1995.09.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 05:03:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <43erug$4qr@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@pho
nix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Nuntius 2.0.4_PPC
>X-XXMessage-ID: <AC8067383C01416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
>X-XXDate: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:36:24 GMT

>In article <-1609950650520001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com> ,
>singtech@teleport.com writes:
>>That is not what the results indicated at all.  That's what the scientists
>>would like the legislatures to believe.  Null results for small
>>experiments do not have a logical connection at all with the possibility
>>of positive results with larger scale apparatus. 

>But they didn't get null results.  What they got were scaling laws
>which said that a small machine wouldn't cut it, but a larger machine
>should work reasonably well.  For instance, the crucial parameter today, 
>energy confinement time (in tokamaks at least) is known to increase
>with the size of the machine and the strength of the magnetic field.

(snipped)

The inductance goes with the size (length) of the machine, and the
inverse energy loss (transport) goes with field intensity squared.   

Now that's the rub, isn't it Robert.  Which parameter of the two
is most effective to increase?  And by how much?  There's another 
parameter, Bob, not that you would leave anything out.  That has 
to do with plasma conductivity.  If we can increase both magnetic 
pressure and conductivity of the plasma by several orders of 
magnitude, that would have an absolutely colossal effect on solving 
the problem of developing non-marginal commercial (may I say 
aneutronic energy) devices in our far more immediate future, which
are BTW compact enough to fly.  

So what's the problem here.  Why do you piddle your young life away
on such an obsolete chunk of scrap Metal (isn't it mostly metal or
does the concrete win the bulk mass race).  Go with something that 
can improve by these plasma parameters by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE;  
that's DECADES, dear fellow, in fact get something that is indeed 
decades ahead.  We expect a really big one of these somethings
would be (uncompressed) about 2 meters in diameter.  With 
compression it rivals the size of the tree fruit you might eat.   

So you really do know what to improve!  Wonderful!!  Yippee! as the
Russians say.  That's a necessary first step.  Let's now get out of 
the baby shoes and put those combat marching shoes on.   It's time 
to move out.  Factors of two, indeed.  Not good enough, even though 
several items improve by as much. About the shoes-marching bit, I 
am speaking allegorically, of course.  Nothing personal here, this 
applies to your whole pile of fellow NJ gangsters (Rob included).  

>The corollary is that since building larger equipment has brought us a
>lot closer to solving the fusion problem - which despite all your
>ranting is a true statement - the original approach must not have 
>been so bad.  

And this and add in costs of other government agencies' big projects 
it has brought us closer to an unmanageable national debt.  It's 
time to back off from your bull headed crashing around using every 
conceivable scheme in a desperate attempt to bull a few cc's of 
plasma to improved regimes before the damn thing breaks.  We need
that junker for posterity.  This whole show at PPPL is beginning 
to sound like a "Maglich Play" except -- You chaps have put it on 
the "Big Stage".  

You may have as little as a year and a half left to clammer aboard 
another ship.  I wouldn't want to be caught aboard that toky beast 
when something inconspicuous and so tiny and simple is found to 
work.  It just looks better better on the resume if you have come 
to your senses before the collapse comes.  Thesis finishing okay? 

[snipped]  'more splashing yellow water' .  

Good luck Bob, Hope your PhD happens within a year and a few.  

Go get 'em cc.  
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Bill Page /  Re: What to do with the $700/Kasagi experiments
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What to do with the $700/Kasagi experiments
Date: 21 Sep 1995 13:59:22 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <1995Sep19.124922.2410@plasma.byu.edu>, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu says:
>
>[...]
>
>I have written to Tom Droege about using the remaining $700 in the "s.p.f.
>pool" to support students, to get this experiment going quickly here.
>He concurs -- if contributors to the fund (readers out there) can agree
>that this is a reasonable use of the pool.
>
>[...]

Sure, I would support this. It would be nice to read about something
experimental again, here. I'd also like to see more discussion of
the theoretical implications of a positive result. For example, what
effect would the existence of such a previously unexpected reaction
have on current stellar models? Are there implications for
explosive fusion devices and/or fusion reactors?

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /   /  Fusion Research+Palladium Query.
     
Originally-From: ttc3@aber.ac.uk (ttc3)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Research+Palladium Query.
Date: 21 Sep 1995 11:59:39 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth


I'm currently pursuing some research into the concept of mining an 
asteroid and am beginning to look for sources of funding, and my thoughts 
turned to those companies/research entities that are trying to create the 
worlds first fusion reactor, as it seems that there might be Helium 3 
"on" the asteroids.

Could anyone suggest which companies/research entities are closest to 
achieving fusion, so that I could contact them and see if they would ever 
consider helping to fund a low cost asteroid mining project, that would 
search for He3?

I also came across a reference to the fact that the platinum group metal 
: Palladium was at one time thought to be vital to creating a fusion 
reactor, though this was proved to be not the case. Are there any 
platinum group metals (such as palladium) that are considered to be vital
to fusion research?

Many thanks for any assistance, apologies if this is the wrong news 
group.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenttc3 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Bill Page /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 21 Sep 1995 14:47:52 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <43erug$4qr@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@ph
enix.princeton.edu> says:
>
>In article <-1609950650520001@ip-salem1-21.teleport.com> ,
>singtech@teleport.com writes:
>>Wrong.  The biggest demon is ignorance about the nuclear fusion process
>>itself.  In spite of what you think is true, fusion never occurs as a
>>result of the energetic collisions between interacting nuclei.  Not even
>>in a nuclear weapon.  That's right - the weapons designers themselves have
>>been wrong about how they work.  That's why their energy yield predictions
>>are very accurate but their particle counts are four orders of magnitude
>>off (so I've been told by a gov't contractor who audits tests).  I'm
>>trying to give you a big hint here, Robert, as I have been dropping hints
>>about this for six months.  No one is listening.
>
>Charles, I hate to tell you this, but plenty of people have been
>listening. They just don't believe you.  A secondhand rumor from an
>*auditor* is an awfully slender thread from which to hang such a
>weighty accusation about nuclear physics, even if one assumes that
>it's true and not some form of government confusion or deliberate 
>disinformation.  The idea that fusion occurs as a result of energetic
>collisions has done perfectly well in explaining controlled fusion
>results, stars and stellar evolution, and every major experiment which
>has been done to test the theory.  Come back with something that 
>more closely resembles an *explanation* for why this mysterious
>nugget you've found overthrows all that, and maybe you might get 
>some attention.  Note that a huge amount of inertial confinement
>fusion research was declassified last year, so you might even be
>able to get some hard facts on the subject.
>

I agree that there has to be more on which to base a critism of
themonuclear theory. The classified nature of most of this
research has made it difficult for those outside of the classified
system to appreciate what actually is known and what is not. That
the French still seem to find it necessary to carry-out such tests
strongly suggests to me that evrything is not as cut and dried as
we may have been lead to believe. Actually, it is rather amazing
that it has apparently been possible to keep the details of this
research secret for such a long time (40 years).

I've just finished reading "Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen
Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, Simon & Schuster, 1995. Thoroughly non-
technical, but interesting reading non the less. Rhodes mentions
the first lithium deuteride fueled devices tested, Shrimp at Castle
Bravo (enriched 40% Li6) and Runt at Castle Romeo (unenriched Li),
March 1, 1955. These devices both "ran-away" and produced up to 3
times the predicted thermal yield.

Rhodes reports that Harold Agnew (the third director of Los Almos
Nation Labs) claims that the LANL theoreticians had not known about
the Li7(n,2n)Li6  reaction. Is this really a credible explanation?
Where might one go to find the appropriate technical reports (assuming
that they have been de-classified)? How difficult is it to reproduce
the original yield calculations?

How accurate are these thermal yield measurements anyway? Were
there refined measurements made in later underground tests? 
Were any control experiments attempted to identify the thermal
yield of just the fusion component, e.g. the use of a lithium hydride
(1H) dummy fusion charge?

Cheers,
Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion"
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:40:33 GMT
Organization: Improving

In article <21cenlogic-1909950057350001@austin-1-14.i-link.net>,
Mitchell Jones wrote :
[much snipped]
>Unfortunately, if particles/entities are just "information," then no
>"things" exist for the information to be "about." Such a position amounts
>to a denial of existence itself. --Mitchell Jones}***
Well at least that would explain where the universe came from -- it
didn't. ;^)
[more snipped]
Regards,

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:19:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <MATT.95Sep20223837@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> Matt Austern,
matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>It probably is true that anyone who bothers to argue against "cold
>fusion" is a bit of a monomaniac, almost as much of a crank as someone
>who argues for cold fusion.  It's not as if believers in "cold fusion"
>have any impact of any particular importance, after all.  The
>scientific community is ignoring the whole mess: it's only a few
>cranks like me who even remember that the whole "cold fusion" flap
>ever happened.  Similarly, industry isn't paying attention and
>governments aren't wasting any money on it.  I can't imagine who I'm
>trying to convince by arguing: anyone who matters is either already
>convinced or else isn't paying attention in the first place.

