1995.09.25 / 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: 25 Sep 1995 15:40:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <441g71$842@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> In article <43sua4$d65@news.utdallas.edu>
|> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes:
|> 
|> > 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.
|> 
|>   Tell me Ira, what does a muon decay into since its lifetime is 2.2 x
|> 10^-6 sec yet its mass is 105.66 MEV as compared with electron mass of
|> what about .5 MEV.
|> 
|>    Please, if you could or some other reader, list the lifetimes and
|> the MEVs of all of these particles and what they decay into.
|> 

Ok:  I'll list some particles and their lifetimes and their primary decay 
vertecies.  This information is also available from the Particle Data 
Group.  

Part  Mass (MeV)  Half-Life(s)  Ctau (m)  primary decay
Mu    105.66      2.197E-6      658.653   mu -> e nubar(e) nu(mu)
pi+   139.57      2.603E-8      7.804     pi+ -> mu nu(mu)
pi0   134.97      8.4 E-17      2.52E-8   pi0 -> gam gam 
K+    493.65      1.237E-8      3.709     K+ -> mu nu  or K+ -> pi+ pi0
K0s   497.67      0.89E-10      0.02675   K0 -> pi+ pi- or K0 -> 2pi0
K0l   497.67      5.17E-8       15.50     K0 -> 3pi0 or K0 -> pi+ pi- pi0

Part  Mass (MeV)  Full Width(Mev)  primary decay
eta   547.45      1.19 E-3         eta -> gam gam  or eta -> 3 pi0
rho   768.1       151              rho -> pi pi
omega 781.95      8.43             omega -> pi+ pi- pi0
eta'  957.75      0.198            eta' -> pi+ pi- eta or eta' -> rho0 gam
K*+   891.59      49.8             K* -> K pi
K*0   896.1       50.5             K* -> K pi

|>   Physicists for the past 40 years have not been truthful to
|> themselves. They should realize that when a particle exists for such a
|> fleeting time as 10^-6 sec that such a particle is really not on "par"
|> to the existence of say the proton or electron etc.

Well, I have to say that if you truly believe that, then your world is 
very bland.  (and also not very scientifically accurate.)  It also 
contains lots of things which you don't understand and really can't even 
question, such as:  Where do cosmic rays come from?  What really occurs 
in a thermonuclear reaction,  like the sun?  Where did the universe come 
from?  Why is there more matter than anti-matter?  How come I get all 
these streaks on my photographic plates when I lay them around the lab.  
(and what do they mean?)

|>    To put it on terms that all readers can understand. If we were to
|> give a comprehensive science study of Homo sapiens, should we spend any
|> time whatsoever or some little time on the fact that a worm lives in
|> the eyelashes of humans, considering that we are really talking about
|> Homo sapiens and not an organism that lives on Homo sapiens? 

In a word, yes.  Depending on the study.  Why bother studying fruit 
flies?  They only live a few weeks.  Why bother studying anything?  
Afterall, it will probably decay into nothingness before too long.

|> In the
|> same vain, is the muon a particle on par with the electron, or is it a
|> energy exchange, that is, the muon is merely an electron with stored up
|> extra energy and not a true particle. 

Bzzzzzt... the statement "not a true particle" is a non-statement.  There 
are no non-true particles.  There are observed particles and postulated 
particles.  The difference is that an observed particle is, well, one 
that has been observed.  

|>   Each particle should be looked at as to "how long it exists",  "what
|> it decays into". 

Yep.  That is what High energy physics does.  

|> In this manner, only hydrogen atoms exist and
|> everything else is a hydrogen atom system with more energy than the 938
|> MEV hydrogen.

If you wait around long enough, that's all you'll have.  Oh, and while 
you are waiting, you might want to stop taking pot-shots at serious 
physicists.

|> 
|>   What is the muon but an electron with a lot of extra energy? 

Because electrons don't have excited states.  Sorry, it doesn't work that 
way.  If so, then the decay would look like this:  mu -> e gamma, which 
has never been observed.

|> What
|> needs explanation therefrom is why the quantization of 105 MEV? 

That question has been asked.  The answer is part of the standard model.

|> Why
|> will the first quantization of an electron be 105 MEV or are there
|> electrons between the .5 MEV and the 105 MEV? 

This question has been asked.  Lots of money spent on cyclotrons later 
the question got a "no" answer.

|> These are the questions to ask. 

Been there done that, got the (*&%^ t-shirt.  Now, are you finished 
living in the '50s?

|> And never to think that the muon is as basic and fundamental as
|> an electron. 

An odd question.  What is basic and funamental?

|> Why does it take 9 muons to make a Hydrogen Atom System?

