1995.08.29 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:47:35 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <41midb$biv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ZoltanCCC wrote :

>I hereby thank Dr. S.E.Jones for faxing me a copy of Kasagi's paper.
>
>For those who have not seen this I summarize again here:
>
>The authors bombarded deuterated titanium targets with low energy (up to
>150 keV) deuteron particles. The target titanium was deuterated up to a
>level of 1.2, particle emissions were detected at various angles with
>various filters and barriers.
>
>In this experiment one would expect collision products from primary d+d
>reactions as well as secondary reactions where the products from the
>primary collisions collide with further d particles. Other reactions can
>also be expected such as collisions with contaminants and the titanium
>itself.
>
>The detectors in this experiment found protons up to 17 MeV as well as
>alpha particles up to 6.5 MeV energies, these cannot be explained by
>primary or secondary collisions. The spectrum structure consisted of a
>large bump and a sharp peak superimposed. The sharp peak corresponded to
>an anomalous high concentration of He3 in the target. The large bump could
>be explained by the (3) secondary reaction below but this could not
>account for the 18 MeV protons at the high end of the spectrum. The paper
>discusses various reactions that could produce the He4 particles and
>concludes that they could not be produced by any known mechanism. 
>
>
>The expected primary reactions are:
>
>D + D    ->    p + t  ( 4.03 MeV )                   (1)
>
>D + D    ->    n + He3 ( 3.27 MeV )               (2)
>
>Secondary reactions:
>
>D + He3  ->  p + He4 ( 18.35 MeV )              (3)
>
>D + t  ->  n + He4 (  )                                  (4)
>
>The authors propose to explain both the anomalous proton and alpha
>emissions by the same mechanism. This is a proposed reaction:
>
>D + D + D  -> p + n + He4     (21.62 MeV)    (5)
>
>If this reaction were to happen it would properly account for the observed
>spectra of protons and He4 particles. The trouble is that this is a three
>body reaction and should only happen very rarely if observed at all. This
>means that if the experimantalists are right there is an unknown
>amplification mechanism that causes a significant increase in the reaction
>rate of the (5) reaction.
>
>From here on my personal comments follow:
>
>It seems to me that the amplification factor might be some kind of
>coupling mechanism which may bring two deuterons together so that they can
>later be hit by the deuteron from the beam. Based on our previous
>discussions here this may have something to do with the electron being
>caught in between the deuterons. At a loading factor of 1.2 there are many
>titanium atoms that have two deuterons in their outermost shells. Such a
>coupling may be relevant from cold fusion point of view.
>
>I would kind of be curious about the spectrum up to 1 MeV of incident
>deuteron energy, because at that level enough energy is available to emit
>a neutrino and finalize the electron capture. Of course that reaction is
>mediated by the weak interaction and would happen rarely it still might be
>relevant for the fusion to occur.
>
>
>Zoltan Szakaly
>
I would like to propose an alternative.
Deuterons already embedded in the surface layers of the titanium, are
neatly arranged in rows and columns, by the crystal lattice.
Consequently, when a surface deuteron is struck by a high energy
deuteron from the beam, frequently a second deuteron is "lined up"
precisely behind it, and both of the initial deuterons now collide
with the third one. This means that in a lattice, this "chance" three
body collision, is far more likely, than it would be in a gas.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Marshall Dudley Hypothesis revisited
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 20:41:56 -0900
Organization: none

Hello! Thanks for the comments!

In article <41t47e$4nh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com
(ZoltanCCC) wrote:

> It seems to me that you forget the possibility that the electron occupies
> an orbit around the D or H some of the time. I think time sharing occurs
> and the electron occupies a high orbit around the metal ion part of the
> time, the other part of the time it will be in orbit around the H or D.

You are proably right. However, part of the assumption for my wild venture
into speculation land was that in conditions of sufficient loading there
is not room for an electron shell to form around the hypothesized
porpoising  D or H.  If I am not mistaken, the Dudley Hypothesis assumes
the proton is bare due to losing it's electron to an ionic bond. I would
think inability for a shell to form would be especially probable at
lattice bond points where porpoising protons would most likely meet on
opposite sides of the shell and create the conditions for the proposed
tunneling.  Note that the tunneling effect I was proposing did *not*
create energy involving either the strong or week force.  The proposed
energy gain was from the sudden loss of shielding due to a shielding
electron tunneling through the energy barrier created on the shell by the
protons.  The kenetic (thermal) energy gain is from the porpoising protons
flying apart. 