You might consider reading the recent article in _Popular
Science_ (latest issue I think), where they interviewed
Representative Robert Walker, who is the head of the House
Science Committee and one of the major people responsible
for the 35% budget cut to fusion research this year.  He comes
right out and says he wants to do research on cold fusion - he
doesn't think it's fusion, but he wants to see what is going on.  
Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" 
represents a possible alternative energy source, better than 
fusion or renewables!  (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that 
you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!)

It's sad to see America's science policy establishment so
technically illiterate.  

 -----------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:22:50 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Jeff Olson /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov (Jeff Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:51:00 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <43q0va$9ja@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:

>In article <jeffo.326.306040FF@rayleigh.lanl.gov>, jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov (Jeff
>Olson) writes:

>|> According to the ancient periodic table on my wall here (back when O was 
>|> exactly 16 au), the neutron has a rest mass of 1.0087 au and an H atom of 
>|> 1.008 au.  If the neutron mass were less, why would it decay?
>|> 

>M(p) = 938.27231 +/- 0.00028 MeV
>M(n) = 939.56563 +/- 0.00028 MeV
>M(e) = 0.51099906 +/- 0.00000015 MeV
>M(p+e) = 938.78331 +/- 0.00028 MeV

>I guess you are right, I haven't looked at it in quite some time, so 
>there is more energy in a neutron than a proton and an electron.  (also 
>the dominant decay is n-> p e nu  (note that the neutrino is present and 
>carries away momentum.)

Actually, it's an anti-neutrino, I think.

Jeff






cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjeffo cudfnJeff cudlnOlson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / mitchell swartz /  Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathological Skepticism!
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:22:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <43rvqs$5ee@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Robert F. Heeter, Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, 
Princeton University writes

  "You might consider reading the recent article in _Popular
  Science_ (latest issue I think), where they interviewed
  Representative Robert Walker, who is the head of the House
  Science Committee and one of the major people responsible
  for the 35% budget cut to fusion research this year.  He comes
  right out and says he wants to do research on cold fusion - he
  doesn't think it's fusion, but he wants to see what is going on.  
  Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" 
  represents a possible alternative energy source, better than 
  fusion or renewables!  (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that 
  you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!)
  It's sad to see America's science policy establishment so
  technically illiterate.  "

   Great!!
   Representative Walker is correct to investigate this.

  Bob, if you keep talking like this, it will become transparent
that you are the technically illiterate one based upon
your vaporcriticisms of cold fusion, upon your lack of
literacy with the cold fusion field, and even upon your
past (hopefully corrected) belief that tritium is "benign".

  It is sad to see America's science graduate students so
sophomoric for so long.  Balance might suggest that investigate
the solid state loading processes and radiobiology a bit more.

   Rep. Walker should be, and will be, praised for 
stating the above, if it is true.   

  Anyway, thanks for the notice. Think I'll go get that article.

   Best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Matt Austern /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: 21 Sep 1995 17:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <RPAA1-P.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Fine. Great. A simple recipe that anyone can follow. Okay, but first
> you give me a recipe for a hot fusion reactor. Okay? It shouldn't be any
> problem: I want a single sheet of paper describing exactly what I need to
> do to build a tokamak reactor and make it work. Step by step, and not more
> than one page long.

The reason nobody has given you that, of course, is that nobody claims
that they are able to build working tokamak power plants.  Rather,
they claim that if they work very hard for the next few decades then,
some time in the middle of the next century, they might be able to
build fusion power plants.  When and if this happens, then yes, I
expect that someone will be able to give you a stack of blueprints
that you can use to build a tokamak.

People are claiming, however, that they have "cold fusion" working 
right now.  If their claims were true, then they would be able to
tell people how they were doing it in enough detail for their work
to be replicated.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 09:33:11 -0900
Organization: none

In article <21cenlogic-1909951703470001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[snip]

>Result: if the theory is true, the people who apply
> it get rich, and I get nothing. Frankly, that prospect irritates the hell
> out of me. I kept my mouth closed about the theory quite literally *for
> years* because I kept thinking I would find the funding to set up a lab
> and test it myself, and then patent the resulting devices myself. It was
> only as the magnitude of the built-in obstacles facing "uncredentialed"
> scientists became clear to me that, in a moment of madness, I posted it
> here. (How fitting that this occurred on the same day that I fulminated at
> Steve Jones for no reason! I have no idea what got ahold of me. Something
> that I ate, perhaps. Who knows?) 
> 
> Fortunately, I have other theories, and those theories also have
> implications. Even if the protoneutron theory is confirmed by
> experiment--by no means a sure thing--I will have other fish to fry and
> other projects to pursue. But not if, in an ongoing bout with madness, I
> continue to give away for free theories that I have developed over a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> period of thirty years. Believe me, all of those theories are not wrong,
> even if the present one turns out to be! --Mitchell Jones}***    
 

Doesn't it give you a fresh unburdened sense of freedom? The feeling of
joy?  Of course it does!  We will all be gone in a twinkling of the
universe's eye.  Just making money can't possibly be making the most of
the little time we have.  You must have a sense of that,  or you wouldn't
have offered your ideas.  There is a truly a gestalt to this newsgroup, a
critical mass (pun intended 8^) ), a whole greater than the sum of it's
parts.  We are all playing Prometheus, all guilty of collusion to steal
the fire.  It is only fitting the bones of our ideas be picked over on a
daily basis by a flock of harpies. It just comes with the territory.

Speaking of harping, since you propose photons accelerate to light speed,
how does your theory account for the finite mass (momentum) of the photon
at light speed?  Perhaps this feature alone would account for breaking the
first law of thermodynamics or conservation of mass.

Regards,

Horace


[snip]
 
> ***{Us foks aot hir inna wuds is tu dum ta tel joks. Wir so iggerent we
> think we ken du fisiks! --Mitchell Jones}***

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:28:03 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

100437.530@compuserve.com(RamonPrasad) wrote:

: mrichar353@aol.com (Mark Richardson) wrote (amongst other things) :

: >The lack of a bound state for the dineutron has nothing to do with
: >the weak force (beta decay), it is entirely a strong interaction issue.

: The idea that it is possible to devise an interaction between nucleons
: which causes the proton and the neutron to form a bound state and
: which leaves two neutrons unaffected has yet to be demonstrated.
: Strong interactions are supposed to be charge independent. Why 
: then is the n-p system bound and yet the n-n and p-p systems
: unbound. These are experimental facts and do not come out of
: anybody's theory.

p-p is not stable because electromagnetism still has an effect, it
isn't turned off.

n-n I'm guessing isn't stable because n+p is a lower energy configuration
and so one neutron turns into a proton plus junk. 

: Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
: Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: capture of atomic electrons
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: capture of atomic electrons
Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:34:44 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: It is wondrous to behold how the notion of the capture by an atomic
: nucleus is being tossed about here as if this were an entirely new
: concept.  Do you protoneutron enthusiasts think no one has ever
: considered the possibility that the hydrogen nucleus might capture
: its electron?  There is plenty of atomic hydrogen out there in the
: universe just waiting to go poof!  It does not happen.  We are all
: here to give witness to that fact.

I agree.

: Now in any elementary quantum mechanics course the hydrogen atom is
: discussed in some detail.  The time average electron distribution is
: something you can find in any QM text.  Guess where the electron spends
: its time when hydrogen is it its ground state?  Before you ramble on
: about electrons spiralling into the proton don't you think you ought
: to look at where it is!

: Dick Blue

I imagine though some remote possibility that the "boundary conditions"
{i.e. potential or e-field /= 0 at infinity) might be altered in the lattice
packing so that the ground state wave function is different from atomic
hydrogen.  

However, I think the overall perturbation to the g.s. energy must be
no more than standard chemical energies which probably gives a fairly
strenuous restriction on how much you can alter the electronic wave function.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Matthew Kennel /  cmsg cancel <43salj$844@martha.utcc.utk.edu>
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <43salj$844@martha.utcc.utk.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:36:10 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Univ. Tenn.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Matt Austern /  Re: Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:38:37 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <DF8Ix4.5C8@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

> An article titled ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by Daniel Drasin is
> an excellent analysis of the unfair 'debunking' practices used by some
> who argue against the existance of CF.  

It probably is true that anyone who bothers to argue against "cold
fusion" is a bit of a monomaniac, almost as much of a crank as someone
who argues for cold fusion.  It's not as if believers in "cold fusion"
have any impact of any particular importance, after all.  The
scientific community is ignoring the whole mess: it's only a few
cranks like me who even remember that the whole "cold fusion" flap
ever happened.  Similarly, industry isn't paying attention and
governments aren't wasting any money on it.  I can't imagine who I'm
trying to convince by arguing: anyone who matters is either already
convinced or else isn't paying attention in the first place.

