1995.09.17 / Mitchell Jones / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:19:56 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <43e7b5$3e3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote: > Mitchell asked for my position on the very specific issue of continuity. > > I actually do believe in continuity in the sense that particles move > through space from one position to another by going through a chain of > intermediate positions. ***{Zoltan, are you running for public office? :-) The reason I ask is simple: this is the kind of "answer" that politicians love, because it only *seems* to be responsive. When examined closely, ample room is discovered for "plausible deniability." Why do I say that? Simple: the principle of continuity, remember, holds that no entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. This means motion is continuous--that the only way an entity can reach a location is if it, or its component parts, follow unbroken spatial pathways to that location. This means that when things move from place to place, the paths they follow are *not* a series of "quantum leaps." No matter how much you magnify your examination of the path of motion, it will never resolve into a series of "jumps" in which the entity, or its parts, disappear from one location and reappear at the next. This is what continuity means: no "jumps" at any level of magnification. You can, by magnification, resolve an entity into finer and finer parts; but you can never, at any level of magnification, find an entity that truly vanishes from one location and reappears somewhere else. This is what it means to say that "no entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing." Now, when I asked you if you agreed with the principle of continuity, you said: "I actually do believe in continuity in the sense that particles move through space from one position to another by going through a chain of intermediate positions." This is not a clear answer to the question. The problem is that a "chain" is a series of discrete links. Thus your answer suggests that you could have in mind a series of discrete "quantum leaps"--that there may be gaps in the chain of positions you have in mind. If there are gaps, Zoltan, then you are *not* affirming the principle of continuity. Do you, therefore, deny that there are gaps in the series of positions? If you do deny it, then you are affirming the principle of continuity and, by extension, classical mechanics; if not, then you are denying continuity and, as a consequence, affirming "quantum mechanics." This is, as I said before, an either-or proposition. You cannot have it both ways. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > I do not believe in the absolute necessity of the conservation of > mass-energy. It might be the case that matter is slowly formed in vacuum > in small quantities in order to maintain the density of the universe in > spite of its expansion. I know of no evidence pro or con. ***{Here, your choice of words suggests that you believe matter may appear out of nothing, which is clearly a violation of the idea that no thing may come into existence out of nothing. If you believe that the principle of continuity is true, then you would have to say that matter "seems" to sometimes appear out of nothing, but that when this is happens it must be because particles that are too small for us to detect aggregate together to form particles ("matter") that we *can* detect. Believers in continuity, in other words, deal with apparent violations of the principle of conservation of energy by searching for unseen components of the situation that we must be missing. When "excess energy" seems to appear out of nothing, for example, believers in continuity look for something--e.g., a protoneutron chain reaction--to set the energy balance straight. Those who deny continuity, on the other hand, have no logical basis for seeking out a cause for anything. The question, again, is this: when you speak of matter being "slowly formed in a vacuum," do you mean "formed out of nothing," or not? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > You seemed to jump to conclusions in your post when you read my > description of the intermediate quantum state preceding electron capture. > I did not intend to plagerize your theory ***{Quite seriously, Zoltan, I didn't really think you did. I have no reason to question your integrity. I merely felt I had to focus on the apparent implication of what you were saying, intended or not. --Mitchell Jones}*** , in fact if you look at my post > dated Aug 28, 1995 under the thread "Marshall Dudley hypothesis revisited" > you will notice that I mention an intermediate quantum state preceeding > electron capture. ***{Here we have the same apparent implication, appearing once again: you are focusing on the historical record of what you have said, as if some sort of dispute about credit needs to be resolved. Indeed, you have on several occasions posted comments which specifically and methodically went about assigning credit for this or that, as if some sort of cooperative venture has been taking place here. It is as if you believe that you, Marshall, myself, and the others who have posted comments about the nuclear physics underlying CF were building a house together, and one of us deserved the credit for driving this nail, another that, and so on. So let me give you my view of the situation. For starters, I give credit to you, Marshall, and every other person who posted on this subject for having the intelligence to be interested in it, and the knowledge to follow what was being said. I believe that each and every one of you had understanding of some of the necessary parts of the eventual explanation. However, I also believe that a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation, and that "necessary" is not the same thing as "sufficient." For example: (1) It is necessary to understand the geometry of the lattice--how the atoms are arranged, and the length of the distances between them. Some of the posters in these threads had such understanding; others did not. And the same could be said of the lurkers. However, such an awareness, though necessary, is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion," because, obviously, a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation. (2) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand the nature of the unit cell of the lattice--that it consists of two four-sided pyramids joined base-to-base (an octohedron). (3) It is necessary to understand that the radius of a neutral hydrogen atom, with its electron at the innermost Bohr orbit, is a good, snug fit into the center of a unit cell. Again, however, while this fragment of information is necessary, it is not sufficient to explain "cold fusion." (4) It is necessary, but not sufficient, to understand that while there is room in the unit cell for a neutral hydrogen atom, the opening into the unit cell is too small to permit the passage of a neutral hydrogen atom. (5) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that H+ ions are small enough to enter a unit cell. (6) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that there exists a small voltage gradient across the cathode which is sufficient to draw H+ ions into the lattice. (7) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that when H+ ions meet electrons in occupied cells, they do not have room to form neutral hydrogen atoms. (8) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that these conditions, given insufficient energy for the electron to escape the H+ (the proton), would lead the electron to spiral down toward the nucleus and would produce the unstable state that I termed a "protoneutron." (9) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that the accumulation of such entities (protoneutrons) could occur in a loaded lattice. (10) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that such an entity, given an appropriate dose of energy, could transform into a thermal neutron. (11) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that thermal neutrons tend to be absorbed into nuclei, and that when they are, the resulting nucleus typically emits a giant gamma and drops to ground state. (12) It is necessary but not sufficient to conceive of the possibility that protoneutrons are characterized by a *rapacity* for the energy of transformation into neutrons--that they may be incredibly efficient absorbers of electromagnetic radiation at the needed frequencies, and possibly at many other frequencies. (13) It is necessary but not sufficient to realize that gamma absorption in a large accumulation of protoneutrons could trigger a chain reaction of a new type, in which the event sequence was: (a) pn (protoneutron) + gamma --> n. (b) n + nucleus --> isotope shift + gamma. (c) Return to step (a). (14) It was necessary to recognize that the palladium lattice contained nuclei (e.g., H, D) that upon neutron absorption emitted gammas large enough to produce the formation of multiple neutrons--which means: large enough to mediate an *accelerated* chain reaction. [As I have noted, p + n --> d + 2.22 Mev (gamma). In addition, d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev (gamma). Etc.] And the list goes on and on and on, Zoltan. But my fingers are getting tired, and that is more than enough to make the point. Simply put: understanding of one or more isolated fragments of this information is endemic throughout the physics community, and that specifically includes those who read and post in this newsgroup. This means you are not unique in that respect. Indeed, there are doubtlessly individuals in whose minds *all* of the above fragments have been present for years, in separate and unconnected form. Nevertheless, even *that* situation is not sufficient to produce an explanation of "cold fusion." Why not? Because, in addition to all of the fragments being present in *one* mind, that mind has to apply them to the "cold fusion" problem, note the relevant implications, and draw the appropriate conclusions. Bottom line: since a fragment of an explanation is not an explanation, credit for producing an explanation does not get parceled out to every person in whose mind one or more of the necessary fragments were present. Instead, it goes to the individual in whose mind all of those fragments were present, who noted the implications, drew the appropriate conclusions, and was first to deliver those conclusions to the world in a form that enabled interested persons to understand and solve the relevant problems. You may not like such a state of affairs, Zoltan, but that is the way science is, and it is the way it has always been. This means your continued references to the fact that you had this or that fragment in *your* mind at such and such a time is not germane to anything. It merely constitutes a distraction from the main business that we have before us: understanding the protoneutron theory, and determining via argument and experimentation whether it is true or false. The fact is, for good or ill, that it is my puppy. If it proves to be correct, I will get the credit; and if it falls apart, I will get the blame. That's life in the big city. And, by the way, please don't let the way I write convince you that I am imbued with certainty that this theory will, in fact, withstand logical and experimental testing. I will argue my case as strongly as I can, but you should not misunderstand: I know there are no guarantees that I will prevail. Reality, as I have already noted, is a harsh mistress. --Mitchell Jones}*** >Quantum mechanics is what I believe to be the physical > reality if there is such a thing. Quantum mechanics allows mixed quantum > states. ***{Of course it does! In addition to being a rotting corpse that has been propped on its feet long enough (as I noted yesterday), "quantum mechanics" is also a parasite on the body of physics--which means: after problems are solved by means of classical mechanical thinking, the proponents of "quantum mechanics" rush forward, define a new "mixed state" in which phenomena may allegedly be "quantized," brush their hands together, and happily declare that "quantum mechanics" predicted those phenomena all along! Because they do this, it follows that "quantum mechanics" is not experimentally falsifiable. Those states of motion that have been unambiguously measured and proven to exist, they declare to be "quantum states," and those in-between states which have not yet been measured they declare to be gaps in the motion--but only, of course, until their existence is proven, at which time they then join the growing collection of acceptable "quantum states!" A good way to illustrate such a process is with an analogy. Suppose that there exists an immense being, in whose body each galaxy is an atom. To him, time runs slowly. Each rotation of a galaxy, which takes many millions of human years, is in his time scale a tiny fraction of a second. Thus we are part of what, to him, is the microcosm. Result: he has as much trouble measuring events in his microcosm as we have measuring events in ours. For example, it might be that, using his finest instruments, he can only detect human beings on the earth if they do not move for at least a month. Result: if he applies "quantum mechanics," he will be convinced that only the dead and the dying exist on earth, because only corpses and people in comas (or strapped to torture racks) remain immoble for that long. If, therefore, he is a practitioner of "quantum mechanics," our hypothetical being will declare that the less stable, faster moving, hard-to-detect states do not exist. If he is a believer in classical mechanics, on the other hand, he will simply declare that other states may exist that are beyond the accuracy of his instruments. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > I agree with you on that quantum mechanics contradicts our perception of > reality and seems to violate causality but quantum mechanics is still the > observed reality governing the behaviour of elementary particles. ***{Not true. As I have noted repeatedly, "quantum mechanics" is merely one theoretical interpretation of the curve-fitted mathematics used by physicists. Its proponents like to create the impression that there are no alternatives, but that is not the case. If you doubt this, I would suggest that you check out the later writings of David Bohm. (I have my own views, but Bohm's are in print, so they are a good place to start.) --Mitchell Jones}*** > tell you very early (as soon as I read your first post on the protoneutron > theory) that I thought your thinking is very close to mine. ***{I don't want to quibble, but I really don't know what you mean by this. I seem to find myself disagreeing with virtually everything you say in your posts, and yet when I post those disagreements you ignore them and insist that we are in agreement. This makes no sense to me. --Mitchell Jones}*** I don't agree > with you on all counts but it is pretty obvious that electrons mediate > cold fusion reactions. ***{Zoltan, it is not even obvious what you mean by this statement. --Mitchell Jones}*** Once you recognize that, it is a very short step to > seeing electron capture as a possibility. ***{Nothing about explaining CF is "a very short step," Zoltan. Re-examine the (very incomplete) list of 14 necessary pieces of information posted above, if you think this is all so simple. With regard to construing this as "electron capture" (i.e., K-capture) as discussed in nuclear physics textbooks, it isn't. K-capture involves the transfer of an electron from the K shell to the nucleus. That is explicitly *not* what is happening here: there is not room for a K-shell to form under the conditions we are discussing. Thus to speak of it in these terms is a misnomer at best and a misconception at worst. --Mitchell Jones}*** I still don't believe that we > have to give up quantum mechanics to embrace the idea of protoneutrons. ***{Of course not. "Quantum mechanics" is blatantly, self-confessedly, defiantly preposterous. It self-reduces to absurdity, and yet this has never deterred those who believe in it. The whole idea of it is to revile, traduce, and defame everything about the reasoning process. Given those facts, who would think for a moment that a mere fact would sway the proponents of "quantum mechanics" from their course! --Mitchell Jones}*** > > As a matter of fact instead of talking about protoneutrons you could just > say that lots of electrons and protons occupy the same region. ***{Such a formulation doesn't work. If it did, a hydrogen plasma would be a sufficient condition for fusion. In that case, "hot fusion" would have succeeded 40 years ago, and this entire discussion would be moot. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > I cannot accept a classical mechanical picture describing an electron > orbiting a proton at close range. > > In a classical picture the electron would just fly by the proton. ***{Totally false, because the picture you describe is not a classical one. You are assuming that energy is quantized--i.e., that it is impossible for an electron to have less energy, relative to the proton, than is necessary to hold it in the lower Bohr orbit. But that is a quantum mechanical picture, not a classical one. --Mitchell Jones}*** You > would need some form of friction to slow it down. This could be radiated > energy in the form of photons but the radiation will not happen since > there are no more orbits allowed below the first shell. ***{Again, you are confusing a quantum mechanical interpretation with a classical one. The classical interpretation would be that these orbits are allowed, but extremely unstable. Result: as in my analogy about humans who fail to remain in one place for a month, objects occupying "disallowed" orbits do so too fleetingly to be observed by present day instrumentation. Believe me, there is nothing in classical orbital mechanics that precludes *any* elliptical orbit. If you doubt this, examine the equations of celestial mechanics. Do you think, for example, that the space between the orbits of the earth and Venus is empty because nothing can orbit there? Of course not! Perturbation forces render some planetary orbits less stable than others, but in the short run nothing absolutely forbids any of the intermediate and presently unoccupied orbits that we see in the solar system. The same situation, from the classical standpoint, applies to electron orbits. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Zoltan Szakaly =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / ZoltanCCC / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 16:57:04 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article <21cenlogic-1509951713480001@austin-2-9.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > The result is that an electron which is forced to remain >inside the innermost Bohr orbits "will spiral down toward the nucleus, >where it will >linger at grazing altitude in a particle form which we may term a >*protoneutron.*" [Quoted from my original post on the protoneutron >theory.] I await an explicit statement on your part that you now embrace >the protoneutron theory! --Mitchell Jones}*** Here is the explicit statement Mitchell, Yes I do embrace the Protoneutron Theory. I do have certain reservations though and I will describe them here: I do agree that we have a mechanism that converts protons into neutrons. This seems to be happening because otherwise we could not explain the various cold fusion phenomena. We could not explain neither P&F type cold fusion nor light water excess heat experiments with Nickel electrodes. This was the very reason why I proposed the Electron Capture theory. I do not agree with your classical mechanical picture whereby the electron goes below the innermost orbit and loiters there. I believe we have a sea of electrons (the valence electrons of the metal) and a certain number of protons or deuterons moving about somewhat like the valence electrons. This soup will absorb gammas because as soon as an energetic gamma is present, it will trigger electron capture and a neutron is born. The same thing will happen if a high energy electron is present. Your description of the space available for an orbit to form around the proton or d has greatly improved my understanding of cold fusion phenomena. What I understand now is that loading has to be high enough for naked deuterons to be present. That will only happen if all available inter-atomic spaces are filled with orbitals. Once loading has reached that threshold, the additional deuterons or protons will remain naked and will move in the lattice similarly to electrons. In this soup of "Protoneutrons" if energy is introduced neutrons are born, just as you stated earlier. The neutrons will result in nuclear reactions, i.e. the neutron will collide with either a lattice nucleus like Ni or Pd, or it will collide with a Lithium nucleus that comes from the electrolite or it will collide with another p or d. Any gammas above 0.78 MeV will be absorbed by further electron capture reactions. The same thing happens to fast electrons. Lower energy gammas will be partially absorbed by the sea of charges partially they will leave the lattice. These have been experimentally observed. Experimental evidence shows that electron capture happens even from high shells in which case the electron has a low probability of being near the nucleus. The prerequisite for these reactions is the soup of electrons and naked protons/deuterons, once we have this we need some energy source that initiates some reactions, subsequently the captured neutrons will provide enough gammas and the fusion reactions followed by beta decay will provide energetic electrons to sustain the reactions. I recommend an experiment where we load a Palladium or Titanium lattice with He3 to a level of say 0.9 and subsequently load it with deuterium to as high a level as we can. In this system the absorbed neutrons will yield gammas in good numbers and the reactions might be more noticable. I wil repost some of this under the thread "The Electron Capture Hypothesis". Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / ZoltanCCC / Re: A simple speculation Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A simple speculation Date: 17 Sep 1995 16:57:05 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) If it has to do with a 1:1 loading ratio and us trying to add one more it seems that Mitchell has a good point about electron shells. Up to one-one there is enough room for shells above that there is not. I also stated earlier: We either need to have thermal neutrons or naked (no electron shell) deuterons. Whatever mechanism mediates fusion, it is probably blocked by the electron shell. Perhaps we can talk about a population of naked deuterons and a population of deuterons with electron shells similarly to the case of immobile and valence electrons. Perhaps the motion of the naked deuterons can be described similarly to the motion of valence electrons, by using a freely propagating wave function modulated by the effect of the fixed point-like charges of the metal ions. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Mitchell Jones / Re: How To Spend the $700 Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: How To Spend the $700 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:05:45 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-1109952012210001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > >***{Zoltan, you are a good guy, but I can't believe you have reached > >adulthood without noticing that you can't just go out an build a nuclear > >reactor and publish your results? Wake up, man! That stuff about "the land > >of the free" is just window dressing! The reality is that in "modern" > >Amerika (gee, an inadvertent misspelling!), we "free" folks have to kiss a > >hundred bureaucratic butts for permission to go to bed at night! And, in > >spite of that, you expect to just go out and build a nuclear reactor > >because it seems like an intresting science project! Wow! This post is a > >joke, right? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Should I take your comments to mean you feel it should be permitted for > someone to build a nuclear reactor without the "bureaucratic permission"? > Frankly, if I could be sure any "accidents" only affected the > experimenter, I would say why not. However, given the odds an "accident" > wouldn't be so benign and the number of people who might try something > like this having no idea of risks involved or unwilling to take reasonable > precaution, I for one am extremely glad it isn't very easy to do things > like this. ***{Bill, I am not an anarchist. I would not want to live next door to a person who was building an experimental nuclear reactor, and I would take whatever measures were required to get it stopped if I became aware that it was going on. Why? Because to threaten is a crime. Nobody has a right to threaten others, and it is unarguable that a threat is involved here. The same would apply if my neighbor, 50 feet from my house, filled his home with dynamite. His assurances that he was taking safety precautions would do nothing to alleviate the threat, and I would not put up with it. Nor would I expect anyone else to do so. Nobody should have to live in fear, and nobody has the right to make his neighbors live in fear. Nevertheless, there are many ways to structure government, and many ways for government to deal with such problems. In each case, I believe in the policy that will maximize individual freedom and give maximal play to individual experimentation. In the present case, I believe that individuals have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others, but I also believe that an unprovoked threat is a violation of rights. I would make an analogy to the right to bear arms: such a right is necessary to the right of self-defense, but it does not carry with it the privilege of making unprovoked threats. If, for example, my neighbor sits on his porch and points his rifle at me whenever I come outside, he is *not* exercising his right to bear arms: he is committing a crime, and should be dealt with accordingly. However, if he owns the land for a mile around his house, he can point, and shoot, pretty much wherever he pleases. Similarly, if my neighbor fills his house with dynamite, 50 feet from my house, he commits a crime; but if he lives in the country a mile from his nearest neighbor, things are different. The government should act against him in the first case, and leave him alone in the second. Likewise, if Zoltan owns an island in the pacific, or an asteroid in space, and builds his reactor there, that is fine by me. I think he should be left alone. It is important to encourage experimentation by leaving researchers free, insofar as possible, to act. But they must act reasonably, and not ignore the rights of their fellow men while pursuing their dreams. Otherwise, they become criminals. As for Zoltan's interest in nuclear reactors, well, I just don't understand it. If he wants to tinker, why fool around with a dangerous, highly regulated, obsolete technology? "Cold fusion" is totally unregulated, totally safe, and is the wave of the future. As I said in an earlier post, it is a "soft" technology, as benign and non-threatening as flowers on a summer day. If he wants to tinker, why not tinker with that? Frankly, I have about given up understanding his posts. I find myself in disagreement with virtually everything he says. --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 22:00:16 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > > (8) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that these > conditions, given insufficient energy for the electron to escape the H+ > (the proton), would lead the electron to spiral down toward the nucleus > and would produce the unstable state that I termed a "protoneutron." > This is one major leap of faith. I don't know of any evidence that a protoneutron state would or could exist.... > > (10) It is necessary but not sufficient to understand that such an entity, > given an appropriate dose of energy, could transform into a thermal > neutron. > This is another major hole---such doeses of energy usually have to be photons of certain discrete reseonant frequencies; odd are that all the gamma source you suggest, from n capture, would not produce a gamma of the right energy for the above process. Even if they did, cross sections for gamma absorption are pretty small, that they would all be efficiently absorbed in a few mm of material is most unlikely. In short, your theory makes for good science fiction, but requires several miracles to be true and conform to observed features of CF, Griggs, etc. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.16 / Thomas Zemanian / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: 16 Sep 1995 21:49:38 GMT Organization: Battelle PNL In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > Thomas S. Zemanian writes: > > >Now, Jed. You have held up the Griggs gadget and the Potapov device as CF > >examples. Where in either of these devices are there loading, onset > >current density, performance and material characteristics or nuclear ash? > > I have not! I have NEVER said that the Griggs Gadget or the Potapov device > runs on CF. I have repeatedly stated that I have seen no evidence for that, > and I have no idea what they run on. I stated that explicitly in every > formal paper I have written about them including the ICCF5 Review I posted > here. > > Why are "skeptics" so incapable of reading things? Clearly you have no idea > what I have said because you have never bothered to read anything that I > have written -- or that Griggs or Potapov has written. You always get it > wrong. Now you put words in my mouth that I would never have said in a hundred > years. > Please, Jed, try to keep your temper. Not everyone here is interested in fighting. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but my recollection was that you did, in fact, include the GG as a CF device. I believe your rationale was that two miracles in one lifetime was too much for you to swallow. No, I can't dig up the posting in which you said this, so I'll have to take your word for it that you didn't. Please try not to fly off the handle so quickly. --Tom -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em! cudkeys: cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / A Anderson / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: Alexander Anderson Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 02:38:09 GMT Organization: ALMA Services Oh no! Archimedes has a sense of humour! There's no defense against humour! He can't be all that mad. Sandy -- // Alexander Anderson Computer Science Student // // Home Fone : +44 (0) 171-794-4543 Middlesex University // // Home Email : sandy@almide.demon.co.uk Bounds Green // // College Email: alexander9@mdx.ac.uk London // // UK // cudkeys: cuddy17 cudensandy cudfnAlexander cudlnAnderson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Andrew Cooke / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: 17 Sep 1995 13:53:39 GMT Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory Edinburgh i could write a better reply, quoting your post, only someone seems to have cancelled it. do you set unusual expiry times for your post, or did you retract what you wrote earlier? or (poetic injustice?) have you been anonymously cancelled too? for what it's worth i replied to a post that seemed to be arguing that censorship was ok because mr bullock's complaints had not resulted in either a reply or the removal of archimede's account. i do not feel that is sufficient reason for censorship - it amounts to nothing more than `if he isn't censored through acceptable channels, he should be censored by unacceptable means, because i object to what he writes'. i'm happy to argue that point. it is, however, rather difficult when all that is posted in reply is personal abuse. andrew In article <43dgpu$43k@keknews.kek.jp>, Ben Bullock wrote: >Andrew Cooke (ajc@reaxp01.roe.ac.uk) wrote: > >(deleted) > >Most of what Cooke posts contains wildly inaccurate statements which >are a simple result of not bothering to check facts before ranting >away with extremely ill-informed and often very stupid opinions. If >Cooke does not wish to be branded an idiot, he should stop behaving >like one. -- A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk work phone 0131 668 8357 home phone/fax 0131 667 0208 institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenajc cudfnAndrew cudlnCooke cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.16 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Questionable Calorimetry Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Questionable Calorimetry Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 22:45:37 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >According to Jed, some setups produce tritium. Wouldn't that be far >easier to measure and verify? If a 'recipe' were disclosed that >produced tritium, and completely ignored o/u heat claims and finicky >calorimetry, would anyone attempt to replicate it? Getting a CF cell to produce tritium is very difficult. There are no recipes for that. If you read the papers by Fritz Will, you will see what I mean. If your goal is to product tritium, I would suggest you use the methods developed and published by Tom Claytor at Los Alamos. If you read his papers and talk to him, you will realize that these experiments are also terribly difficult and still somewhat unpredictable, although they are a lot better than electrolysis CF. Most heat generating cells do not produce measurable amounts of tritium. The tritium-generating phase of the reaction appears to come at loading levels just a little too small to generate heat + helium-4. It would appear the massive tritium seen by people like Bockris is precursor to an intense heat generating reaction. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / jedrothwell@de / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 10:23:09 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Thomas S. Zemanian writes: >I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but my recollection was that >you did, in fact, include the GG as a CF device. I believe your rationale >was that two miracles in one lifetime was too much for you to swallow. What I SAID was: 1. I don't know what it is, but 2. I guess it might be CF for the reason you just gave. It seems intuitively unlikely that two unrelated, unknown sources of energy are floating around. That is a mere guess. It does not even qualify as a hypothesis. I emphasized this over and over again: I don't know what it is. There have been no tests to find out what it is, or to see if it is related to CF. I also said I personally don't care what it is. I still don't. That has no effect on commercial development potentials, so I have no reason to care. I cannot understand why you would confuse my position -- which I clearly stated on countless occassions -- with the statement that "The Griggs Gadget works by cold fusion." The two statements are light years apart. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Bruce TOK / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m sc.industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: 17 Sep 1995 16:49:05 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote: [...] : How about we go for a much nearer term claim that is just as incredible : according to your prior posts ridiculing Paul Koloc's supposed failure : to grasp basic principles of physics like the virial theorem: : By December 21, 1995, I will produce three independent witnesses of : unimpeachable credentials, who claim that they recognize the essential : validity of Paul Koloc's MHD model of a stable compound plasma : configuration (plasma shell containing a vacum poloidal field containing : a toroidal plasma with relativistic currents). : I'll let you use Robert Heeter as judge BECAUSE Robert has a conflict of : interest -- just to make you feel extra safe. If Robert is disqualified : for any reason, I'll accept Bruce Scott. I'll even pay my money in : advance and accept nothing more than a conditional IOU as collateral from : you. Sorry, Jim, but I'd never accept something like this. To me it is similar as the equally incorrect claim that resistive g-mode turbulence and ExB shear is responsible for the L-H transition in tokamaks. I can come up with 20-50 people in this field who will tell you they believe that, but it is utter garbage. Moreover, it is garbage for similar reasons that claimed violation of the Virial theorem is garbage: fundamental conservation constraints are violated. But they still believe: they want it to be true so they can go to DOE and claim they've understood something of fundamental importance. [Yeah, violate energy conservation and you can do most anything in a theory or model.] The difference is that we do indeed have a reproducible L-H transition in the experiments. It just isn't understood yet. Here is a tip to help publish stuff like that: if you fear Government lab interference, you can (1) request that no-one from a DOE lab serve as referee (there are enough qualified people around who understand MHD that this is no longer a problem), and (2) request more than one referee, and ask that no two referees come from the same country. Explain why you fear unfair treatment, but don't sell it as a conspiracy. If Paul and you publish the model including those relativistic currents as a valid equilibrium _including the model calculation_ by December 31, 1996, I will buy each of you a bottle of good champagne, publicly if you like. If math isn't your style, find a coauthor who will do that part. The list of journals which qualify is: any AIP journal, Nuclear Fusion, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Reviews of Scientific Instruments[*], Journal of Plasma Physics, Journal of Nuclear Materials, Soviet Journal of Plasma Physics[**], and Soviet Physics JETP[**]. Note that 1996 is no typo; I do mean 1996. That gives you 14 months plus. You can leave stability aside; just get the equilibrium. All I am asking of you is what Wu and Chen did. Nobody knows whether their equilibrium is stable to general perturbations. Note that Physics Letters A does _not_ count! They've published a very bad Pons and Fleischmann article. Bad in the sense of experimental documentation. [*] This may be an AIP journal, but I am not sure. [**] Or whatever it has been renamed to. -- 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: cuddy17 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Labrys / Re: Multineutron systems Originally-From: tuttt@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Multineutron systems Date: 17 Sep 1995 13:39:27 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. In article <43ca9f$pds$2@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM> writes: |> Continuation of reply to blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A.Blue) |> |> My surmise is that it is stable for long enough to encounter |> another dineutron and bind together with it: |> |> 2n + 2n --> 4n |> |> Once this has been formed a single beta decay of one of the |> four neurtons would produce H(4) (impossible) so it ejects |> a neutron as well to give a triton: |> |> 4n --> T + e(-) + nu + n |> |> A double beta decay of two neutrons would produce an alpha |> |> 4n --> alpha + 2e(-) + 2nu |> |> I said that this was a speculation. It has some merit: it does |> not jump over Coulomb barriers, it gives the right nuclear |> products (helium and tritium) and it would give up kinetic energy |> to the lattice as heat. |> |> Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, |> Ramon Prasad |> |> -- |> Ramon Prasad Any idea of the cross-section, and/or competing cross sections? What is the source of 2n? Teresa _______________________________________________________________________ Teresa E Tutt /\ /\ tuttt@rpi.edu // \ n / \\ EPHY '96 (( #>X<# )) "Life need not be easy \\ / H \ // provided it is not empty" \/ H \/ -Lise Meitner H | | | | | | U http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt _______________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy17 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Bill Rowe / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:40:41 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Bill Rowe writes: > > "OK, for the moment let's agree to let your statements stand as is. What > is the definition of CF? I am not asking for a detailed recipe to create > CF effects just a simple definition." > >I cannot give a simple definition, because I do not know enough about the >phenomenon yet. [skipped] >As for the my complicated functional definition of CF, I generally agree with >Ed Storms on issues like that. In a nutshell, CF produces heat beyond >chemistry, tritium in some cases, low level neutrons, and helium in all cases >I believe. There is some evidence that it can transmute much heavier elements. From your comments above it seems for a process to be considered CF there must be "excess" heat, low level neutrons and helium present. Yet many CF experiments have either not detected or not looked for neutrons. As far as helium, it seems to me valid questions raised about detection methods, contamination and hanling of samples have yet to be adequately addressed. Consequently, it seems the only certain sign of CF is "excess" heat. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Labrys / Re: Muon Fusion Question Originally-From: tuttt@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question Date: 17 Sep 1995 13:51:21 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Ben Carter writes: >No, this has not been observed. The reaction p + p --> d + positron + nu >is endothermic. It requires enough initial kinetic energy to compensate >for the greater mass of the particles produced. This can happen in a >star but not in a muonic molecule. I thought it was exothermic, just a very low Q (~.5 MeV, plus another ~.5MeV for electron/positron annihilation). -- _______________________________________________________________________ Teresa E Tutt /\ /\ tuttt@rpi.edu // \ n / \\ EPHY '96 (( #>X<# )) "Life need not be easy \\ / H \ // provided it is not empty" \/ H \/ -Lise Meitner H | | | | | | U http://www.rpi.edu/~tuttt _______________________________________________________________________ cudkeys: cuddy17 cudentuttt cudlnLabrys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 08:18:45 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <21cenlogic-1509951713480001@austin-2-9.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > ***{Wrong again. Proposing a classical picture indicates that I am making > an honest attempt to understand reality, rather than an attempt to curry > favor with the powers-that-be within the academic physics community. Yes, I admit it, I learned QM only to up my GPA. And the worst thing is, once I had bought into the QM indoctrination, I was no longer able to think classically at all. Its really sad, but my mind was ruined. Bravo, MJ---go forth where those of us formally trained cannot forge. > whatever nonsense happens to be the dominant fad-of-the-moment within > academic physics. My opinion, at a given moment, is the conclusion of the > strongest argument I know relative to an issue. Period. I don't give a > hoot in hell whether it is what a professor wants to hear or not. I agree, but my mind is too addled to do anything about it these days. But you are free---remind me of the classical explanation of discrete spectral lines, the photoelectric effect, the short wavelenght spectrum of black bodies, and the double slit interference experiments. I'm sure a classical picture accounts for them all, but I'm just too dull to see it after the academic brainwashing I underwent. But surely you, who values only the most compelling argument, have a stance that explains all these effects, in addition to cold fusion. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / jedrothwell@de / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 00:07:11 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Bill Rowe writes: "OK, for the moment let's agree to let your statements stand as is. What is the definition of CF? I am not asking for a detailed recipe to create CF effects just a simple definition." I cannot give a simple definition, because I do not know enough about the phenomenon yet. I can only give a complicated functional definition, with lots of caveats and blank spaces to be filled in later. I know what CF does, even though I do not know what it is. My situation is similar to that of a scientist in 1700 who does not know what combustion is. He can tell you how fire works; he can give you loads of practical advice for making a hot fire, or a slow burning fire; he knows that air is needed to sustain the reaction, and he can control a furnace nearly as well as we can today. He knows how to build a fire hot enough to smelt iron. He knows how to prevent many forms of pollution due to incomplete combustion. In one memorable test of that era, a well designed furnace did not generate a stink even when it burned coal soaked in cat piss. That is a remarkable achievement! But Mr. 1700 Scientist cannot give you a "simple definition" because he has never heard of oxygen. If you ask for a theoretical description, he will give you a lot of what you consider balderdash about elemental earth, air, fire and water. As for the my complicated functional definition of CF, I generally agree with Ed Storms on issues like that. In a nutshell, CF produces heat beyond chemistry, tritium in some cases, low level neutrons, and helium in all cases I believe. There is some evidence that it can transmute much heavier elements. There is a great deal of information available about loading levels, performance, and metallurgy which constitutes the nitty gritty of the working definition. We know, for example, that Pd CF requires D2O whereas Ni CF works with ordinary water (1/6000 D2O). I do not know if Ni CF works with pure light water. This sort of nitty gritty information is the equivalent of our 1700 scientist's definition of fire as "something that must consume air to continue." That is a gross simplification of a definition that takes a good 25 pages for Ed to spell out. If you read his papers you will see how he and I and most others view the issues. You will also see that at working definition does not fit into an Internet e-mail message, and should not be presented in such a limited forum. I quibble with some of Ed views. Regarding some aspects of the working definition of CF -- topics like neutrons -- I do not know enough physics to have an opinion. As to the deep physical definition of CF, I know as much about that as your 1700 scientist knows about oxygen. That is to say, I have not got the faintest idea. Unlike Mr. 1700 I realize how ignorant I am, so I will not give you any of the 1990's version of elemental earth, air, fire and water. My hunch is that from the point of view of physicists in the year 3000, we will be seen as just a little more knowledgeable than our friends who lived 50 years after Newton. I predict that 99% of what we think we know will turn out to be mistaken. On a related issue, I have no idea whether the Griggs Gadget produces heat from the same mechanism as metal lattice CF gadgets. There have been no experiments to find out yet, so I have no way of knowing. I never form opinions until I see lots of good experimental data. "BTW, I haven't claimed calorimetry is not sufficient to show CF. What I have claimed is measurement of "excess" heat (particularly in the amounts detected in CF experiments) is not sufficient to show *fusion*. At this point, I am not convince CF is a fusion process. This does not mean I doubt the heat measurements. I do doubt the *interpretation* of those measurements as fusion." For the 15 millionth time I ask you to PLEASE take into account of the fact that CF experiments also produce tritium, helium and neutrons. Do not pretend that half of the experimental evidence does not exist. You cannot ignore these critical findings, and contrary to the statements of many "skeptics" you you cannot disprove them either. Read Fritz Will, Bockris or Claytor and you will see that the tritium findings are rock solid. You will find no experimental error. Any process that converts deuterium into tritium and helium is fusion, by definition. Fusion means you fuse light elements together. I don't see how you can call that an "interpretation." It is more like Webster's Dictionary definition. (I realize that alpha particles may come from other nuclear processes, but I don't think you can get both helium-4 *and* tritium from anything but fusion.) Obviously CF is fusion! What else makes heat, tritium and helium? Maybe it is fusion + Some Other Mysterious Process (SOMP), but it must involve some level of fusion too. And it sure as heck ain't chemistry, unless you think a match can burn for six months. When you talk about "the amounts [of heat] detected in CF experiments," bear in mind that no CF experiment has ever exhausted the fuel and petered out. So nobody on earth knows what amounts of energy might be produced by CF. If you observe a hot sample of radioactive metal for 15 minutes, that does not prove fission produces heat at KeV or MeV levels of energy. You have to observe it long enough to compute the half-life, so you can tell when it will peter out. A similar measurment a CF cell half-life has never been done. All we know so far is that CF exceeds both the theoretical and the observed limits of chemical reactions at least 10,000 times over. We do not yet know how much farther it might go. If it ever exceeds the limits of a *nuclear* reaction, that would prove that it must be fusion + SOMP. - Jed P.S. No, I don't know where they got the coal. I suppose they shut several poor kitty cats in a coal bunker for a week. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Jim Bowery / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m sc.industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 04:39:17 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Arthur Carlson TOK (awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote: : In article rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) writes: : > So which is it: are the guys trying to ridicule the ball claim : > too gutless [...] or can they just not figure : > out how to place sell orders on IF? : Is that it? Just two choices? How about, I don't get a kick out of : your game so I don't bother? Make it worth my while. OK, Art. You say he doesn't have "anywhere near 1 in 1000" odds of pulling off the claim that I posted. You then say your 1 in 10 odds offer is due to the fact that you don't want to bother remembering that some guy owes you "a few dollars" over a long period of time. Fine. How about we go for a much nearer term claim that is just as incredible according to your prior posts ridiculing Paul Koloc's supposed failure to grasp basic principles of physics like the virial theorem: By December 21, 1995, I will produce three independent witnesses of unimpeachable credentials, who claim that they recognize the essential validity of Paul Koloc's MHD model of a stable compound plasma configuration (plasma shell containing a vacum poloidal field containing a toroidal plasma with relativistic currents). I'll let you use Robert Heeter as judge BECAUSE Robert has a conflict of interest -- just to make you feel extra safe. If Robert is disqualified for any reason, I'll accept Bruce Scott. I'll even pay my money in advance and accept nothing more than a conditional IOU as collateral from you. Since this compound plasma model is the foundation of Paul's other claims, and the time is so short, this claim is similar in outrageousness to the earlier PLASMAK(tm) claim. We won't hold you to 1 in 1000 odds on this, of course, but 1 in 100 seems fair given your posturing and the issues at stake. I'll put up $150 now, assuming you can actually pay up on your $15,000. -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. Change the tools and you change the rules. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.14 / R BOUCHARD / cmsg cancel <439oau$1i7@clic2.qbc.clic.net> Originally-From: bogiadsq@qbc.clic.net (Raynald BOUCHARD) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <439oau$1i7@clic2.qbc.clic.net> Date: 14 Sep 1995 16:13:34 GMT EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19950914.03 for further details cudkeys: cuddy14 cudenbogiadsq cudfnRaynald cudlnBOUCHARD cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 08:09:41 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <43c0j9$b3o@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes: > Thank you Barry for your witty remark about our educational backgrounds. > Sure, it was a classical cheap shot---but the gods of coincidence dictated that I capatilize on it. In reality I don't care too much whether someone has official credentials. Having a number of degrees myself, I don't prize them particularly. > > I think somebody should try to run the Griggs device with heavy water. I > think gammas and Tritium will come out. > According to Jed, from over a year ago, its been done already. No effect on excess heat, and it obviouosly didn't kill those in the vicinity either. I think someone should do a detailed energy balance, includeing stored heat, on the griggs device in steam mode. I suspect that would get to the bottom of things. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 08:38:00 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <43gll5$pf8@soenews.ucsd.edu> barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > > > > ***{Wrong again. Proposing a classical picture indicates that I am making > > an honest attempt to understand reality, rather than an attempt to curry > > favor with the powers-that-be within the academic physics community. > By the way, MJ, since you seem to have a fair understanding of QM, you should know its not very accurate to describe it as mathematically curve fit to the data. One approach to the mathematical formulation of QM is Schroedinger's double optical analogy, which basically ``deduces'' the wave equation for matter by analogizing from the already well verified wave equation for photons (namely Maxwell's equations). In short, its fair to say that the reason the QM wave equation works so well is that it rests on the foundation laid by Maxwells equations, which happened to be a correct theory for photons. So in a sense we were fortunate in already have the correct quantum theory for photons to build on. No real accidents or rabits pulled from a hat, juts an issue of correctly generalizing that to massive particles. Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Ramon Prasad / Re: A simple speculation Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A simple speculation Date: 17 Sep 1995 05:14:21 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated zoltan@aol.com (Zoltan Szakaly) wrote (amongst other things) : >How does the lattice promote electron capture? >Where does the energy come from to allow electron capture? Perhaps these two questions are the same question. The short answer is I don't know. But I can give some ruminations. We want a mechanism that works very well, because we have to produce a lot of heat on a long term basis. I feel this rules out cosmic ray ideas. I am not very keen on the idea of there not being enough room for the electron shell. A deuteron would not miss its electron shell. It would simply go without. Hydrogen ions are said to exist in many situations without their electron shells. If this is to be pursued you need a lattice mechanism that is going to try to force an electon onto the deuteron. What is that force? I am not very keen on the idea of borrowing energy from quantum fluctuations. Its got to be a powerful initiator, not an accident. Palladium distinguishes itself by its ability to soak up very large quantities of deuterium. Maybe it is something to do with the 1:1 loading ratio, filling up all available locations, and then trying to add yet more! These are only thoughts for your consideration. Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely, Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy17 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Markus Baur / Re: if (was:PLASMAK(tm)) Originally-From: baur@ping.ping.at (Markus Baur) Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.energy,misc.industry.utilities.electric sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: if (was:PLASMAK(tm)) Date: 17 Sep 1995 12:22:00 +0200 Would it be possible to post the adress for the if exchange? thanks in advance Markus von Brixlegg Internet Email: baur@ping.at m.k.a. Markus Baur Fido : 2:310/30.20 Pouthongasse 5/2/9 Voice : +43/1/9857558 A-1150 Wien Austria/Europe There are NO kangaroos in Austria! ## CrossPoint v3.02 ## cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbaur cudfnMarkus cudlnBaur cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / dwark@vax.oxfo / Re: Multineutron systems Originally-From: dwark@vax.oxford.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Multineutron systems Date: 18 Sep 95 12:29:08 GMT Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620 In article <43c9f9$pds$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, Prasad,Ramon <100437.530@CompuServe.COM> writes: That's it, I'm out of here. I have scanned this group on occasion to see if there was any progress on finding out where the anomalous heat production in some CF experiments comes from. I strongly suspect it is some systematic in the calorimetry, but it could be a lot of things and I have been curious to see how it comes out. I have even on occasion been coaxed into saying something. But over time the amount of actual experiment discussed has steadily declined to be replaced by ridiculously simple-minded "theories" which betray nearly complete ignorance of the most basic physics. People claim that quantum mechanics must be basically flawed without any real understanding of what it is, and then become petulant when their rubbish is ignored. HINT: A real scientific theory makes quantitative predictions, a new theory both predicts (quantitatively) behavior not previously understood and explains how the old theory (which must have been wrong or incomplete in some way or you wouldn't have needed a new one) gave the correct predictions for enough experiments to have been accepted in the first place. I have seen nothing that qualifies, or even tries to qualify here. Now I find myself spending time reading: > >>How long do the neutrons remain within the range of the nuclear >>interaction? > I don't know. My surmise was that, as a deuteron is a stable > object, charge independence of nuclear forces would suggest > that the dineutron is also stable. But I don't know this. > -- Charge independence would imply the same binding for a dineutron as for a neutron and a proton IN THE SAME EIGENSTATE. What is the spin of a deuteron? Do you know? Do you care? Do you understand why it is significant? As a hint, what would the Pauli exclusion principle have to say about a dineutron in the same eigenstate? Ignoring any theoretical argument whatsoever, the absence of any strongly bound state of the dineutron (and especially the diproton) is one of the most fundamental facts of nuclear physics (how long to you thing the sun would shine if there existed a strong bound state of the diproton? Do you understand the relevance of the question?). Please get an elementary text on nuclear physics, another on particle physics, and another on quantum mechanics. Read them. DO THE PROBLEMS. Only then will you have a chance to really add something to human understanding (although by then you may begin to appreciate how hard it is to do so, and how many more books, papers and problems lie between you and the frontier). Even if you think the theories are complete crap you must at least have a grasp of the experimental constraints which exist. And if you do think that the theories are complete crap you might want to find an explanation that will satisfy your audience for how a quantum field theory (quantum electrodynamics, or QED) got the right answer for g-2 of the electron to 12 decimal places. Some lucky guess, huh? And remember, real physical theories come with a mathematical model attached, not just poorly defined jargon. In any case I think my chances of learning anything useful here have sunk to the point that I will unregister this newsgroup. It has been entertaining if not particularly educational. If somebody does come up with some genuinely useful data on the CF cells I hope I get to hear about it. Of course if it does turn out to just be a calorimetry error I am sure the Wall Street Journal will publish a page one retraction. It would be the honorable thing to do, after all, and I am sure that journalistic ethics means more to them than circulation :-). Have fun everybody, Dave Wark cudkeys: cuddy18 cudendwark cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Bill Snyder / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:58:11 GMT Organization: Internet America In message , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Richard Schultz asks: > > "Which is it? Does CF produce tritium always, sometimes, or never?" > >Read the literature and you will see for yourself. > Or in plain English, since you can't bullshit your way out of the obvious contradiction in your statements, you use the old "you haven't read the literature" line to completely ignore it. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Horace Heffner / Re: Quantum Tunneling Probability Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Quantum Tunneling Probability Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:54:55 -0900 Organization: none In article <43ejgo$aj0@giga.bga.com>, ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) wrote: > Deutrons inside lattice would behave radically different from when they > are outside of lattice. They are captured in the electrostatic potential > created by nuclear charges. Probability of fusion increases as time. A > little bit more of deuterium inside the same potential well would > increase the chance by the exponential rate. Did anybody calculate this > problem by manybody collision inside electrostatic potential model ? > > Euejin > This was discussed (at ICCF3 I believe) by Dr. Y Fukai in his talk "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system". His conclusion was that, with vacancies in the lattice, it is possible to have up to 6 D nuclei together, but the separation is always greater than 1.86 A (in D2 gas it is .74 A). A separation of a mere 0.15 A would produce only 10E-20 fusions per second. He also pointed out that lattice undulations could only be expected to provide about 1 eV energy. For these reasons, unless otherwise shown, deuteron proximity in the lattice and tunneling do not seem to be a significant factor in cold fusion. I can't afford and have no access to the proceedings, so this information is courtesy Dieter Britz's bibliography, regularly posted here, for which I am deeply greatful. Regards, Horace -- Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / jedrothwell@de / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 16:06:02 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Bill Snyder writes: >Or in plain English, since you can't bullshit your way out of the >obvious contradiction in your statements, you use the old "you haven't There are no contradictions in nature. What happens, happens. Tritium evolution in CF experiments is a complicated issue. The way it works is surprising. I am not going to try to explain it here to someone who has obviously never bothered to read anything at all about any aspect of CF. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 16:14:39 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> writes: >Mark, it is bad policy to read a criticism of a post but not the post >itself. The critic may be deranged, or ignorant, or may not even have >bothered to read the original post himself. Because of that, if you post Yup. And it is worse to read a criticism of an interpretation of a summary of a paper . . . without reading the original paper or any simliar paper by the same author. When you have a second-hand view of things, or even a third, fourth or fifth hand version of the story, you usually end up with chaos instead of science. It is like a game children play called "telephone." One kid wispers a message like "I ate three cookies" into another kid B's ear, B wispers to C, C to D, and by the time you get to Kid F the message is hopelessly scrambled. This game is a heck of a lot of fun, but it is not how you do science. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Blair Bromley / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: bromley@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (Blair Patric Bromley) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: 18 Sep 1995 05:33:00 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Simon Rowland writes: > About He3: > I read on space.tech that tritium breaks down into He3. Does that >mean that we could manufacture it earthside? or would it just react with >the tritium? Anyway, what's the power yield with H (and could or would >existing nuke plants be converted if there was a supply)? Yes, we can manufacture it earthside, but conventional wisdom figures that it could be manufactured most easily in a fusion reactor where it would be burned anyways. It is the D-D-n fusion reaction which yields He-3. Reacting it with tritium is certainly possible, but it requires a lot higher ion temperatures. The tritium-deuterium reaction is the easiest to carry out. Deuterium is locked in sea water, and tritium can be bred from Lithium, although heavy water reactors have moderate quantities of tritium created as a by-product. He-3 reacts most easily with Deuterium, and it is the second-easiest reaction to carry out after the deuterium-tritium reaction. The big advantageof He-3 is that it yields a little more energy than the tritium reaction, plus it yields no neutrons, which is a big advantage if you are trying to design a fusion reactor which doesn't produce radioactive waste during its operation, or a reactor which won't neutron-activate some its construction materials. Also, getting the energy out of a fusion neutron requires slowing it down and heating up a working fluid (namely water). Energetic alpha particles and protons (He-3 + D fusion products) could be fed into a direct - energy converter. > Also, what's the deal with lunar He3? Does it exist or is it mere >specuation? How could we detect it (aside from spraying H around and >hoping you're not vaporized)? What would be its value if there were nuke >plants ready to accept it? Yes, it does exist, in microscopic quantities as a result of bombard ment of the lunar regolith by the solar wind for billions of years. It's value? Of all the things you could mine on the moon, this would have the most potential value as a commodity making it worthwhile to mine and bring back to earth. But this discussion is rather mute until an economical fusion reactor can be made operational, and that won't happen for another 80 years or so with the current concepts being funded for research AND development (read: Tokamak and Stellerator). > I'm really curious about this He3 stuff, and would appreciate _any_ >info you have. One of the best journals to consult on this and related materials is the