> You could also say that it is in a mixed state. My experience shows the
> quantum mechanical wave function is a physical reality not just our
> imagination. The electrons generate a charge cloud around the atom. This
> is not like a narrow shell but a diffuse cloud-like charge distribution. 
> 
> You have a very good point when you describe polarization i.e. change in
> the electron cloud charge distribution. Since the H or D is a localized
> positive charge, the electrons will tend to spend more time around it then
> elsewhere. 

Yes, and if, as proposed, two protons (deuterons) are on opposite sides of
the shell (which has a thickness in terms of a variance/ std. deviation)
will create a proability cloud between them that is denser than in the
surrounding region, a cloud I referred to as a shadow.  This shadow is
surrounded by an energy barrier due to the attraction of the two protons,
which cancels out at the midpoint between them, but increases to a peak as
you move outward from the midpoint perpendicularly, and then diminishes
due to the inverse square law of the EMF.  My key point is, if an electron
tunnels accross this barrier, it remains in the shell, no energy is lost,
but potential energy is gained by the protons because they have lost their
sheilding. 

> 
> The reason why the electron capture does not happen all the time in nature
> is because of the 800 keV or so energy needed to emit the neutrino and
> finalize the electron capture. I suspect partial electron captures happen
> all the time creating an intermediate quantum state that cannot convert to
> the final state because the energy is not there to emit the neutrino. This
> intermediate quantum state will represent no net charge and will enter
> into fusion reactions creating fusion products that have inherited the 800
> keV energy deficit, (the neutrino is emitted as soon as fusion makes the
> energy available). Now after such an electron capture mediated fusion
> reaction we have a nucleus that is prone to beta decay because it has just
> absorbed an electron and it has a neutron surplus. It also might emit a
> neutron so in a D+D reaction I would expect:
> 
> D  +  D  +  e  ->  He4 + fast electron + gammas + neutrinos               
> (1)
> 
> or
> 
> D  +  D  +  e  ->  T + thermal neutron + gammas                           
>     (2)
> 
> or
> 
> D  +  D  +  e  -> He3 + thermal neutron + fast electron + gammas +
> neutrinos   (3)
> 
> The thermal neutron is emitted because the binding energy of the neutron
> to tritium is non-existent. The gammas are emitted when the T de-excites.
> The T is of course not stable long term but that does not matter here. In
> (1) the fast electron in many reactions carries enough energy to enter a
> new D with electron capture, and cause proliferation of thermal neutrons.
> The above reactions explain cold fusion phenomena because the radiative
> products are benign, not easy to detect. 

The point I was making about electron capture is that it doesn't seem to
happen much - implying the shilding effect is not perfect, but there is
evidence it exists.  If the assumed porpoising proton conditions exist,
and shielding were perfect, then a p + p + e collision at the shell would
be a common thing, and the neutrino deficit would be made up by the strong
force. There would be abundant evidence for fusion.  This implies that
what must be happening is a process involving imperfect shielding. A
condition possibly necessary for creating the tunneling barrier required
by my adaptation of the Dudley Hypotesis.

> 
> For completeness sake I need to say that all of this is just speculation. 
> 
> Zoltan Szakaly

Having stated previously that I am an amateur, it's hopefully
automatically understood that everything I have to say is wildly
speculative, but even we little people should have a chance at stirring
the pot now and then! 8)

Thanks again,

Horace

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.28 / Horace Heffner /  Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Marshall Dudley Hypothesis
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 22:18:39 -0900
Organization: none

In article <hheffner-2808951438290001@204.57.193.68>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

Sorry, I must be suffering from a lack of sleep.  This is a correction to
my previous post:

> In article <199508281527.LAA17059@pilot03.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
> (Richard A Blue) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>  
> > Before one should begin to construct theories as to why a loaded
> > Pd lattice becomes the site for a special type of nuclear process
> > I would say there should be some evidence to support the notion
> > that the basic physics is somehow altered.  Certainly the electrostatic
> > interation between protons and this lattice can be explored further
> > by anyone who has a serious inclination to do so, but just making
> > a wild hypothesis that derives from an unrealistic picture of
> > atomic structure does little to further the cause for cold fusion.
> > 
> > Dick Blue
> 