I'm not completely sure why I bother to argue; it's pretty pointless,
when you think about it.  But then, I guess I've always known I'm a 
bit weird.
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Paul Karol /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 09:50:35 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 20-Sep-95 Re: Lost neutron
mass and e.. by Horace Heffner@matsu.ak. 
> For electrons in orbit, the orbit is (already) of a size determined by the
> deBroglie wavelength. For electrons approaching a proton (or any positive
> charge), the classical force must be reduced, as it is for orbital
> electrons, to compensate for the portion of the electron's charge
> probability density on the opposite side of the proton, and vice versa.
> One mechanism that reduces the deBroglie wavelength sufficiently that the
> coulomb force operates at maximum attractive force for the duration of the
> approach to the nucleus, is for the electron to acquire adequate momentum
> before the collision interaction, i.e. before approaching within the
> deBroglie wavelength.  For complete stable atoms this potential energy of
> collapse does not exist, so would not be expected to show up in the mass.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I think you may be
misunderstanding stationary states and standing waves.  The electron in
its 1s orbital (not orbit, a classical term) has no fixed deBroglie
wavelength.  It has a well-defined, non-changing (standing) probability
amplitude of where its electron will be distributed.  The radial
distribution peaks at the Bohr radius (or 1.5 times it, I forget which).
 Furthermore, that electron has a well-defined, non-changing
distribution of momenta too.  Quantum mechanics, which does not seem to
be broken, only unnerving, does not allow any more specific
determination of the electron's description to have meaning, i.e., to be
legitimate.

PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / 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: Thu, 21 Sep 95 08:41:24 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <21cenlogic-2009950925550001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
   21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
>In article <43lafr$710_001@ip028.sky.net>, bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <h9IidLq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>> >Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> 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.
>
>This is a totally absurd post--unconscious, even. The question of whether
>converting potential energy into heat could explain the Griggs result was
>discussed in this very thread in the recent past. A calculation was even
>done. The result, if memory serves, was that a 50 foot line pressure head
>dropping to zero across the device would only add 172 BTU's per hour to
>the heat output. In a device in which electrical energy is being converted
>to heat at rates approaching 300,000 BTU's per hour, such a consideration
>is totally inconsequential. This means that a measured heat difference
>can, and has, excluded the possibility that you claim it cannot exclude.
>The point: if you had been reading the debate in this thread, you wouldn't
>waste everybody's time bringing up junk that's already been discussed and
>refuted.
>
>--Mitchell Jones
>
>===========================================================

Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell. Settle down. Of course it looks absurd to you. 
You COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. In my original post, I made two points. 1) 
Potential energy can be converted to heat. 2) Water falling over a waterfall 
will meet the often-stated, but questionable, Rothwell criterion for cold 
fusion.

_I_ didn't even mention the Griggs gadget. Jed did.  I hope you weren't 
confusing me with Jed.  If so, I am offended, and if Jed will let me speak for 
him in just this one case, I'm sure he is offended, too.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Alan M /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:34:19 +0100
Organization: Home

In article: <21cenlogic-2009952340130001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> did the photon transit from the velocity of
> the nucleus (zero, say) to lightspeed without passing through the 
various
> velocities between zero and c? And, please note, you can't settle this
> question by stipulation. If you simply try to make lightspeed part of 
your
> definition of a photon, then I will simply ask you why you do not 
choose
> to call the entity a photon until it reaches lightspeed.
> 
> It's an interesting question, isn't it? Do you, perhaps, feel a bit 
less
> like laughing now, and a bit more inclined to think seriously about 
the
> matter? 
>
No. I don't find that a particularly interesting question at all. It is 
typical of the sort of question which might be asked by the dimmer 
student in a class of first-year undergraduate studies, who happens to 
have had no prior interest in nuclear physics.

The short, totally accurate and - from your point of view - dispiriting 
answer is that the photon is emitted at c. Until it is emitted at c, 
there *is* no emission, so there is nothing to be called anything.

The nature of the photon - zero mass, finite momentum - is that it *can* 
only travel at c. Any 'slower' travel through media with differing and 
'less than c' speeds of light is actually a series of emissions and 
reabsorptions, with intervening 'jumps', from atom to atom. at c.
 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / John Warr /      
Originally-From: John Warr <warr%frgen.dnet@sb.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle,sci.che

Subject: Re: Equation which tells the limit of what isotopes exist
Date: 21 Sep 1995 10:37:36 GMT
Organization: SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals

tice@nai.net (Bradley D. Tice) wrote:
>Self-citation?
>
>In article <43oulm$p8c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>> In article <43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Are you surprised ?
-- 
 John Warr
 Specialist Technologies          In matters of grave importance, 
 SB Pharmaceuticals                  style,not sincerity, 
 WARR%FRGEN.DNET@SB.COM                 is the vital thing.


cudkeys:
cudendnet cudfnJohn cudlnWarr cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /   /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 21 Sep 1995 00:02:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

>I am not trained in QM at all, but since it is involved in any reasonable
>answer I'll risk messing this up so others might be motivated to correct
>it.
>
>It seems to me that the main reason the orbital electron is not attracted
>to the nucleus is that the integral of it's charge probability density,
>i.e. it's mean charge location, is already at the nucleus. Any move of
the
>"orbital" or "particle electron" toward the nucleus requires energy,
>because the mean location moves away and thus work is required. Any
>acceleration toward the nucleus requires that a non-orbital (free)
>electron approach the nucleus. 
>
>Various interference experiments indicate that slow moving electrons (or
>any particle) have a wave like nature, or a "de-localiztion". The slower
a
>particle moves the greater the wavelength of that de-localization.
>Conversely the faster a particle moves, the shorter the wavelength.  This
>is called the de Broglie wavelength. For a particle with momentum p,
>wavelength L, we can calculate
> 
>      L=h/p, where h is Plank's constant.
>
>For electrons in orbit, the orbit is (already) of a size determined by
the
>deBroglie wavelength. For electrons approaching a proton (or any positive
>charge), the classical force must be reduced, as it is for orbital
>electrons, to compensate for the portion of the electron's charge
>probability density on the opposite side of the proton, and vice versa.
>One mechanism that reduces the deBroglie wavelength sufficiently that the
>coulomb force operates at maximum attractive force for the duration of
the
>approach to the nucleus, is for the electron to acquire adequate momentum
>before the collision interaction, i.e. before approaching within the
>deBroglie wavelength.  For complete stable atoms this potential energy of
>collapse does not exist, so would not be expected to show up in the mass.
>
>

It's actually much simpler than this. The wave function of the electron in
a hydrogen atom is calculated by solving the schrodinger equation which
incorporates the coulomb potential. The result is, for the ground state, a
function which behaves as exp(-r/a) where r is the proton-electron
separation and "a" is the "Bohr radius". This means that the probability
that the electron is at zero separation from the proton is maximum, with
the probability decreasing with increasing separation.

In QM it is not necessary for the electron to "fall in" to the proton, it
just has a non-zero probability to "be there", with the probability given
above for the case of the electron being in the ground state.

The question brought up earlier in this thread concerning the classical
electron radiating as it fell into the proton was intended to show the
original poster that the classical model cannot be used at all for the
hydrogen atom, it is thoroughly inconsistent.

Also, as I posted earlier in this thread, there is no mystery with the
masses, energies, etc. The total energy is conserved. If you must speak
classically, the kinetic energy of the electron would increase as it
approached the proton, but it's (negative) potential energy increases (in
absolute value) as well, so the total energy remains constant. Since that
total energy is less than the mass of a single neutron, electron capture
in hydrogen does not occur.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:04:42 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <199509201421.KAA55312@pilot06.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) wrote:

> EXCUSE ME, Mitchell, if I read something into your posts relatating
> to protoneutron formation that you did not intend to say.  I have
> probably made the unwarranted assumption that you were attempting
> to explain a process that results in a net release of a significant
> quantity of energy.s that results in the net release of a significant
> quantity of energy.  I would appreciate it if you could recap for
> us what you assuming happens after the formation of a "protoneutron."
> 
> There are, of course, a few questions to be cleared up as to just what
> a protoneutron is assumed to be.  When, if ever, does it start to
> behave like an ordinary neutron?  Since you seem to be using numbers
> appropriate for the mass of an ordinary neutron I seem to have gotten
> ahead of you to conclude that a protoneutron becomes, in some sense,
> a neutron.  Is that not a part of your theory?
> 
> You do seem to recognize that ordinary energy conservation goes against
> the formation of protoneutrons, and as I recall, you say there is
> 0.748 MeV required each time you make one of these things.  Now, at this
> point, I seem to remember something to the effect that you expected
> to deliver this energy via gamma ray absorbtion.  Have I gotten things
> wrong on this point?
> 
> Your hypothesis as I remember it seems to require a flux of gamma radiation
> to provide the energy of formation for your protoneutron thingies.  Now
> here is where I feel I may have been misled.  Did you not suggest that
> the gamma flux could be the result of the capture of neutrons by protons to
> form a deuteron?  That was surely in someones post on this topic, but I may
> have become entrangled in all the nested quotes and blamed you for someone
> elses contribution.  Sorry about that.
> 
> Well, since you now seem to be disowning the concept of neutron capture as
> the source of your assumed gamma flux where does that leave us?  What exactly
> is a protoneutron?  What is the reaction responsible for the production of
> excess heat?
> 
> Dick Blue

Dick, you get an E for effort. Unfortunately your memory of the theory is
too far from the mark to make it worthwhile to respond to your comments in
detail. Instead, I am sending you a copy of the original protoneutron post
via e-mail. After you read it, I will be happy to respond to your
comments. (By the way, it would be a good idea to save the posts that
interest you, so you can check your comments against them later, prior to
hitting that "send" button.) 