Fusion Technology Journal. The most notable research on He-3 mining has been studied at the University of Wisconsin at Madison under the guidance of Dr. Kulcinski. Former Apollo astronaut Jack Schmidt has also done some study on this. But, He-3 mining shouldn't be considered as the reason for going back to the Moon in the near term. Definitely a side-benefit we can make use of later. Blair cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbromley cudfnBlair cudlnBromley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / T Sullivan / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: Timothy Sullivan Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: 18 Sep 1995 14:54:07 GMT Organization: Kenyon College Physics Department He-3 is a decay product of tritium and tritium is used in hydrogen bombs. Hence, He-3 is a byproduct of our nuclear weapons stockpile. So it is being manufactured "earthside". Quite expensive, but I don't have a figure. Off the top of my head I seem to remember $1000/STP-liter. Tim Sullivan (sullivan@kenyon.edu) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenSullivan cudfnTimothy cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Charles Pooley / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:43:47 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Simon Rowland (simon@curtis.eagle.ca) wrote: : About He3: : I read on space.tech that tritium breaks down into He3. Does that ////////////////////////// He3 is the stable light isotope of helium, which occurs in earth environment to extent of about 1/10million of He4. It is also the decay product of tritium, the 13 yr half life isotope of hydrogen. It is hoped, for advanced fusion sustems (assuming we get the 1st fusion system working), the reaction of He3 plus deuterium yields no neutrons-- thought desirable, as charged particles are easier to handle than nutrons. But difficulties are that side reactions, like D+D->He3+n and D+D->T+p. The latter, reacting readily: D+T->He4+n (this being the main reaction for hoped for success in fusion as it is by far the easiest to effect). Lunar He3 is probable, and maybe mineable, as He3 is a component on solar wind, which is fast moving light nucleii, which imbed in solids, and can be retrieved by heating. The proposals usually involve scooping up top 1-2 cm of regolith, heating, and returnong to lunar surface... There's lots of lit. on these. Better bet is to find any locations of lunar H2O, use it fore a more near-term resource: H2/O2 propellant. === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === Charles Pooley ckp@netcom.com | former pres. Pacific Rocket Society | FOR ACCESS TO SPACE, BUILD ROCKETS designer, AmSpace I LOX rocket | === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenckp cudfnCharles cudlnPooley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 02:14:21 -0800 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 In article <43d5jt$pml@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > In article <-1409952033540001@ip-salem2-01.teleport.com> > > That way the > > people who invest in Singularity Technologies Inc. new process have the > > option of saying yes or no - unlike the average taxpayer who can say very > > little. > > > > -- > > Charles Cagle > > Singularity Technologies, Inc. > > 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W. > > Salem, OR 97304 > > > > Perhaps if you would provide some clear demonstration that you > have any technology of value, people would invest in your company. > You are developing something of a crank reputation on the Internet, > for dwelling in the sci groups, making oblique references to > your own theories of physics that show how to make new energy sources, > and that show existing nuclear physics is misguided, but nver offering > and clear supporting evidence, references, etc. You're right Barry! I suppose I have developed something of a crank reputation. It is all my fault, too. If I never wrote a note of protest against censoring people on the net for their wild scientific theories and ideas that they have posted my reputation would be cleaner. If I never protested against the on-going rape to the American taxpayer I would be perhaps more respected; particularly if I endorsed the current policies and approaches to fusion. If I had never wrote a word against hot fusion follies perhaps people would look up to me. If I had never written of the poor approaches characterising cold fusion research maybe some of the that camp would like me also. I guess I really have blown it. Here I found the internet and thought I would find something synergistic and perhaps almost a gestalt experience. Instead I found Jed's piranha pool.:-). For part of the record here: I wasn't posting to win a popularity contest but to see if anyone was listening. There is a lot wrong with modern science and it isn't going to be fixed by going along with the status quo. Just for more of the record. My goals: I would like to see success in fusion. I'm hoping for it within my own company. For all of our sakes (humanity's) I hope the fusion problem gets solved quickly. What I have found in my twenty some years watching the physics community is a comedy of errors. You don't see these errors without standing back and looking with a telescope. You have to look across numerous sub-disciplines in physics. And you must stand watching the whole play for a period of years before you realize what a great farce it all is. There is a slap-stick comedy going on in science and it most often is conducted with very straight faces. I have watched pronouncements and changes and opinions which sometimes just fade away and other times metamorphically change into the absolute accepted gospel of modern physics. I've seen good science ignored because it doesn't fit the current paradigm. > I would be your biggest supporter if you could point to a reference > that clearly demosntrates a misunderstanding in modern nuclear physics. I can't say it would be so much a reference that I could provide - because that might imply that the answer is already in print. Rather I might be able to point to a direction and a road that research in fusion physics simply hasn't taken and is unable to take because of a very simple error with regards to the supposed interaction of charged particles. This error in logic more than anything else has prevented modern physics from looking down that road and finding the simple answers that are in plain sight. But since I have just applied for the patent on the process it wouldn't be real sensible to disclose the science behind it until the patent was issued, particularly if I hope to license the technology. Best Regards, -- Charles Cagle Singularity Technologies, Inc. 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W. Salem, OR 97304 singtech@teleport.com I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed, Hid privily, a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts. - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound email> singtech@teleport.com cudkeys: cuddy17 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 02:15:17 -0800 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 In article <43d5jt$pml@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote: > In article <-1409952033540001@ip-salem2-01.teleport.com> > > That way the > > people who invest in Singularity Technologies Inc. new process have the > > option of saying yes or no - unlike the average taxpayer who can say very > > little. > > > > -- > > Charles Cagle > > Singularity Technologies, Inc. > > 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W. > > Salem, OR 97304 > > > > Perhaps if you would provide some clear demonstration that you > have any technology of value, people would invest in your company. > You are developing something of a crank reputation on the Internet, > for dwelling in the sci groups, making oblique references to > your own theories of physics that show how to make new energy sources, > and that show existing nuclear physics is misguided, but nver offering > and clear supporting evidence, references, etc. You're right Barry! I suppose I have developed something of a crank reputation. It is all my fault, too. If I never wrote a note of protest against censoring people on the net for their wild scientific theories and ideas that they have posted my reputation would be cleaner. If I never protested against the on-going rape to the American taxpayer I would be perhaps more respected; particularly if I endorsed the current policies and approaches to fusion. If I had never wrote a word against hot fusion follies perhaps people would look up to me. If I had never written of the poor approaches characterising cold fusion research maybe some of the that camp would like me also. I guess I really have blown it. Here I found the internet and thought I would find something synergistic and perhaps almost a gestalt experience. Instead I found Jed's piranha pool.:-). For part of the record here: I wasn't posting to win a popularity contest but to see if anyone was listening. There is a lot wrong with modern science and it isn't going to be fixed by going along with the status quo. Just for more of the record. My goals: I would like to see success in fusion. I'm hoping for it within my own company. For all of our sakes (humanity's) I hope the fusion problem gets solved quickly. What I have found in my twenty some years watching the physics community is a comedy of errors. You don't see these errors without standing back and looking with a telescope. You have to look across numerous sub-disciplines in physics. And you must stand watching the whole play for a period of years before you realize what a great farce it all is. There is a slap-stick comedy going on in science and it most often is conducted with very straight faces. I have watched pronouncements and changes and opinions which sometimes just fade away and other times metamorphically change into the absolute accepted gospel of modern physics. I've seen good science ignored because it doesn't fit the current paradigm. > I would be your biggest supporter if you could point to a reference > that clearly demosntrates a misunderstanding in modern nuclear physics. I can't say it would be so much a reference that I could provide - because that might imply that the answer is already in print. Rather I might be able to point to a direction and a road that research in fusion physics simply hasn't taken and is unable to take because of a very simple error with regards to the supposed interaction of charged particles. This error in logic more than anything else has prevented modern physics from looking down that road and finding the simple answers that are in plain sight. But since I have just applied for the patent on the process it wouldn't be real sensible to disclose the science behind it until the patent was issued, particularly if I hope to license the technology. Best Regards, -- Charles Cagle Singularity Technologies, Inc. 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W. Salem, OR 97304 singtech@teleport.com I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed, Hid privily, a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts. - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound email> singtech@teleport.com cudkeys: cuddy17 cudensingtech cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Matthew Kennel / Re: Multineutron systems Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Multineutron systems Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:05:14 GMT Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn. Prasad wrote: : >How long do the neutrons remain within the range of the nuclear : >interaction? : I don't know. My surmise was that, as a deuteron is a stable : object, charge independence of nuclear forces would suggest : that the dineutron is also stable. But I don't know this. No, one of the neutrons would like to get rid of some energy by decaying into a proton + stuff. A deuteron wouldn't convert its remaining neutron because then the electrostatic repulsion would make that energetically unfavorable. : Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: Censorship of my posts? Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Censorship of my posts? Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:47:37 GMT Organization: Improving In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote : [snip] >Wow! This is strange. Let me get this straight: We should be nice, and polite, >so that we do not accidentally make other people go and violate our legal >rights. If some guy comes and burns a cross on my lawn, it is my fault >because I upset him. Right? > >Nope. Sorry. People can get as upset as they like by the postings of Prof. Pu, >but they damn well better not violate his right to post. If they do, the >police aught to go after them. That is what we pay the police to do. Society >is not organized to promote good manners and pleasent relations, it is >organized to protect basic human rights in an unfriendly, agressive and >competative world. > >- Jed While I agree that this is so, perhaps if people were a little friendlier, less agressive, and a little more cooperative, fewer people would feel the need to violate other's rights. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / ZoltanCCC / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:08:56 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In order to preserve bandwidth I do not wish to comment in length on anything you say that involves the question of who deserves credit for what aspect of what we discover by brainstorming in this newsgroup. I would like to comment on the philosophical issue of a particle moving from one spot to another in space. In my view space is a computer that obviously computes the states of particles and stores information that indicates their positions, velocities and so on. These views are not mine alone. When one is to assume the electron moves on a trajectory there is a finite granularity on which scale the electron does not exist because it is really a complicated structure whose information is being copied from location to location as it moves. The area of space where the electron's wave function is may be very large, macroscopic in size. The pointlike electron is just a phenomena that is observed when the wave function collapses on the point of impact. To say for example that electrons go around and around the nucleus is not a correct picture of reality because the wave function for example for the first shell is a bell shaped curve with its center at the nucleus. The electron is most likely to be found right in the middle of the nucleus. Electron capture does not happen because it would use more energy that it would liberate when it happens. If the nucleus is proton rich electron capture will happen even from high shells, because total energy is reduced by the reaction. Right now I believe in electron capture because I have no better idea to explain what goes on in deuterated lattices. In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > >***{Such a formulation doesn't work. If it did, a hydrogen plasma would be >a sufficient condition for fusion. In that case, "hot fusion" would have >succeeded 40 years ago, and this entire discussion would be moot. >--Mitchell Jones}*** I suspect that the mechanism that allows electron capture to happen in cold fusion is not working in hot fusion experiments because the electron capture cross section is too small at high electron and deuteron energies. The neutrons formed have such high thermal energies that they fly out of the experiment before they could react. This is actually an observed fact, the fast neutrons fly away and heat the exterior structure. Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / ZoltanCCC / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:08:57 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Perhaps somebody could do temperature measurements in a large waterfall like Niagara Falls to see if any excess heat is produced by the high velocity impact. I wonder if the cavitation produced would be similar to the Griggs device in that case? Zoltan Szakaly cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Barry Merriman / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: 18 Sep 1995 02:06:58 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <43igr9$c2i@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes: > Perhaps somebody could do temperature measurements in a large waterfall > like Niagara Falls to see if any excess heat is produced by the high > velocity impact. > > I wonder if the cavitation produced would be similar to the Griggs device > in that case? > > Zoltan Szakaly Zoltan: what makes you so sure the Griggs device generates any excess heat itself? -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Bob Sullivan / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 01:12:05 GMT Organization: SkyNET Corporation In article <43igr9$c2i@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote: >Perhaps somebody could do temperature measurements in a large waterfall >like Niagara Falls to see if any excess heat is produced by the high >velocity impact. > >I wonder if the cavitation produced would be similar to the Griggs device >in that case? > >Zoltan Szakaly No need to do the experiment. It's already been done. The water does gain heat. The Rothwell measurement protocol would identify it as cold fusion -- heat beyond chemistry, but the heat gain is explained by conventional physics. The potential energy of the water at the top of the falls is converted to kinetic energy while falling and then to internal energy (heat) when the water hits the bottom. Really not mysterious enough to qualify as cold fusion. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Bill Rowe / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 19:12:41 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-1709951519560001@199.172.8.133>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >In article <43e7b5$3e3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zoltanccc@aol.com >(ZoltanCCC) wrote: > >> >> As a matter of fact instead of talking about protoneutrons you could just >> say that lots of electrons and protons occupy the same region. > >***{Such a formulation doesn't work. If it did, a hydrogen plasma would be >a sufficient condition for fusion. In that case, "hot fusion" would have >succeeded 40 years ago, and this entire discussion would be moot. >--Mitchell Jones}*** Isn't this a fairly strong indictment of a protoneutron theory? Surely given the conditions present in a plasma you would think there would have to be collisions between protons and electrons and there would be sufficient energy to form a protoneutron. It seems to me completion of a protoneutron theory must explain the lack of observation of these effects in convential fusion experiments. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / jedrothwell@de / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 22:55:16 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Bill Rowe writes: >From your comments above it seems for a process to be considered CF there >must be "excess" heat, low level neutrons and helium present. You forgot tritium! As I said hundred times: Don't throw away the data. There is no point to pretending CF does not produce tritium. >Yet many CF >experiments have either not detected or not looked for neutrons. In most CF experiments they do not look for neutrons, because there are so few they are terribly difficult to detect. There have been a few experiments in which people looked for neutrons but did not find them, but in these cases we have every reason to believe there was no CF reaction. For example, in the Kamiokande experiments the electrochemistry was seriously flawed by contamination, and no effort was made to look for excess heat (which is far easier to detect with CF.) Even a carefully done CF experiment has only about a 50% chance of success, and a sloppy, contaminated experiment has close to 0% chance. As Ikegami says, you cannot catch fish in a dry hole. >As far as >helium, it seems to me valid questions raised about detection methods, >contamination and hanling of samples have yet to be adequately addressed. >Consequently, it seems the only certain sign of CF is "excess" heat. I do not think these questions are valid. I have read the scientific papers, talked to the scientists and read reports from the labs that verified the helium, like Rockwell. As far as I am concerned these "questions" that have been raised have no scientific merit, any more than the infamous "cigarette lighter theory" or Richard Blue's recent claims that the specific heat of water can suddenly change, or his statement that you cannot tell if a body is producing energy merely by observing a persistant elevated temperature relative to the surroundings. I regard these objections as non-scientific hand-waving designed to confuse the issue and subvert serious scientific discussion. The objections raised by the "skeptics" to the tritium and helium findings fall in this category. They are not serious, and no scientist should pay attention to them. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / A Plutonium / cmsg cancel <433rh0$aaf@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: cmsg cancel <433rh0$aaf@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 04:00:40 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / A Plutonium / cmsg cancel <43feag$l12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: cmsg cancel <43feag$l12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 04:03:02 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / A Plutonium / cmsg cancel <433rr4$egi@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: cmsg cancel <433rr4$egi@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 04:04:05 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / A Plutonium / cmsg cancel <437ss8$3r1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle Subject: cmsg cancel <437ss8$3r1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 04:57:34 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Robert Heeter / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:01:53 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article Jim Bowery, jabowery@netcom.com writes: >How about we go for a much nearer term claim that is just as incredible >according to your prior posts ridiculing Paul Koloc's supposed failure >to grasp basic principles of physics like the virial theorem: > >By December 21, 1995, I will produce three independent witnesses of >unimpeachable credentials, who claim that they recognize the essential >validity of Paul Koloc's MHD model of a stable compound plasma >configuration (plasma shell containing a vacum poloidal field containing > a toroidal plasma with relativistic currents). > >I'll let you use Robert Heeter as judge BECAUSE Robert has a conflict of >interest -- just to make you feel extra safe. I'm flattered that you would consider me for this, but regardless of what you decide to bet on, I wish to decline as judge/referee. There are several thousand scientists out there who are better qualified than a mere graduate student. In any case, this sort of thing just isn't my cup of tea. But thanks for thinking of me. ----------------------------------------------------- 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: cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Benjamin Carter / Re: Muon Fusion Question Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 06:33:56 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) tuttt@nuge105.its.rpi.edu (Labrys) pointed out that I goofed when I wrote: >>... The reaction p + p --> d + positron + nu >>is endothermic. ... >I thought it was exothermic, just a very low Q (~.5 MeV, plus another >~.5MeV for electron/positron annihilation). That is right. The reaction works in stars because there are lots of protons. The rate is very slow for any one particular proton. In a muonic H2+ molecule, the rate is so slow that it would never be observed. Capture of the muon by a proton, yielding a neutron and a muon's neutrino, has been observed. This is also a weak interaction, but it is much faster because most of the muon's mass is converted into energy (approx. 100 Mev). Still faster is the muon decay rate (another weak interaction). -- Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Philip Gibbs / Re: if (was:PLASMAK(tm)) Originally-From: phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.energy,misc.industry.utilities.electric sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: if (was:PLASMAK(tm)) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 07:16:15 GMT Organization: Eurocontrol In article <5u2uFUfgXyB@site6.ping.at>, baur@ping.ping.at (Markus Baur) writes: > Would it be possible to post the adress for the if exchange? > Yes its, http://if.arc.ab.ca/~jamesm/IF/IF.shtml cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenphil cudfnPhilip cudlnGibbs cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Arthur TOK / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: awc@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m sc.industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: 18 Sep 1995 10:55:05 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching In article rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) writes: [The thread concerns whether it's worthwhile to play the information futures game.] > >Make it worth my while. > Yeah, that's big talk coming from someone sucking on the government > tit. If you won't put your reputation on the line in an > _accountable_ way, why should anyone think you'd put > money on the line? I'll stand up for my judgements, thank you. I have made clear statements in public view in newsgroups. If you ask me nicely, I'll even send you a signed (manually or digitally) statement of my beliefs. In what way would a bet with play money make me more accountable? > ... When I see you do something > real on someplace like the IF Exchange, then you'll start > to earn my respect. Come again? Something *real* on the *IF Exchange*? I think it's great if you want to develop a system like that, but don't expect me to treat a "10% chance for the plasmak" as having information content as long as (a) you don't calculate your odds right and (b) the people betting have nothing to gain or lose. > >Dr. Arthur Carlson > >Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics > Yeah, right, like this is supposed to impress someone. I consider it polite to give my return address on my correspondence. Furthermore, if you know what institute I'm associated with (in no way as spokesman, I should add), it allows you to make a rough judgement on my qualifications and prejudices. -- To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin Dr. Arthur Carlson Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics Garching, Germany carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.17 / Randall Burns / Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Originally-From: rburns@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.space.policy,m sc.industry.utilities.electric Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic fusion 2005 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 20:21:29 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <43etnq$111o@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, Bruce Scott TOK wrote: >Randall J. Burns (rburns@netcom.com) wrote: > >: So far, all I see watching the Information Futures exchange is very >: few bets against ball. All you need to do is put your reputation on the >: line in a somewhat objective way(assuming you have the technical >: prowess to get through the interface). [...] > >Jim Bowery already explained why the maximum win you get by simply >buying "no" shares is minimal. > >So how about you? I want to wait until other people bid it up before I >buy those (much cheaper) "no" shares. So how about it... how many "yes" >shares are you going to buy? Are you willing to try to bid it up out of >that 5-10 range all by yourself? > Well, at one time I was one of the "market makers"(I had a bid order in at 5 which is still there unless it got cancelled for some kind of maintenance reason(i.e. I'm mostly invested in other claims). I don't think that Koloc's technology is a sure thing. But when Bob Bussard says in his letter to congress "the present approach is never going to work" (This isn't an exact quote) in reference to the government managed fusion program=from one of the founders mind you. This implies that there are _no_ sure things in this arena. If all Koloc has is a 1/20 shot, he sure deserves a lot more respect, consideration and aid than he's gotten so far. Furthermore, I would bet that if we had 20 guys like Koloc getting funding (say via a prize award like Bussard and Bowery have advocated) I think it is likely that we _would_ see some real progress in this field rather rapidly and I _don't_ think it would come from any of the folk who have been eaten alive by the National Labs and elite academic institutions. >The other thing is that I simply don't have the time to play at the IFE >week after week, which I would have to do in order to do well with a >minimal margin like 5. Sure, I'll admit the interface is a pain in the but(actually there are some tricks if you only want to buy/sell a few claims)-you can put &claims=ball at the end of your transaction form and get just that claim. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenrburns cudfnRandall cudlnBurns cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Robert Eachus / Re: Reproducible but not predictable? Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Reproducible but not predictable? Date: 18 Sep 1995 22:30:40 GMT Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. In article <199509151434.KAA38413@pilot04.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes: > Does anyone have any explanation for the lack of MAYBE results? If the key parameter is the deuterium/palladium loading ratio, your model fails. First the loading limit is strongly affected by the surface, so it is not a volume phenomena, and second deuterium mobility in palladium is known to be anomalously high. The net result will be that the maximum loading for an electrode will be limited by the poorest surface location. A long time ago, this led me to speculate that the way to get repeatable laboratory results would be to use electordes plated with a metal with low deuterium diffusion and then covered with an insulator. Now you can grind and polish one end and have a small exposed surface which hopefully will be from a single grain. Of course the percieved problem with this technique is that the loading time will be increased... -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... cudkeys: cuddy18 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.18 / Bill Rowe / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:43:30 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Bill Rowe writes: > >>From your comments above it seems for a process to be considered CF there >>must be "excess" heat, low level neutrons and helium present. > >You forgot tritium! As I said hundred times: Don't throw away the data. There >is no point to pretending CF does not produce tritium. No, I did not forget tritium. Your comments stated tritium may or may not be produced in CF experiments. If it is possible to have CF and no tritium then tritium is not an essential component of CF. >>Yet many CF >>experiments have either not detected or not looked for neutrons. > >In most CF experiments they do not look for neutrons, because there are so >few they are terribly difficult to detect. There have been a few experiments >in which people looked for neutrons but did not find them, but in these cases >we have every reason to believe there was no CF reaction. For example, in the >Kamiokande experiments the electrochemistry was seriously flawed by >contamination, and no effort was made to look for excess heat (which is >far easier to detect with CF.) Even a carefully done CF experiment has only >about a 50% chance of success, and a sloppy, contaminated experiment has >close to 0% chance. As Ikegami says, you cannot catch fish in a dry hole. > >>As far as >>helium, it seems to me valid questions raised about detection methods, >>contamination and hanling of samples have yet to be adequately addressed. >>Consequently, it seems the only certain sign of CF is "excess" heat. > >I do not think these questions are valid. I have read the scientific papers, >talked to the scientists and read reports from the labs that verified the >helium, like Rockwell. As far as I am concerned these "questions" that have >been raised have no scientific merit, any more than the infamous "cigarette >lighter theory" or Richard Blue's recent claims that the specific heat of >water can suddenly change, or his statement that you cannot tell if a body >is producing energy merely by observing a persistant elevated temperature >relative to the surroundings. I regard these objections as non-scientific >hand-waving designed to confuse the issue and subvert serious scientific >discussion. The objections raised by the "skeptics" to the tritium and >helium findings fall in this category. They are not serious, and no scientist >should pay attention to them. A couple of comments on the above. First, I have been reading Dick Blue's post. Your comments above reflect your interpretation of what Dick posted. I have not seen him state he believes the specific heat of water can suddenly change. Second, even if Dick made such a comment it in no way invalidates his comments about helium. In fact, it has nothing to do with helium measurements. Finally, in view of your comments that you haven't read the "literature" on basic physics, why should I value your opinion on the validity of the questions regarding helium? -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.19 / Bob Sullivan / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 02:38:51 GMT Organization: SkyNET Corporation In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: >Bob Sullivan writes: > >>No need to do the experiment. It's already been done. The water does gain >>heat. The Rothwell measurement protocol would identify it as cold fusion -- >>heat beyond chemistry, but the heat gain is explained by conventional physics. > >Nonsense. You have not read any of my papers about Griggs. A waterfall is >an example of mechanical energy added to the water. This is exactly like >the blank or null runs I reported with the Griggs machine. There is no >excess. Are you saying that a measured temperature difference is insufficient to justify a claim of cold fusion? If so, I'm glad you finally agree with me. Do you understand that you are arguing with yourself, not me? I said conventional physics explains the heat gain, and it is in no way related to any definition of "cold" fusion. >Incidentally, when and where did anyone measure the water temperature above >and below Niagra Falls? Do you have any specific references or do you recall >any work like this? I know that the temperature at other waterfalls has been >measured. J. P. Joule measured one during his honeymoon. But I do not know >if anyone has checked Niagra. It is so large that it might harbor an anomaly >-- if any waterfall does. Well, I certainly haven't measured it. I purposely left open the question of counteracting processes just to give you something to think about. It wouldn't surprise me if some waterfall, some where, might have an unrelated "cooling" process sufficient to offset the known heat gain. But, that doesn't change the heat gain by converting potential energy to internal energy. Would it change you belief in cold fusion if the output of a Patterson cell were directed to a bucket of ice where temperature measurements were made? >This comment of yours is typical of the "ignorant skeptic." You put words in >my mouth even though all of my papers about this very subject (Griggs) >specifically and repeatedly say just the opposite of what you claim I say. >You pay no attention to the literature or to previous messages; you invent >arguments and statements and then you pretend that I said them. This is the >"straw man" technique of debating. It is irrational, impolite and it is a >waste of everyone's time, including yours, so you should stop doing it. > >- Jed Jed, over the last couple of weeks you have turned livid trying convince people that all you need to test for cold fusion is a temperature difference and a measurement of electric energy input. I have given you several absurdly simple examples where your assertion is obviously FALSE. I suggest that you read the "literature", your own posts, to see what you have been saying. Clearly, your memory is failing. Now, go to your room until you have had time to think this over. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.19 / Thomas Kunich / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:31:22 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote: >Now, back to your post: frankly, I don't understand why you bother to make >posts like that. Maybe you think that your unsupported opinion is going to >carry the day, somehow, and that is why you do it. Excuse me Mitchell, but can you explain how your protoneutrons attract these photons? As we all know there is very little chance of any specific photon hitting a protoneutron. In fact, it's probably vanishingly small. So if there are photons of gamma floating around _most_ of them would be escaping wouldn't they? And they do move ever so fast. I just assumed that Blue thought you were joking. cudkeys: cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.19 / Richard Schultz / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:12:14 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article <21cenlogic-1809950953540001@austin-1-3.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones <21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote: >(1) It may be that protoneutrons soak up gamma energy before the photons >reach the speed of light. I was going to ask what on earth this statement means, but on second thought, I suspect that I probably don't want to know. -- Richard Schultz "You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.19 / Richard Schultz / Re: 27,458 skeptics Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: 27,458 skeptics Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:23:54 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , wrote: >Read the literature and you will see for yourself. New theory of Jed Rothwell: he is not a real person, but rather a S*rdar Arg*c type bot. Programmed to say "read the literature", "this is without scientific merit," etc. The issue was not what is int the literature; the issue was a contratdiction between two things that you posted here yourself. You have not clarified the contradiction in the two statements you made. Not that I expected you to. > "And the fundamental questions of what is the actual He background level > and how was the He removed from the Pd are by no means out of line. And > I have yet to see a coherent answer to either of those questions." > >Read the literature, and you will see the answer. You have yet to look, so you >have yet to see. Again you have removed the context from my comment. Strange behavior from someone who appears to think that he is the only one displaying any kind of intellectual honesty. The issue was *your* claim that the objections were without scientific merit, and I responded by pointing out, not simply as a scientist, but as a mass spectrometrist (well, ex-mass spectrometrist), that your claim was incorrect. And you have yet to answer the other question: by your own admission, the science is over your head. How do you know, of your own knowledge, whether there is a coherent answer in the literature or not? And is there some reason why you continue to ignore the explanations of the various scientists here that a proper reference to "the literature" includes a journal, volume, and page numbers? (As if I didn't know the answer to *that* one.) And where *is* that P&F water heater? -- Richard Schultz "What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have? What is the matter with you? This place is a Goddamn Pirahna pool! Let's have some patience, and some manners." --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 14 Jan 1993 cudkeys: cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep 19 04:37:06 EDT 1995 ------------------------------