My response should have read:


> Hopefully you read all the way to what I wrote at the bottom of my post (a
> lot to ask - I apologize for the long post!) What I suggest there is the
> possibility that, looked at from another perspective, Dudley's Hypothesis
> of sheilded porpoising protrons (deuterons) implies that conventional quantum
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> effects, non nuclear effects, might be responsible for excess energy.  The
> proposed effects do not directly involve the palladium nucleus, but
> hydrogen nuclei that approach each other from opposite sides of an electron
> shell - Dudley's porpoising protrons.  The distance between the nuclei
                              ^^^^^^^^^
> required to obtain the suggested effect is only that distance sufficient
> to create an energy barrier to shielding electrons, not strong force
> distances.
> 
> -- 
> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

-- 
Horace Heffner 907-746-0820    <hheffner@matsu.ak.net>
PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / 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: 29 Aug 1995 09:04:55 GMT
Organization: cea

Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:
>
>Maybe someday you could read in an history book:
>
>Everybody who could remotely be called a
>"scientist" at that time believed in the CF experiences
>as soon as they verified cairfully the experiments,
>read the data, and understood all the penetrating explanations.
>
>The CF critics group then wasn't exactly known as
>a center of progressive enlightened thinking, and it never even
>pretended to really care about "scientific" issues one bit.
>
>Jsoeph Raulet
>
     May be. And may be not. History books may one day say: "In the end
of the XX century, among other signs of the decay of rationalism and a
revival of irrational and/or religious beliefs, a small sect pretended 
that energy could be obtained from matter in very simply and semi-magical
small and simple devices".

     But the most probable issue to all this debate is that it will be
desperately and utterly forgotten. Having confidence in the "judgement
of history" has never been very productive.

Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF Project
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Project
Date: 29 Aug 1995 09:15:43 GMT
Organization: cea

Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca> wrote:
>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
>
>And M. Pain answer:
>
>>I can only give you one piece of advice: forget it !!!
>
>
>>M. Pain
>
>Why telling this mister Pain?
>Are you suggesting that anyone who try to studing
>CF lost its time, or you think that stuying
>a subject that has not the approval of the 
>scientific establishement is an act of herisy? 
>Maybe both?
>
>Joseph Raulet
>

If you read the quotation I made in my post, you will notice
that I underlined the word POSITIVE, which was the adjective
of the word RESULTS. I do encourage people to study any subject
whatsoever, whether it has been approved or not by the government,
the scientific community or the Pope. But one thing is to have as 
goal to study a subject, and another very different is to set 
yourself the goal of obtainint "POSITIVE RESULT with a CF device".
Because, in my humble and ignorant opinion (and the right of opinion
is constitutional, for good or ill), obtaining positive results on a
CF experiment is like finding a dog that speaks german: very difficult
(if not impossible) !

Mario Pain


PS: I hope you appreciate it is a joke!!



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / A Plutonium /  Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.
lectromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio.misc
Subject: Re: Pulsar mechanism, why they pulse, why they shut down
Date: 29 Aug 1995 11:21:54 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <DDyKuB.I57@prometheus.UUCP>
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

> Actually, I not proposing that the entire planet is destroyed, but only
> disassembled, .. .. at least temporarily.   It is my understanding that
> several of the other planetoids have been dissassembled and the 
> reassembled, but in mixed order of inside/outside chunks.  
> 
> Now certainly even this process requires a considerable punch of energy
> and you are asking the fusion .. .. er .. ah.. cold fusion group .. just
> from whence such energy was forthcoming?   If I recall, we on this 
> planet have a thermalization process generated by long term accumulative
> decay of a radiological nature.  Also, some think, S Jones?  that 
> perhaps some type of lattice assisted fusion might be contributing.  
> So, with such sources, and say an addtional boost from a collision with 
> a loosed moon of a gas planet, there should easily be enough accumulated
> potential energy to fragmentize a small planet.  