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 21:51:10 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

>In article <browe-1909951956070001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
>Rowe) wrote:
>
>> Your response to Schultz's comment suggests this wasn't a typo or joke.
>> Are you seriously suggesting there are photons traveling at less than the
>> speed of light?
>
>Of course I am! The context of my comment about protoneutrons soaking up
>gamma energy involved an attempt to account for CF "excess heat" by the
>following series of reactions:
>
>(1) The basic reaction is the following: pn (protoneutron) + .78 Mev --> n
>(By the way, I don't generally waste space showing "neutrinos," for
>reasons that are irrelevant here.)
>
>(2) The neutron can then be absorbed in several ways: p + n --> d + 2.22
>Mev gamma; or d + n --> t + 6.25 Mev gamma; etc. (We also have Pd + n and
>other neutron absorption reactions, each producing an isotope shifted
>nucleus which drops to ground state via gamma emission.)
>
>At this point, we have to ask ourselves how a gamma photon gets spat out
>as the isotope shifted nucleus drops to ground state. The question is, do
>we visualize a series of transitional states in which the photon
>accelerates to the speed of light, or not? By the "quantum mechanical"
>mode of thinking, there is not merely no problem in imagining an entity
>leaping from zero velocity to the speed of light without passing through
>all of the intervening transitional states, but such images are positively
>to be encouraged! However, as I have noted elsewhere, such imagined gaps
>in motion violate the principle of continuity. However brief the velocity
>rise time may be, the principle of continuity requires that the photon
>pass through all the intervening states of motion. Period. The fact that
>we have not measured such states does not mean they do not exist. Indeed,
>they must exist because the principle that requires their existence (the
>principle of continuity) supports the entire structure of human knowledge.
>To question its validity self-reduces to an absurdity.

To tell the truth I hadn't really given a lot of deep thought to the
principle of continuity. However, I do understand you point in saying
continuity requires a transisitional state.

This means there is a choice to be made from one of two unobserved
options. Either photons travel at less than the speed of light if only for
a brief moment or there is a discontinuity at the moment of photon
creation. Of these two choices I find it more palatable to give up
continuity. Or concepts of things like continuity are generally extensions
of everyday experience. Although I agree it is more intuitive to extend
these notions to a microscopic scale, it isn't obvious to me this
represents reality.

The issues surrounding this choice, that between continuity and
discontinuity, may well be beyond the ability of experiment to detect.
This gets into issues of metaphysics. After all, physics isn't necessarily
the same as reality. Instead, it is a model of reality. The validity of
the model is judged by it's ability to predict occurances in real
experiments.

>By the way, speaking of ether theory, are you aware that the existence of
>the ether was proven more than 60 years ago, and is generally accepted by
>top physicists today?

It is not clear to me what you are referring too? Could you give me some
more detail. Perhaps this should be via email since it may not be within
the charter of sci.physics.fusion.

>I'll bet not. That's because you buy into the
>dissembling and the crapola. You don't notice that every knowledgeable
>physicist today accepts the existence of "Dirac's ocean"--a particulate
>medium that pervades all of space and accounts for most of the phenomena
>of electromagnetism. Of course, they have all agreed to not *call* it the
>ether, because that would have required them to clash head-on with another
>dogma: that of Einstein's hare-brained "relativity" theory. But behind the
>political dissembling lies the reality of classical mechanics triumphant,
>in all areas of physics. The myth of its demise is a politically expedient
>fantasy, nothing more. And soon even that will be gone.  

Actually, I would have said the Michelson-Morely experiment was pretty
solid evidence of no aether not Einstein's theory of relativity. However,
I would be interested in why you think of relativity as "hare-brained".
Could you provide more detail via email?
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:40:13 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <71596045wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article: <browe-1909951956070001@10.0.2.15>  browe@netcom.com (Bill 
> Rowe) writes:
> > Your response to Schultz's comment suggests this wasn't a typo or 
> joke.
> > Are you seriously suggesting there are photons traveling at less than 
> the
> > speed of light?
> 
> That's probably where the excess energy is coming from!
> 
> has anybody actually tested experimentally for slower-than-c photons?
> 
> Perhaps we could run this in reverse, and get a faster-than-light 
> machine!
> -- 
> Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)
> 
>          I am his Highness' dog at Kew
>          Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
>                               [Alexander Pope]
> 
> PGP Public Key available on request.

The crude concepts of the ignorant, for them, are reality. That is why
persons who depart from those crude concepts are typically met with
laughter, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Truth seems
absurd to the clueless. 

Anyway, here's a question for you to ponder, after you get through rolling
around on the floor: if an excited nucleus drops to ground state by
emission of a gamma photon, did the photon transit from the velocity of
the nucleus (zero, say) to lightspeed without passing through the various
velocities between zero and c? And, please note, you can't settle this
question by stipulation. If you simply try to make lightspeed part of your
definition of a photon, then I will simply ask you why you do not choose
to call the entity a photon until it reaches lightspeed.

It's an interesting question, isn't it? Do you, perhaps, feel a bit less
like laughing now, and a bit more inclined to think seriously about the
matter? 

I hope so.

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / David Benjamin /  Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
     
Originally-From: benjadp@mail.auburn.edu (David P Benjamin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination and apparent xs heat
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:37:35 GMT
Organization: Auburn University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
:  
: >This is what is missing from CF---a configuration that is
: >sufficietly well defined and simple for direct replication
: >at other labs, like the ``recipe'' for HiTC superconductors
: >+ verification via the Meissner effect.
:  
: Fine. Great. A simple recipe that anyone can follow. Okay, but first
: you give me a recipe for a hot fusion reactor. Okay? It shouldn't be any
: problem: I want a single sheet of paper describing exactly what I need to
: do to build a tokamak reactor and make it work. Step by step, and not more
: than one page long.
:  
[lengthy non-sensical diatribe deleted]
:  
: Get Real. Sheesh!

Let's see.  According to reports I've read from the conference on the 
web, scientists claim to be a) selling CF devices in Siberia, and b) 
within five years of a CF car by Fiat.

So if these things are mass producible already, why haven't y'all trooped
down to Heathkit or somebody and had them build kits for you?  You could
put the kits into every school in the country, and that would be
incontrovertible evidence.  My first experience with high-T sc was
a kit containing an sc puck and a magnet (liquid N2 sold separately).
Why not a CF kit?  Or are the directions to make and run one ineffable?

--
David Benjamin--Auburn University GRA, Instructional Media Group
M.A. candidate in Political Science/International Relations                
http://www.auburn.edu/~benjadp  Tour the U.S.S. Alabama!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbenjadp cudfnDavid cudlnBenjamin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Bradley Tice /      
Originally-From: tice@nai.net (Bradley D. Tice)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle,sci.che

Subject: Re: Equation which tells the limit of what isotopes exist
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:29:19 +0100
Organization: North American Internet Company

Self-citation?

In article <43oulm$p8c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> In article <43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
cudkeys:
cudentice cudfnBradley cudlnTice cudszS 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 19:56:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>in the experimental protocols.  Even Jed estimates that "correct"
>experiments have a success rate at the 50% level.  With regard
>to there being some unspecified global requirement, does anyone
>have a clue as to what that may be?  Is it the phase of the moon,
>perhaps?
 
Yes, lots of people have a clue as to what the controlling parameters are.
There is agreement about the major parameters, but a lot of work is still
being done to pin down things like surface treatments and electrolyte
additives. The phase of the moon is ruled out.
 
If you would read the literature, you would know about this sort of thing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed's definition of CF (at last!)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's definition of CF (at last!)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 20:05:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Joshua Levy <joshua@intrinsa.com> writes:
 
>By this definition, the Griggs device (and the similar Russian device) is not
>CF (no helium).  Actually, P&F are not CF either, since they did not produce
>helium either.
 
I have no idea whether the Griggs device creates helium or not. Nobody has
checked that. I do not know whether the Griggs device has anything to do with
CF or not. I am not aware of any experiments that would shed light on that
question. I do not yet know whether the Russian device works at all. P&F
definitely are doing CF, and their cells do produce helium as far as I know.
Have they told you anything different? Can you point to any experimental
evidence to back up your claims? Ha, ha ha ha! Just kidding, of course you
can't. You are a "CF skeptic." That means you never read anything, you never
know what you are talking about, and you just make up pretend facts as you go
along. Right?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 20:18:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Since the chemistry is never discussed in detail I am assuming that
>people such as Miles, McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann have not considered
>the details of cathode surface condition as being anything they should
>devote much of their resources to.
 
Is this supposed to be a joke or something? Never discussed in detail?!?
Where? Here? Nothing is ever discussed here. The patents and the literature
discuss this sort of thing in more detail than you can imagine.
 