It doesn't.  In fact, 9 muons make 9 muons.  Eventually, they make 9 
electrons.  Your statement about a HAS is that it has 0 charge and a mass 
of 938 MeV.  9 muons have a charge of -9 and a mass of 951 MeV.  Sorry, 
no can do.

|> All particles be they elements, isotopes, or this fancy schmancy things
|> out of CERN are nothing but Hydrogen Atom Systems.

The problem with your statement is that you don't just wait around for 
everything to decay.  Particles can interact before they decay and these 
interactions can be detected and measured and counted.  Sorry, HAS's are 
too blind and don't predict anything in high energies.

|> 
|>   This stuff is fun and it must be correct since it is too beautiful
|> not to.

My wife is beautiful, particle physics is just particle physics.  HAS's 
are like looking at a rainbow in black and white and saying, "oh, how 
pretty."

-- 
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:
cuddy25 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / 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: 25 Sep 1995 15:42:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC

In article <442546$d2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> In article <441g71$842@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> 
|> >   Physicists for the past 40 years have not been truthful to
|> > themselves. They should realize that when a particle exists for such a
|> > fleeting time as 10^-6 sec that such a particle is really not on "par"
|> > to the existence of say the proton or electron etc.
|> >    To put it on terms that all readers can understand. If we were to
|> > give a comprehensive science study of Homo sapiens, should we spend any
|> > time whatsoever or some little time on the fact that a worm lives in
|> > the eyelashes of humans, considering that we are really talking about
|> > Homo sapiens and not an organism that lives on Homo sapiens? In the
|> > same vain, is the muon a particle on par with the electron, or is it a
|> > energy exchange, that is, the muon is merely an electron with stored up
|> > extra energy and not a true particle. 
|> 
|>   Here is a better analogy of the present day particle physics zoo.
|> Suppose particle physics was the start of the classification of life, a
|> la Linneas.
|> 
|>   How would present day particle physicists have done a job on the
|> starting out of the classification of life and models thereof.  Well we
|> have the Plant Kingdom and the Animal Kingdom and we have things like
|> the archopods and mammalia and invertibrates etc.  That was just a
|> passing trespass of the biology classification so some biologist do not
|> holler at me for it. BTW I need a complete biology classification
|> scheme so if someone has it please post.
|> 
|>   But getting to the analogy of transporting today's particle zoo
|> physicists back to the time of Linneas and ask them to work up a
|> classification. Then I suspect what they would include is bread loaves
|> in grocery stores because some particle zoo physicist noticed that
|> people eat bread and so concluded that bread was alive. And so the
|> classification of life by our present day particle zoo physicists would
|> have been a far larger scheme to include every imaginable brand of
|> bread and lollipops and suckers would have their space I am sure.

Isn't life too fleeting for it to make truly worthwhile study?  Afterall, 
everything dies sometime  (except paramecium)

-- 
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:
cuddy25 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.22 / Mark North /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: north@nosc.mil (Mark H. North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 17:50:36 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>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! 

Heh, heh.

>(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.)

That reason being that you don't have a clue as to the consequences
of including a neutrino in your cockamamie 'reaction'.

>At this point, we have to ask ourselves how a gamma photon gets spat out
>as the isotope shifted nucleus drops to ground state. 

Spat out? Do you think you could be a little more vague?

>The question is, do
>we visualize a series of transitional states in which the photon
>accelerates to the speed of light, or not? 

Whoo hah, he he.

>By the way, please do not assume that I am alone in visualizing such
>transitional states. Even physics gurus routinely do it. Unlike me,
>however, they are careful to kiss the behinds of the powers that be by
>pretending to believe in the sacred mumbo-jumbo of "quantum mechanics."

Har!

>Anyway, the bottom line is simple: you guys are all agog at my "heresy"
>because you are stuffed full of the crapola mythology which is spoon-fed
>to undergraduates. You don't realize that *real* physics is done by people
>who, in the privacy of their own minds, don't buy into the myths. 

Like you, I suppose. ROTFL. 

>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. 

Hoo boy. Another egomaniacal crackpot is born! Move over Ludwig and Abian.
I guess someone had to fill the void since Petr died.

Why is it that crackpots *always* attack Einstein? Why don't they jump
all over Van Vleck, say, or Brillouin or Gibbs? It's the absolute
hallmark of crackpottery.

Why so bitter, Jones? Let me guess: You flunked out of undergraduate
physics because you wouldn't do the homework (beneath your dignity) and
wouldn't stop ranting about how Einstein was all wrong but you know
better, etc., etc. There's one in every physics department. They usually
hang around a few years after flunking out, stalking the halls trying
to buttonhole first professors then grad students and finally even
undergrads. When it finally becomes clear to them that *nobody* is
interested they either leave or go insane. Or, nowadays, get a
usenet account. If you weren't so hilarious you'd be a complete waste of
time. However, you are rapidly becoming a bore so...



