers,
  -Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 24 Aug 1995 12:35:13 GMT
Organization: cea

     Since your last entry was very long, I prefer not to quote from it, but 
answer to your main ideas.

     First of all, there seems to be a problem with terms. It is necessary here
to make a difference betwen a PHENOMENON and an EXPLANATION. If you are saying:
"we have made different experiments, and sometimes we observe excess heat, and
sometimes we observe helium, and sometimes we observe nothing" I would accept
your statement as a statement of a fact. But if you say to me "the excess
energy we sometimes observe comes from a fusion reaction", then I will ask for
a repeatable experiment to prove it. That is the reason why your examples are
irrelevant: The light bulb worked thanks to the Joule effect (which had been
scientificaly recognised in reproductible experiments), and to the radiation 
laws of hot bodies (same thing). The light bulb was NOT an experiment used to
put in evidence NEW physical laws. And the same goes for "souffles, firewood,
begonias or babies". By the way, if Mendel used sweet peas instead of (animal)
babies to study heredity laws, it is also because sweet peas gave near 100%
reproductibility.
     At the risk of repeating myself: I am quite happy to believe that excess
heat has been measured in CF experiments. I do NOT think (a lot of people do)
that all cold fusioners are crooks. What I not convinced of is that this 
excess heat comes from a fusion reaction. And the only way to convince me of that
is to show a reproducible experiment, because if identical strarting parameters
produce identical results, there is a chance that the variables you are manipu-
lating are a complete set. Then you can start to make science.
     And by the way, a totally unscientific product can sell very well. I the
human race waited to understand fire before using it, we would still be in the
cave age.

     Your comment on the quark discovery at Fermilab has its part of truth in
it. However, reproducibility is a diferent problem in that case, because the
experiment can be checked against theory. The Fermilab experiment gave a result
which had been previously predicted by theory, and therefore it acts as a single
(until it is repeated) confirmation of a theory. CF, on the other side, is a
phenomenon that goes against theory. If there was a coherent theory that predicted
cold fusion before it was observed, the problem of reproducibility would not be 
the same.

Thanks for listening

Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / Monkey King /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 24 Aug 1995 14:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Concerning the safety issue of solar stoves, I think you can heat a plate
first, then put the pot/pan on the plate.  Properly engineered, it should
be pretty safe.


-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 / John Lewis /  Re: Hello again / Solar stove
     
Originally-From: court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hello again / Solar stove
Date: 24 Aug 1995 15:32:20 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept at Memorial University NF


>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>
>4.  We are developing a solar stove device for use primarily in 3rd-world
>countries.  Do you realize that half the world's people cook and heat by
>burning biomass (primarily wood and dung)? -- and that this results in some 
>5 million deaths of children
>per year due to respiratory problems?  Our goal is a cheap, effective solar
>heating unit, for boiling water, frying over, etc.  

It's very important in this kind of a project to find and address
*all* of the constraints and parameters.  For example, very few parts
of the world have sunshine 365 days a year.  What are users of a solar
stove going to do on cloudy days?  The cost and complexity of maintaining
two separate heating systems will be unwelcome.  Again, "cheap" is a more
complex concept than at first appears - will the maintenance costs be low?
Will the governments in countries where these stoves are to be sold view
them as foreign novelties and tax them heavily?

I'm sure that you have thought about all of these issues, and I'd be
interested in hearing more (and to Hell with it being off-topic).  Myself
and a couple of associates once spent some time on concepts for solar-powered
water purifiers, which we would have proposed to a programme of the
Canadian International development Agency.  We didn't get wery far,
I must say.

I would suggest that if you do come up with what seems to be a viable
concept, that you arrange to visit a country where the stove might be
used as soon as possible.  There is no substitute for field experience,
and no substitute for the PI having that field experience.

Good luck!

John Lewis
NewfieJohn
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 13:59:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Austern <matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
 
>I think that a lot of people in this group have no idea what
>reproducibility means.  When I talk about something being reproducible
>I mean that two different groups do the same experiment and get
>the same result.  I explicitly do *not* mean that two groups do 
>vaguely similar experiments and that both of them get results that
>seem kinda weird in one way or another.
 
Yes, right. Thanks for telling us what you mean. Now why don't you shut up,
and go read the literature on cold fusion. You will find many examples of
different groups getting the same results.
 
>It's been six years, and I still haven't even seen a single example
>of replication in "cold fusion".  That's one of the reasons I no
>longer think it's worth taking seriously.
 
No, that is not true. That is not what you mean. Here, let me help you; what
you mean to say is:
 
It's been six years, and I still REFUSE TO LOOK AT A single example
replication. I AM PRETENDING THE RESULTS DO NOT EXIST, I AM ACTING
LIKE A 2-YEAR OLD WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN BED AN HOUR AGO. That's
one of the reasons WHY NOBODY SHOULD TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. I have never
read anything, I know nothing about the subject, and my postings are
based on imagination and ignorance instead of science. I am peeved that
you people insist on doing science instead of make-believe!
 
There, is that better?
 
Now go to bed. And if you no linger think CF is worth taking seriously,
don't read the postings in this forum and don't post here either, please.
Do us a favor and go away.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 25 04:37:07 EDT 1995
------------------------------