   Since I firmly believe that all stars and planets GROW from a
Schroedinger Equation "seed dot" and that the planets move according to
Electromagnetism and they are spaced conforming to a Titius-Bode rule.
Then, I have a conjecture here, a big hunch, something I don't want to
be held to as of yet because it's chances of being wrong or right are
50-50 at this moment, but there is a chance that a partial intuition of
this hunch  is true.

   Big Hunch:  Every star has planets. Every star has a modified
Titius-Bode rule for the spacing of those planets. Every star has
planets and as those planets grow, somehow there is a "purposeful need"
to have an asteroid belt and so every star which has approximately the
size of our Sun has an asteroid belt which originated from a growing
planet which exploded. Every star around the size of our Sun has a
planet with life on it. In a purposeful universe, the key operating
concept is uniformity and so life would not be a fluke on one planet.
The trouble I have with this hunch is that I really can not see any
real purpose that the asteroid belt interacts with Life on Earth. Some
purpose that asteroids have that life on Earth could not exist if it
were not for asteroids being in a belt in the Solar System. If I can
see some "purposeful" interaction, then that 50-50 probability would
turn in favor that this hunch is really true. Perhaps something like
iridium is essential for life, and the only "minimal energy" way of
transporting iridium around in Solar systems is by asteroids.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is reproducible but not very predictable
Date: 29 Aug 1995 14:21:48 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

Matt Austern wrote:

>Galileo's empirical observations about the moons of Jupiter and about
>the mountains of Luna were perfectly reproducible: anyone who looked
>through a telescope (an easily constructed piece of apparatus at the
>time) could see the same thing that he did.

 Are you serious? The sky have been observed to all time, but it
 take men like Kepler and Galileo who were not afraid or brave
 enought to postulat news laws for the mouvements of the
 planets. Don't forget that according to the relativity principle
 the orbits of the planets can be describ as very complexs movements    
 toward the earth rather that ellipsoid toward the sun!
 And in the historical context of that time, most pepole prefer to view   
 the orbits of the planets as complex movements toward the center of the  
 univers: the earth.

>That is in stark contrast to the "cold fusion" situation, where
>reproducibility is nil.  Most people who try to replicate a "cold
>fusions" experiment (replicating an experiment means doing the same
>experiment, not doing something vaguely reminiscent of it) see nothing
>at all.  I have yet to hear of any case where two groups do the same
>"cold fusion" experiment and get the same result---except, of course,
>for the null result.

I don't know what you are talking about, I you read reguliary
specialised litterature about CF you will see that you are rong.
But maybe it is easiest for you to avoid that! After all, it take
a free mind for studying a subject like CF. CF reserchs are not for
pepoles who are more consern by their image than by scientifics
issues.


Joseph Raulet


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 29 Aug 1995 15:06:33 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

Mario Pain wrote:

>A theory is scientific when you can devise an experiment whose failure >would
>falsify it (at least if you accept Karl Popper's definition). If the same
>experiment gives different results (even if the same result may repeat >itself)
>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.

Studying a phenomenon that is not entierely understod is not scientific?
I think you should read a book on science history and you will see
that this is all science.

I think you have not understod what science is about.
When you studying a new phenomenon with a certain methodology
to understand the condition that gouvern the behavior of the
phenomenon, you do science. Even if your conclusion is that
phenomenon don't existe. Remember the experience to calculate the
movement of the earth toward the ether! 

Have a nice day! :-)

Joseph Raulet



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 /  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: Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:36:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes
 
     "I do not think that what Edison did on the electric bulb was "science".
     From what I read, he was a practical man, who did not bother about
     understanding why things worked as long as they worked."
 
That's a novel interpretation! I have never seen a serious biography make that
claim. I think Edison understood far more about why and how things work than
most of his contemporaries. If he is disqualified, then we must also
disqualify the following people, because they are so practical: Benjamin
Franklin, James Watt, J. P. Joule, Wilbur Wright, William Shockley, John
Van Neumann, Gene Amdahl, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Niklaus Wirth.
I think if those people are not scientists then the word "science" has no
meaning.
 
 
Pain also writes:
 
     "Nevertheless, when you say that "some fusion" must take place because
     there is tritium, I must point out that to my best knowledge no neutrons
     have ever been detected."
 