>plonk<





















Mark





















cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 25 Sep 1995 15:09:56 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>
>This is the aspect of the present nuclear testing regime which I think
>is the most offensive.  In essence, France is saying "yes, we believe
>the tests are safe" but then turning around and saying "but the reason
>we are testing in Mururoa rather than continental France is to reduce
>the risk".
>
>Either the tests are safe or they are not.  I find it just as
>offensive that they endanger (albeit very very slightly) the lives of
>non-French citizens, against the expressed will of these people,
>rather than hold the tests on continental soil.

 Once again there is no such thing as a "safe" action. Wathever you do, there
is ALWAYS a risk. I never said the tests did not entail a risk. However small
this risk is, I think it right to do it in such a way that not only the risk
is as small as possible, but also that the sonsequences of such an improbable
occurence are minimized.
 Secondly, the tahitians ARE FRENCH CITIZENS. So the accusation of only 
endangering foreigners is unfounded in fact.

>
>I don't know about anyone else but I hold human life to be a rather
>valuable comodity and while I have no problem with any individual or
>group choosing to give *their own* lives in the name of their
>country's sovereignty, I find it impossible to accept a country
>risking the lives of other nations for their own means (regardless of
>the *degree* of that risk).
>

 I must confess there is a contradiction between my feelings on that matter.
I would agree there is no moral right for a country to risk other people's
lives. On the other side, in the real world we are obliged to take into
account reality: You say "by performing this tests, you put our lives at
risk". I could say "by stopping this tests, Chirac may put a lot of french
lives at risk". Both arguments are receivable.
 I think we could agree on wanting a world without arms of any sort, nuclear
or otherwise. But in the mean time we have to leave with the monstruous needs
of "realpolitik". The attitude of refusing the tests while wanting the country
to keep  a strong nuclear deterrent (and that is the attitude of the 69% of
french people opposing the tests) is the easy way out: wishing the end without 
endorsing the means.

>Mario has argued with me in private mail that the risks are *very* low
>and that it is better to test the bombs in an area of low-population
>density.  However I find it difficult to believe that the level of
>risk is just so coincidentally positioned to make it unnacceptable
>amongst a population of 30 million but okay amongst a population of
>just a few million.  Come on - it's either safe enough to test on
>continental France or it's just plain too dangerous to test - full
>stop!

 That is a curious way of stating it: What you are saying is that if the
risk is large the tests should not be done at all (on that we agree), but
if the risk is small you should not try to reduce the consequences of an
eventual accident even further. Sorry, but I do not see it that way: 
However small the risk, any effor to reduce it even further is to be made.

>
>Mario has also argued that everything we do in live involves a degree
>of risk - but these are risks that the individual elects to expose
>themselves to.  We in the South Pacific choose not to be exposed to
>the risks imposed by French Nuclear testing - there is a *BIG*
>difference.  France, who places such high importance on the importance
>of sovereignty and the freedom that brings to its citizens is being
>hypocritical by compromising the rights of the citizens of other
>countries.  This is not acceptable.
>

 It is unavoidable. As I have shown to you, there is for Chirac a choice
between to risks: to do the tests thus endangering other people (without
their consent) or to stop the tests and endanger the lives of french people
(without their consent either).
 Of course, in showing this alternative, I assumed that those tests insure
the safety of France, which, I admit, is not obvious. But I think that we
should separate the two debates: One of them is "are the tests necessary", and
the second "if they are necessary, are they acceptable".


>
>It is a sign of bravery and courage when a man in a position of power
>is willing to listen to criticism and change his mind.  Blind
>arrogance is nothing to be proud of.  I think you'll find that Mr
>Chirac has lost far more credibility and respect than he has gained
>through his stubborn arrogance over the nuclear testing issue.
>

 True enough. But if Chirac stopped the tests that would not prove he
has changed his mind. Wathever the reason, it would be construed not
as Chirac being convinced by reasonable argument, but being obliged to
comply by superior force.

>Mario, I am surprised that for a man of your education you feel bound
>to accept a course of action simply because your president has said it
>must be so.  The most valuable asset that any nation can have is a
>free-thinking vocal population who are prepared to stand up and object
>to the actions of their leaders.

 I never said people should shut their mouths. People should have the right
to object and to my best knowledge there is no action taken against those 
who do. I, personally, do not aprove of nuclear weapons. But I am a realist,
and I am aware of the fact that if Chirac backed under strong international
pressure, he would have no credibility left in any international negociation.

>It is the very "blind allegiance"
>you exhibit which gives autocratic dictators the kind of mandate and
>power that jeopardises world stability, especially in the case of a
>nuclear power!
>
 See my previous answer.