>the way or 99 and 44/100 % of the way.  There should be a spreading of
>the results that extends from zero out to the max.  There should be some
>MAYBE results.
 
Ha ha ha ha! Now I know this *is* a joke. I never though Dick Blue had it
in him. Well, well. Let me pick myself off the floor here and say yes,
indeed, as everyone who has ever glanced at the literature knows, CF is
FULL of MAYBE results ranging from 'I dunno' to 'boyoboy you botched that!'
Tons and tons and tons of marginal results have been reported, with on again
off again heat, contamination, poor controls, and so on and so forth. Lots of
marginal work and many marginal results. And of course as anyone knows
materials and chemistry are the key to success. Dick Blue is merely stating
the obvious here, in a joshing, friendly kind of way . . . I guess.
 
Either that, or Dick just figured out something that he could have learned
by reading the literature anytime in the last six years.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:32:20 -0900
Organization: none

In article <hheffner-2009950540030001@204.57.193.69>,
hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote:

> In article <MkLjIBK00iV9E5i7d8@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Karol
> <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Sep-95 Lost neutron mass
> > and elect.. by Robin van Spaandonk@nets 
> > > In fact if you do the sums, it turns out that the electron needs to
> > > approach the proton to within a distance of 1.841 F in order that the
> > > energy delivered is equal to that required to make up the .782 MeV
> > > difference in mass between H and a neutron. Now it seems to me that
> > > 1.841 F is a very reasonable distance for electron capture. In other
> > 
> > Assuming total energy is constant, how does an electron approach a
> > nucleus, changing the potential energy, and therefore its kinetic
> > energy, and therefore its velocity, and not radiate energy as required
> > classically for an accelerating charge?
> > 
> > PJK
> 
> According to my own personal copy of the CRC handbook, 29th edition, not
> the unreliable 71st edition I borrow from the library, the masses are
> shown on page 2589 as follows:
> 
> p=    1.67248 E-28       (CRC)
> e=    0.00091066 E-24    (CRC)
> -----------------------
> H=    1.67339 E-24       (CRC)
> 
> Robin is definitely on to something here!  This is proof positive that
> relativity, not just QM, is all just a bunch of malarkey.  Therefore we
> would not expect the accelerating electron to radiate, would we?  Or would
> we?   8^)

I apologize for being flippant. I thought this post was a humorous
reference to some other posts, but I was very wrong. I need to remember to
get at least 4 hours sleep and to cut out the humour.

I am not trained in QM at all, but since it is involved in any reasonable
answer I'll risk messing this up so others might be motivated to correct
it.

It seems to me that the main reason the orbital electron is not attracted
to the nucleus is that the integral of it's charge probability density,
i.e. it's mean charge location, is already at the nucleus. Any move of the
"orbital" or "particle electron" toward the nucleus requires energy,
because the mean location moves away and thus work is required. Any
acceleration toward the nucleus requires that a non-orbital (free)
electron approach the nucleus. 

Various interference experiments indicate that slow moving electrons (or
any particle) have a wave like nature, or a "de-localiztion". The slower a
particle moves the greater the wavelength of that de-localization.
Conversely the faster a particle moves, the shorter the wavelength.  This
is called the de Broglie wavelength. For a particle with momentum p,
wavelength L, we can calculate
 
      L=h/p, where h is Plank's constant.

For electrons in orbit, the orbit is (already) of a size determined by the
deBroglie wavelength. For electrons approaching a proton (or any positive
charge), the classical force must be reduced, as it is for orbital
electrons, to compensate for the portion of the electron's charge
probability density on the opposite side of the proton, and vice versa.
One mechanism that reduces the deBroglie wavelength sufficiently that the
coulomb force operates at maximum attractive force for the duration of the
approach to the nucleus, is for the electron to acquire adequate momentum
before the collision interaction, i.e. before approaching within the
deBroglie wavelength.  For complete stable atoms this potential energy of
collapse does not exist, so would not be expected to show up in the mass.

Regards,

Horace

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.20 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 20 Sep 1995 20:43:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I realize that the electron capture cross section is probably rather
small. So to further improve the chances of the electron capture theory I
propose that the lattice confines the motions of both the electron and the
deuteron (or proton) such that their motions are close to one dimensional.
I.e. they have essentially one degree of fredom to move back and
forth.This restriction arises from the fact that the deuterons are
repelled by the metal ions, if they move inside the outermost electron
shell they are repelled even more, so they try to stay outside of the
electron shells of all atoms present. This includes the metal ions and
also possibly other fixed hydrogen atoms that were fortunate enough to
acquire an electron shell of their own.

The restricted freedom of motion will enhance the electron capture cross
section to the necessary level for the observed phenomena to occur.

A consequence of the electron capture hypothesis is that the reaction rate
(E.C./second) is independant of whether deuterium or hydrogen is used in
the experiments. On the other hand the reaction rate in terms of
neutrons/second is exactly double in case of deuterons. So such
observations as element transmutations, tritium and thermal neutrons would
be double in case heavy water is used.

Now the heat production may not be proportional to the number of neutrons
produced, because the various nuclear reactions produce different amounts
of heat and in case of deuterium electron capture I suspect the compound
reaction:

d  +  e  +  d  -->  He4*  +  e  +  gamma  +  nu  +  nu

(Which is electron capture followed by beta decay)

And other similar reactions may produce more heat than other nuclear
reactions involving single neutrons.

I propose that we should:

1. Run C.F. experiments nearby neutrino detectors to verify the existance
of neutrino emissions

2. Try to create experimental solid state systems which bring together
naked protons and electrons in a restricted motion environment. The
channel in which they move must be too small for electron shells to form
around the proton.

3. Try to lace the electrolytic cells with such elements that would
produce energy by fission when they capture thermal neutrons. Li7 comes to
mind.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / William Beaty /  Pathological Skepticism!
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathological Skepticism!
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 02:58:15 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever


An article titled ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by Daniel Drasin is
an excellent analysis of the unfair 'debunking' practices used by some
who argue against the existance of CF.  Check it out, at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html


(I could post it here, but it's about 30K)


-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / A Plutonium /  First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
Date: 21 Sep 1995 19:08:26 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

Before I talk of the first predictions I want to make note of the flaky
fruitcakes that infest sci.hierarchies. Give these arrogant boneheads a
degree in physics and this is the worst facet of sci.hierarchy, that
these boneheads infest sci.hierarchies. In the future the Internet
should be a significant step in getting a degree in a subject. Where if
a person makes himself/herself an obvious idiot of their subject on the
Internet, then their qualifications should be scrutinized. It is these
boneheads for a reason that the "good people of science stay away from
the internet" because it is not long before you get one of these flakes
in your path spewing their boneheadedness with arrogance to boot. Below
Ira Blum fruitcakes that he thinks a hydrogen atom in the ground state
has more energy than a neutron. Has he never heard of e=mcc?? Has he
even taken High School physics? Does Ira have any degree in physics,
for shame? With Ira Blum's below post IMHO, Blum does not belong in the
field of physics whatsoever. 

In article <43q0va$9ja@news.utdallas.edu>
iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:

> In article <jeffo.326.306040FF@rayleigh.lanl.gov>, jeffo@rayleigh.lanl
gov (Jeff Olson) writes:
> |> In article <43p9t2$9ja@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
> |> 
> |> >Nope.  A neutron has less energy than that of a proton + electron.  (You 
> |> >can look it up)
> |> 
> |> >iblum@utdallas.edu
> |> 
> |> According to the ancient periodic table on my wall here (back when O was 
> |> exactly 16 au), the neutron has a rest mass of 1.0087 au and an H atom of 
> |> 1.008 au.  If the neutron mass were less, why would it decay?
> |> 
> 
> M(p) = 938.27231 +/- 0.00028 MeV
> M(n) = 939.56563 +/- 0.00028 MeV
> M(e) = 0.51099906 +/- 0.00000015 MeV
> M(p+e) = 938.78331 +/- 0.00028 MeV
> 
> |> Otherwise, I agree with your post.
> 
> I guess you are right, I haven't looked at it in quite some time, so 
> there is more energy in a neutron than a proton and an electron.  (also 
> the dominant decay is n-> p e nu  (note that the neutrino is present and 
> carries away momentum.)
---

This is the first experimental predictions of the Hydrogen Atom Systems
hyasys. HYASYS was born out of the realization that atoms are the most
fundamental of all particles. And,  the continuity of thought. If
HYASYS were to be wrong, then it would never be the case that a
subatomic particle can exist which has a atom itself inside of it. But
the neutron is a subatomic particle which has more than an entire atom
inside of it. A neutron has a whole hydrogen atom inside of it plus
more energy. Thus, all particles ever created or observed is either one
of these things:

      (1) particle is an atom or element or isotope

      (2) particle is a derivative of (1) such as a photon particle
which is the QED of a specific atom, or a neutrino

      (3) particle is either a proton or electron out of a Hydrogen
Atom System, such as a proton beam where the associated or linked
electrons for each of those protons is not in consideration to the
practical needs of the proton beam itself

      (4) all particles which are not protons electrons or derivative
of protons and electrons such as photons or neutrinos are in fact
quantized excited Hydrogen Atom Systems. Examples: Z_0 boson is merely
an energetic HYASYS

   Considering the birth of HYASYS by me from the Atom Whole Theory the
first experimental proof that HYASYS is correct is this experiment
outlined below.