Neutrons have been detected. I think that the cleanest examples are in the ion
beam implantation experiments, like the ones performed by Takahashi & Iida
(Osaka Nat. U.) These neutrons cannot be coming from conventional fusion
reactions, because the number of tritium atoms divided by neutrons is as high
as 10^7. I gather that according to hot fusion theory, that number should
equal 1, so whatever is happening, it isn't hot fusion.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Joseph Raulet /  Re: Off the deep end
     
Originally-From: Joseph Raulet <raulet@jrv.qc.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off the deep end
Date: 29 Aug 1995 15:37:29 GMT
Organization: RAULET  Informatique

Jed wrote:

>What the heck do you know, Heeter? You claim that CF violates laws of >physics.
>Have you got any proof of that? Have you got any reason for saying that?
>You say it does, but Schwinger and a lot of other physicists say it does
>not. They say it can be explained according to the known laws. You >probably
>think you are a lot smarter an Schwinger and Hagelstein. You have not >even
>read their papers, you have no idea what their theories say, but you >dismiss
>them. Such arrogance!

You should never use autority argument: the fact that greats scientifics
like Schwinger have a certains ideas about CF means nothings.
A free mind should never be disturb by such argument.
In the world war II, the nazis have used greats scientifics to legitimate
theirs racists politics with pseudo-scientifics theories. Ho yes
it is good to think that their is still pepoles with such arrogance!


 
>Dick Blue's "Magic Water" theory is a violation of elementary physics. It >is
>crackpot science. Real theories that have been proposed by real >scientists to
>explain CF. These do not violate known laws.

Do you use the kind of arguments that many like to use with CF?
Relax, maybe you should switch to decafeine?

In any case, I think that you take this to seriously, after all
science is a place of debate. We should never take anything
for grant. The greatest scientific are those who are not afraid
to studying ideas differents than those of the scientific establishement.


Joseph Raulet

 


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenraulet cudfnJoseph cudlnRaulet cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / Doug Laing /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 26/26 (Z)
     
Originally-From: Doug Laing <DOUG@DCSMSERVER.MED.SC.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 26/26 (Z)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 15:38:26 GMT
Organization: University of South Carolina School of Medicine

rgsdfgsdfgs

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDOUG cudfnDoug cudlnLaing cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.29 / 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: 29 Aug 1995 16:45:19 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>
> 
>That's a novel interpretation! I have never seen a serious biography make that
>claim. I think Edison understood far more about why and how things work than
>most of his contemporaries. If he is disqualified, then we must also
>disqualify the following people, because they are so practical: Benjamin
>Franklin, James Watt, J. P. Joule, Wilbur Wright, William Shockley, John
>Van Neumann, Gene Amdahl, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Niklaus Wirth.
>I think if those people are not scientists then the word "science" has no
>meaning.
>
     I think there is an interest in separating "scientific" work and 
"technical" work. I do not think that there is nothing derogatory in being
a technical man (as I am myself) rather than a scientist. The word "science"
still has a meaning: it is an activity that produces (I know I am being very
schematic, so please do not quibble) knowledge following certain very precise
rules (see K. Popper for instance). Technological research is another field,
where there are no rules provided you make things work. The first man that
managed to produce fire has certainly bequeated us an enourmous heritage, but 
it is not derogatory to say he was not a "scientist".
     Concerning Edison, I know that the view held in the US is quite different
(and rather mythical, if I can make a provocative comment) from the one held
in Europe. But however brilliant he was as an inventor and an engineer, it is
not commonly thought that he is a scientist. 
> 
> 
>Neutrons have been detected. I think that the cleanest examples are in the ion
>beam implantation experiments, like the ones performed by Takahashi & Iida
>(Osaka Nat. U.) These neutrons cannot be coming from conventional fusion
>reactions, because the number of tritium atoms divided by neutrons is as high
>as 10^7. I gather that according to hot fusion theory, that number should
>equal 1, so whatever is happening, it isn't hot fusion.
> 
     I do not know the experiment to which you refer to give an opinion, but 
I am ready to accept that it is not hot fusion. But then, why do you say that
there is a fusion phenomenon at all ?

Thanks for your attention

M. Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 30 04:37:09 EDT 1995
------------------------------