   One can take an atom such as lithium atoms and lower their
temperature ever more so getting very close to 0 degrees Kelvin.
Getting close to 0 degrees Kelvin, similar to a Bose Condensate but not
exactly since lithium is not bosonic like helium, but getting close to
0 degrees Kelvin a researcher should be able to strip the electrons
from lithium and meld them to the protons turning all the lithium into
neutrons.
   Second experimental proof. A researcher should be able to take
hydrogen atoms and go the opposite direction and raise their energy to
the point where the hydrogen atom becomes a neutron, in other words
into a Hydrogen Atom System.

   HYASYS, knowing that spontaneous fission is natural around element
100 and element 100 is the natural boundary where protons of a nucleus
can no longer remain together due to em repulsion, that the HYASYS can
build up a math equation and formula to the effect that the isotope of
say 238PU contains 238 Hydrogen Atom Systems, and 119 Helium Atom
Systems, etc,. . .

   The Strong Nuclear Force or Interaction is now viewed as a sort of
like nuclear metallic bonding.  That protons share electrons inside
hyasys=neutrons.  In this view, a isotope is stable to all radioactive
decay when the HYASYS contained within the isotope are all higher than
any specific other HYASYS arrangement. Those, stable lead will not
decay because any other HYASYS arrangement such as a helium atom system
(alpha particle decay) has higher energy. But 238PU has a Helium Atom
System composed of Hydrogen Atom System within itself which has a lower
energy. One can picture this scheme as a large number of protons 238
sharing 238-94 = 144 electrons from HYASYS and with time some of those
shared electrons by two protons is unbalanced and then the nucleus of
that 238PU radioactively decays a alpha particle. Such is a gross first
picture of what the Strong Nuclear force is.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Mark Kinsler /  Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
     
Originally-From: kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:08:29 GMT
Organization: Ohio University, College of Engineerng & Technology

Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>Before I talk of the first predictions I want to make note of the flaky
>fruitcakes that infest sci.hierarchies. Give these arrogant boneheads a
>degree in physics and this is the worst facet of sci.hierarchy, that
>these boneheads infest sci.hierarchies. In the future the Internet
>should be a significant step in getting a degree in a subject. Where if
>a person makes himself/herself an obvious idiot of their subject on the
>Internet, then their qualifications should be scrutinized. It is these
>boneheads for a reason that the "good people of science stay away from
>the internet" because it is not long before you get one of these flakes
>in your path spewing their boneheadedness with arrogance to boot. Below
>Ira Blum fruitcakes that he thinks a hydrogen atom in the ground state
>has more energy than a neutron. Has he never heard of e=mcc?? Has he
>even taken High School physics? Does Ira have any degree in physics,
>for shame? With Ira Blum's below post IMHO, Blum does not belong in the
>field of physics whatsoever. 
>neutrons.

The chairman of the electrical engineering department where I earned my 
doctorate is a physicist, not an engineer.  He said that one of the 
reasons that he likes engineering better than physics is that engineers 
are much more polite to each others in meetings and other academic 
interactions.  I asked him why that might be so, and he said that he 
honestly didn't know, but that it might just be tradition.  

One of the few novels that involves physics is _Live With Lightning_, by 
Mitchell Wilson.  It's an old book, from about 1956.  It describes the 
career of a physicist through his grad studies at Columbia and his 
various jobs at universities and in industry.  It's a pretty good book, 
if somewhat dated in many respects.  But he does give a description of a 
meeting of a physics society in which the diatribes exchanged might have 
come from sci.electromagnetics had it existed in 1940.  Engineers don't 
carry on at each other like that, and I suppose that's why I'm somewhat 
shocked at what I read on this newsgroup.  

I suggested to another poster that a good guideline for the conduct of 
this group might be to keep the tone within what might be acceptable in 
a classroom.  I think that this is a reasonable request because this 
group is for many of us precisely that, a classroom.  I'm no physicist, 
but I find those posts which I can understand quite instructional.  The 
personal attacks that I frequently read detract greatly from the posts.  

So maybe it would be a good idea to follow a common unwritten dictum in 
college teaching: think what you will of your collegues, but keep your 
students (and I am one of them) out of the conflicts.  

                              Thanks.

                             Mark Kinsler     

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkinsler cudfnMark cudlnKinsler cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallaceb@news.gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
ci.astro,sci.energy,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.rese
rch,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 21 Sep 1995 19:49:12 -0400

   In T. A. Heppenheimer's 1984 book THE MAN-MADE SUN published by LITTLE,
BROWN AND COMPANY, we get an unprecedented behind-the-scenes look at how
large-scale hot fusion research projects are conducted in the United States. 
Mostly we see an unseemly, sometimes nasty, scramble for the biggest share of
federal energy research funds which are the life-blood of the major labs, a
quest that can become as important to the participants as the scientific
knowledge they are seeking.  He carefully details the intrigue and maneuvering
of lab and project directors, Department of Energy bureaucrats, science
advisors, and Office of Management and Budget accountants.  Heppenheimer
received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1972 in aerospace
engineering, and has held research positions in Germany and at the California
Institute of Technology.  As a sample of some of the material in this book, we
find on page 45:

  ... In June 1973, President Nixon announces that he would be dramatically
  stepping up spending on energy research, and gave Dixy Ray the job of
  deciding where the money should go.  Hirsch felt that if he could show that
  his plans were proceeding at a pace faster than anticipated, he could win
  some of this money for fusion.
     He thus drew up a strategy.  Just then the Oak Ridge physicists were
  doing experiments which for the first time would use neutral beams to heat
  a plasma in a tokamak.  Anticipating success, Hirsch proposed that these
  results be described as a "major breakthrough."  He would then follow up
  this breakthrough by requesting funds for his big DT burner, to be started
  in 1976 and completed in 1979. ...

With regard to the technical hype used in fusion research, we find on page 62:

  ... Q is the ratio of fusion power produced to power fed into the plasma. 
  Q = 1 means power out equals power fed in.  But this power fed in is not in
  the least like the total power it takes to run the system.  The bookkeeping
  used in calculating Q = 1 would never pass muster with any accountant, but
  still it does have its own peculiar logic.
     In operating the TFTR, to begin with, there will be several hundred
  megawatts produced by the motor-generators and running through its magnet
  coils.  None of this gets counted, because none of it goes into the plasma.
  ...

President Carter chose as his energy czar James Schlesinger, the same man who
in 1972 has named Hirsch to head the fusion program.  On page 199 we find:

     Schlesinger was certainly no fusion enthusiast.  He called it a
  "scientific sandbox," into which hundreds of millions of dollars had been
  poured so that scientists could amuse themselves. ...

With regard to the PR hype tactics used to gain fusion funding, we find the
following on page 210:

     By then, however, Dean and Kintner were in trouble.  Another of the
  Post's readers was Jim Bishop, the DOE's press spokesman.  Like Grail
  Bradshaw, Bishop stood close to Schlesinger, and he proceeded to phone
  Kintner and blast him with both barrels.  He accused Kintner of having been
  responsible for the press coverage, of having manipulated the media for the
  sake of putting Schlesinger in a box, and that all of Kintner's plans for
  the press conference had merely been a ploy to trap Schlesinger, stirring
  up publicity in ways that would keep Schlesinger from dealing with fusion
  on its merits. ...

Heppenheimer writes about an approach that may have much more potential for
producing energy than the currently popular large expensive Rube Goldberg
devices, and he starts on page 316 with the following:

     And beyond such ideas as these, it may be that people will invent
  entirely new approaches, based on principles that today receive little
  attention.  Indeed, no less a figure than Robert Hirsch started his fusion
  career with such an approach.  After getting his Ph.D. in 1964, he went to
  work in Fort Wayne, Indiana, along with Philo T. Farnsworth, the coinventor
  of television.  They were trying to achieve controlled fusion power, but
  not by confining a plasma with magnetic fields as everyone else was doing. 
  Instead, they wanted to use electric fields, which to a physicist are very
  different and are handled in entirely dissimilar ways.  In a physics world
  dominated by magnetic fusion and soon to see the rise of laser fusion, they
  sought a third approach: electric fusion.
     Farnsworth and Hirsch did calculations and predicted that this approach
  might work.  Each of them built a series of small experimental devices to
  produce neutrons by burning D + T.  They had funding from International
  Telephone and Telegraph, and from time to time someone from ITT would come
  round and see how they were doing.  Hirsch liked to greet them with what he
  called "political neutrons."  These visitors weren't up on the technical
  fine points, but they knew how to read a neutron counter.  More neutrons
  meant that Hirsch and Farnsworth were making progress.  Soon Hirsch's
  experiments were outstripping Farnsworth's and he was able to get a tenfold
  increase in his neutron production, from one year to the next.  Eventually
  his device was putting out 10^10 fusion neutrons per second, enough so that
  he had to put radiation shielding around the device.  Nor was he running
  his tests for a few milliseconds at a time, like his magnetic-fusion
  colleagues.  He could keep on churning out neutrons for up to several
  minutes, and the only reason he couldn't run the device all day long was
  that after those few minutes it would start to overheat.  It would be years
  before anyone else could match his neutron output or do better at producing
  lots of neutrons with relatively little power.
     Three years after Hirsch got to Fort Wayne, the ITT people realized that
  fusion development was going to take a long time, and they asked Hirsch to
  try to get funding from the Atomic Energy Commission.  After much debate
  back and forth with a review panel, the people in the fusion office invited
  him to come in to meet that panel and be grilled by them.  To add to the
  impact of his written proposal, Hirsch decided to bring along a small-scale
  version of his device, which he would demonstrate.  This was not something
  he could just bring in as he might wish, because it would need tritium to
  make neutrons.  Bringing radioactive tritium into the downtown offices of
  the AEC was on a par with bringing a loaded rifle into the Pentagon, but
  eventually he got his permission.  His device was about the size of a large
  grapefruit, and he could wheel it in on a table as if it were a cake on a
  dessert cart.  It plugged into an ordinary 110-volt socket.  It had a
  window in the side, and you could look in and see the bright reddish-purple
  glow of plasma, concentrated into a little ball at the center.  Each second
  it produced a hundred thousand neutrons from fusion reactions.  It would do
  this continually, for as long as Hirsch cared to keep it on.
     The elders of fusiondom stroked their long gray beards and wondered what
  it might mean, as they looked on.  Then these elders, the review committee,
  started asking Hirsch some questions.  But he had come prepared, and he had
  good answers.  Finally the time came to decide: would they or wouldn't they
  approve his getting the money?  Then Tom Stix, a plasma physicist from
  Princeton, asked the most pertinent question of all: "If we fund this,
  whose budget is it going to come out of?"  There was no extra funding
  available, and money allocated to Hirsch in Fort Wayne would have to be
  taken away from somebody else at Princeton or some other well-established
  lab.  And right there and then, Hirsch's hopes for funding died.
     There was simply no institutional base for electric fusion.  No one else
  was pursuing it; no powerful lab or agency favored it.  It had come out of
  left field from two off-the-wall inventors who worked at the wrong address,
  and there was no way to fit it into the established fusion program.  It was
  not that people weren't looking for new ideas; within a year or two the
  tokamak would come along, and soon everyone would be hopping on its
  bandwagon.  But electric fusion was a little too new.  The response Hirsch
  got in 1968 was very similar to the response Bussard got, a few years
  later, when he sought government support for his Riggatrons.
     Came the early seventies, and Hirsch was in charge of the entire fusion
  program.  Did he now see a chance to use his position to do something for
  electric fusion?  He did.  However, he couldn't just decree, "Let there be
  and electric fusion program."  He had to find physicists and labs who were
  interested, and who could prepare solid proposals to show that they might
  be able to get somewhere.  No one was.  The whole fusion world was wrapped
  up in magnets and lasers, and no one was out there to pick up his lead.  It
  all was a most ironic turnabout on the cliche of the brilliant inventor,
  years ahead of his time, who dies penniless and alone, with no one
  interested in his pathbreaking invention.  Farnsworth was just such a
  brilliant inventor, as was Hirsch, who had shared his art.  Hirsch rose to
  lead the entire fusion program--and still no one was interested in what he
  was offering.

   I started "The Farce of Physics" topic thread in the sci.physics Internet
Usenet newsgroup in November 1994 to discuss the topics, information, and
arguments in my free electronic book by the same name, as well as related
problems in modern physics.  The stats from the EU Net ftp site show a peak of
2013 book copies sent in that month.  The book is my contribution to the
current scientific revolution and contains 156 references to the published
literature with extensive quotations of arguments from many prominent people
including Albert Einstein.  There are no restrictions on anyone making
electronic or paper copies of my book, and there are thousands of people who
have copies, so if you can't get the book by modem or the Internet, you should
be able to find someone who will make a computer disk copy or a paper printout
of the book.  A paperback non-profit version of the book for about $5.95 plus
postage and handling should soon be available from the publisher and I will
post information on it when I have it.  The HTML/World-Wide Web Hypertext
version of the book is available via:
          URL:http://www.Germany.EU.net/books/farce/farce.html
   The original 311KB ASCII version of the book can be obtained by anonymous
ftp from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory /pub/books/wallace by using "get
farce.txt".  The file in the directory is in a compressed form and called
farce.txt.gz but if you leave off the .gz the system will send you the
uncompressed text.  If you use a graphics interface to ftp the book, like that
used by America Online, you may get a file called farce.txt that is still in a
compressed form.  You can ftp a software package for the PC called gzip124.zip
from ftp.aol.com in the directory /pub/compress/ibmpc that will uncompress the
book after you rename it farce.gz.  Unix computer systems have a command
called "gunzip" that will also uncompress the .gz format.  You can also ftp
the current corrected version of the book in an uncompressed form from
ftp.gate.net in the directory /pub/users/wallaceb or ftp.intnet.net in the
directory /pub/BOOKS/Wallace.  The file farce.wp5 is the WordPerfect 5.1
version of the same book, and it contains all the extras like italics and
superscripts, etc.  The file d.wp5 is a WordPerfect reprint of my 1969 Venus
radar paper, and the j.wp5, m.wp5, and p.wp5 files are reprints of my
principle dynamic ether published papers, some that include imbedded graphics. 
The p1.gif file is a picture starting from left to right, of Vladimir Ilich
Sekerin, myself, and V. N. Bezwerchy after my lecture at the House of
Scientists before the First Russian Conference started.  The p2.gif file is a
picture of me delivering my paper at the First Conference with Svetlana
Tolchelnikova-Murri doing the translating.  The p3.gif file is a picture taken
at the closing ceremony of the Second Russian Conference.  With regard to the
people mentioned in the book: row 1 number 1 me, n.2 Lee Coe, n.3 Pavel F.
Parshin; r.2 n.1 Leonid Maiboroda; r.3 n.5 Petr Beckman; r.4 n.11 Svetlana
Tolchelnikova-Murri; r.5 n.5 Vladimir Sekerin, n.8 Alexandra Schpitalnaya; r.6
n.4 V. O. Beklyamishev; r.7 n.4 Konstantin Manuilov.  The file readme.txt
contains much the same information as this post.  If you have email but not
ftp I can send a copy of the book by email and if there is a size limit on
your system, I can send it in segments with the largest being 55KB for Chapter
3.  If you don't have access to the Internet but have a computer with a modem,
you can download the book from the Bulletin Board "SIRIUS CONNECTION" in
Ontario Canada.  The V.32 bis to 14.4K baud data phone lines are 705-737-0728
and 705-737-3030 and you log in as a new user using ANSI or RIP graphics, then
log to the BROWSE file library and download the file FARCE.TXT.  
   Chapter 6 of my book is titled "Relativity Revolution" and is devoted in
large measure to my participation in the March 1989 First International
Conference "Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science", and the Second
Conference in September 1991 in St. Petersburg Russia.  Neil Munch was a
participant in the Third Conference held May 1994 and is the Western contact
for information and application forms for the Forth Conference to be held in
the Fall of 1996.  You can reach Neil at his email address:
                   70047.2123@compuserve.com

Bryan G. Wallace
7210 12th Ave. No.
St. Petersburg, FL 33710
USA

Phone/Fax 813-347-9309

Email wallaceb@gate.net

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwallaceb cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Muon Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Fusion Question
Date: 21 Sep 1995 22:03:28 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <43pbqp$fub@newsbf02.news.aol.com> zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:

  > >150 d-t fusions per muon, on average.   

  > In the reaction:

  > d  +  t  -> He4  +  n  

  > 17.6 MeV energy is liberated in the form of mostly neutron energy. If you
  > multiply this with 150 you get 2640 MeV which is significantly more than
  > the mass of the muon which is around 105.

   The fusions are not all d + t, a significant fraction are d + d and
t + t, which produce less energy, but that is not the issue.  Yes the
results Dr. Jones reported are well over "scientific breakeven" as
defined in most magnetic fusion labs.  But, no one has figured out how
to make muons for less than a couple thousand MeV.  So given a state
of the art neutron source, it might be possible to reach engineering
breakeven, especially if the waste energy from the muon generator is
recovered.

  > The energy of the neutrons can be converted to heat by neutron
  > absorbing media. I don't know the efficiency of the accelerator
  > that produces the muons but I assume all the losses of the
  > muon-producing equipment are dissipated in the form of heat.

   Assume 25% efficiency in converting the energy to electricity and
you won't be too far off.  High energy particles can be converted more
efficiently but only if they aren't generated in dense material.

  > It seems to me that the system should be over breakeven if we assume a
  > heat exchanger that recovers heat from the whole equipment and eventually
  > from the neutron absorbing media. I would be curious about the details of
  > why the system cannot be commercialized, is it the price of the tritium?
  > Is it the cost of the muon source? The neutron could also be used to
  > generate tritium in the reaction chamber or to cause other nuclear
  > reactions.

    Yes, you could probably build a system which reached engineering
breakeven, but the problem would be the decay of the tritium
inventory.  If you could build a system where 90% of the tritium was
burned before decaying you are almost there.  (However that would
require getting the reaction volume very small.  If you are generating
megawatts per liter, the trick is cooling the reactor...)  But in any
case the cost of the tritium would be a significant contributer to the
cost of the electricity generated.  If anyone makes the "one
additional breakthrough" required to get muon fusion into the
production (such as a muon source which consumes 300 MeV per usable
muon), the power plants will probably burn pure deuterium or a mix
only slightly enriched in tritium.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Why no CF maybes?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes?
Date: 21 Sep 1995 22:23:32 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <199509201520.LAA67772@pilot06.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

  > Robert I. Eachus makes a very interesting and more concrete suggestion
  > to explain the lack of MAYBE results.  In a sense it is a sort of
  > global requirement as Robin suggests.  However, in this case, the
  > requirement is connected to the specifics of the surface condition of
  > the Pd cathode.  Robert's suggestion is that there must be at least
  > one "good" surface area on the cathode in order for the high loading
  > condition to be achieved.  It would be nice, then, if we could further
  > refine the concept of there being a sweet spot on the surface.

   I think you misunderstood my model, so I'll try to make it more
concrete.  Assume, for example, that at high loading any flaws in the
crystalline structure permit deuterium gas to form.  If such a flaw is
internal and has a relatively large area, it can result in cracking of
the electrode.  If it is on the surface, the loss of gas will insure
that high loading is never achieved.  So a "good" electrode is one a
single crystal with no major flaws or dislocations near the surface,
and no major internal flaws or voids.

   If this is the case then a flaw anywhere makes the electrode
useless--and there is evidence of this sort of behavior related to
high deuterium loading.

   What I was also saying was that, if your observation is correct,
then a better way to run CNF experiments would be to have many small
electrodes in the calorimeter, with only a small surface exposed, and
to control the power so that all electrodes are driven with the same
current.  (Since higher loaded electrodes will require higher
overpotentials.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Martin Gelfand /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 21 Sep 1995 17:10:26 -0600
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

I feel compelled to comment on just one of the ravings
in the long post by M.J....
In article <21cenlogic-2009951048240001@austin-1-4.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>
>By the way, speaking of ether theory, are you aware that the existence of
>the ether was proven more than 60 years ago, and is generally accepted by
>top physicists today? I'll bet not. That's because you buy into the
>dissembling and the crapola. You don't notice that every knowledgeable
>physicist today accepts the existence of "Dirac's ocean"--a particulate
>medium that pervades all of space and accounts for most of the phenomena
>of electromagnetism. Of course, they have all agreed to not *call* it the
>ether, because that would have required them to clash head-on with another
>dogma: that of Einstein's hare-brained "relativity" theory. But behind the
>political dissembling lies the reality of classical mechanics triumphant,
>in all areas of physics. The myth of its demise is a politically expedient
>fantasy, nothing more. And soon even that will be gone.  
>
>--Mitchell Jones

The statement 'every knowledgeable physicist today accepts 
the existence of "Dirac's ocean"' is about forty to fifty years out
of date, now.  The "Dirac sea" of negative energy electrons was
a necessary construct back in the days when the Dirac equation
was the leading theory of relativistic quantum mechanics for
electrons.  However, with the advent of relativistic quantum field 
theory a Dirac sea is no longer required, and nobody believes
in its existence. 

And even worse, from Mitchell's viewpoint, is that even if
you wanted to believe in the existence of the Dirac sea it
wouldn't serve as a classical ether.  After all, the Dirac
equation _is_ a relativistic theory.


Martin Gelfand
Department of Physics,
Colorado State University
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 21 Sep 1995 20:25:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I believe that Matthew is right about the n-n or p-p systems. 

I looked at the nuclear stabilities and there is a reasonably good theory
explaining the binding energies for protons and neutrons. This semi
empirical mass formula is based on a coulomb repulsion term, the volume
term (nuclear binding between all nucleons), the surface term (some
nucleons on the surface are not fully surrounded), asymmetry term (binding
is strongest if n = p), pairing term (n-n or p-p bond is stronger than
n-p). 
The asymmetry term arises because the protons and neutrons each sit in
their own energy well and if one well is more filled than the other we can
reduce the total energy by moving one over to the other well (i.e.
changing from neutron to proton or back).

An additional effect we have is the effect of the nuclear magic numbers.
Just like electron shells the nucleons fill a shell structure thereby
certain nucleon numbers have less energy (2,8,20,28,50,82,126). From this
it follows that He4 is double magic.

Unfortunately the formula does not work very well under 20 nucleons so it
is useless in our quest for knowledge about deuterium electron capture.

I suspect that electron capture in deuterium will result in an n-n system
that is marginally stable under thermal conditions. Perhaps there is a few
electron volts of binding energy, enough to keep the two together until
they collide with another d.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 21 Sep 1995 20:25:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <43db36$f0h@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>
>There are those who will claim that you can work miracles
>with small devices, and I'd certainly be a lot happier with a small
>machine, but I just don't see it happening given the ideas that are
>out there.  But if anyone has a cool concept and is looking for
>a free (fellowship-funded) thesis student with lots of ideas
>and enthusiasm, let me know.  Some of my classmates and I
>are still making up our minds about our thesis topics.
>
>

I have an idea. Since the most common isotope of Lithium is Li7, this
substance is cheap. If you add a neutron to Li7 you get Li8 which is
exactly two alphas. 

I don't know if the energy losses in hot fusion reactors come mainly from
neutrons leaving the plasma core, but I suppose you could try blanketing
the equipment with massive volumes of Li7. The neutrons that escape from
the plasma core would be absorbed by the Li blanket and the reaction:

n + Li7 --> He4  +   He4                       (1)

would produce plenty of heat. The key is to suppress the alternative
reaction:

n + Li7  -> Li6 + n + n (endothermic)     (2)

which would absorb the heat. The He4 produced in the first reaction would
be fast and the equipment would have to be designed to slow it down to
convert the energy to heat.

Now this would not be strictly a hot fusion reactor that breaks even but
it would sure help the total energy output of the system. In fact in terms
of total energy in minus total energy out it may break even due to the
Lithium fission.

Of course this may not be my original idea, it is kind of obvious.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 21 Sep 1995 20:25:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Thank you Ramon for the wonderful idea. 

I am not sure what mechanism would allow energy exchange between the
electrons and the excited states of the deuteron but what you are saying
sounds feasible. I have to look into it. I suspect the nucleus can absorb
photons but the cross section is low. I am not sure if it can absorb
phonons (of electron motion) although electron motion could couple to
proton motion inside the d due to the proton's charge.

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 21 Sep 1995 21:12:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It appears that I made a stupid mistake in my post about half an hour ago.
You would need a proton to collide with Li7 to make Be8 which would fall
apart to produce two alphas. Unfortunately protons will not leave the hot
fusion reaction chamber due to their charge, so we need to use Be7 as a
jacket. Unfortunately Be7 does not occur in nature so it must be terribly
expensive. (Its half life is 53 days)

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Ira Blum /  Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
     
Originally-From: iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems
Date: 22 Sep 1995 00:00:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <43sd7a$h87@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

[blah, blah, blah...]

|> for shame? With Ira Blum's below post IMHO, Blum does not belong in the
|> field of physics whatsoever. 

I feel honored that you should put me in such company as Steven Weinberg 
and Stephen Hawking as people who are crackpots.  I truly am.

|> This is the first experimental predictions of the Hydrogen Atom Systems
|> hyasys. HYASYS was born out of the realization that atoms are the most
|> fundamental of all particles. And,  the continuity of thought. If
|> HYASYS were to be wrong, then it would never be the case that a
|> subatomic particle can exist which has a atom itself inside of it. But
|> the neutron is a subatomic particle which has more than an entire atom
|> inside of it. A neutron has a whole hydrogen atom inside of it plus
|> more energy. Thus, all particles ever created or observed is either one
|> of these things:
|> 
|>       (1) particle is an atom or element or isotope
|> 
|>       (2) particle is a derivative of (1) such as a photon particle
|> which is the QED of a specific atom, or a neutrino
|> 
|>       (3) particle is either a proton or electron out of a Hydrogen
|> Atom System, such as a proton beam where the associated or linked
|> electrons for each of those protons is not in consideration to the
|> practical needs of the proton beam itself
|> 
|>       (4) all particles which are not protons electrons or derivative
|> of protons and electrons such as photons or neutrinos are in fact
|> quantized excited Hydrogen Atom Systems. Examples: Z_0 boson is merely
|> an energetic HYASYS
|> 

You are forgetting pions and kaons and muons, particles which are not 
protons, electrons, photons, or neutrinos, yet are smaller than 939 MeV, 
which is the mass of your HYASYS.  

-- 
Ira
iblum@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Benji Gil for AL Rookie of the Year!!!
"You might be a Redneck if"
- Jeff Foxworth
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 22 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