>
>No one will interfere unless our actions compromise the safety of
>their citizens.  If NZ were to start nuclear testing off the coast of
>France (assuming we had a territory there), you can bet that the
>French farmers would be burning cattle in the streets (or whatever it
>is that they do when they're unhappy).

 Not sure. If you tested a nuclear weapon 5000 km from the coast of France
nobody would seriously object. The french farmers might seize the pretext
to burn your cattle, of course. But they would do so for reasons that have
nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

>The difference is that I like
>to think that we are a sufficiently democratic country with sufficient
>ethics and morals that we would never endanger the lives of another
>country's citizens simply to further our own ends.  Even if the
>government of the day attempted it they would be removed from power in
>double-quick time.

 Unfortunately, there is no precedent in either direction. What you say is
therefore a statement of faith in your own country. I respect you for that, 
but I am to cynic to believe it is really true.

>France's lust to protect its sovereignty is not justification for
>risking the lives of other non-French citizens.  You make the argument
>that the US can not be trusted to act as global policeman - but they
>are not the only other nuclear power in the world.  What about
>Britain, a close economic ally of France.

 But hardly independent from the USA,

> Then there's Israel

 Ditto, 

, Russia and China.

 I do not have a lot of confidence in the USA, but I have still less in these
two countries.

> I doubt that any one of these countries would allow the
>others to overstep the bounds of acceptable behaviour and they all
>have the technology and might to act as an effective deterrent.

 These countries will allow anybody to overstep anything if that suited their
own interests. I have lost any illusion I might have had in the past on that
account.

>Perhaps my perception of things is wrong but here's how I see it:

 I would not say you are "wrong". But I would say you are an idealist (no
offense meant). Here are my comments:

>* There is a risk associated with nuclear testing

 Agreed

>* The risk is very small - but too large to allow testing within 
>	continental France - better to endanger a lesser number
>	of foreigners than the valuable French voters.

 No. The risk is very small but it can be made still lower by testing in
the most depopulated part available to france, but still with plenty of
french voters (tahiti is part of france).

>* The world community has strongly condemned the actions of
>	France in conducting these tests - but Chirac refuses
>	to risk loosing face by changing his plans.

 Agreed. But Chirac is not (only) afraid of losing face. He is I think
more concerned about losing outwright credibility.

>* A majority of the French population is opposed to the testing
>	but Chirac refuses to loose face by changing his plans.

 No. A majority of french voters want to have their pie and eat it. They say 
(with an overwelming majority) that they want their country to retain a strong
nuclear deterrent, but they refuse (with an overwelming majority as well) the
tests that are (or so the experts say) required for it.

>* France already has an adequate nuclear deterrent capability
>	- more than "sufficient" would only be useful if used as
>	an offensive weapon against multiple targets.  (Does it
>	really matter whether you kill someone with one barrel
>	or both barrels of a shotgun?  Aren't they just as dead?)

 No, because there is the problem of reliability and precision. But this
is another debate. Your refusal of the tests are on the grounds of the 
risks it imposes to other people, and these risks are not modified by
the fact the tests are or not necessary.

>* France exhibits levels of paranoia which would probably see
>	an individual institutionalised for therapy.  One can't help
>	but get the feeling that France believes that all other
>	nations (including the US and Britain) are "out to get them".
>	A perfect indication of this is the outrageous claims made
>	by France against New Zealand recently - claims that it
>	was the covert agenda of the NZ government to get France
>	out of the Pacific region.

 Well, the intention of local powers (NZ and Australia) of getting France
out of the Pacific is not a secret. It has been clearly stated many times
by both governments. I must say I do not in principle disagree with them.
I would be quite ready to vote for the independence of Thaiti and New
Caledonia.
 We feel in France that the outcry caused by the tests has a lot to do 
with political considerations that are quite outside of the subject of
the tests itself.

>
>Can you really argue that France is justified in their actions?
>
 Yes I can, and do !


Best regards,


Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Mario Pain /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 25 Sep 1995 15:17:40 GMT
Organization: cea

bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote:

>
>French nuclear testing in the South Pacific is somewhat akin to New
>Zealand placing a nuclear device 100Km off the French coast and then
>connecting the trigger mechanism to a huge "wheel of fortune" device
>which gave a one in ten million chance of detonation.

 Mururoa is not 100 km from NZ, but 4000 km. Apart from that, if you did
it for a valid reason, I would not refuse to consider it.

>This is a
>*very* low risk - but would it be acceptable?  The French would surely
>say "why not do this in your own country?" or perhaps "why endanger
>the lives of Frenchmen when there is no benefit to us associated with
>the risk?".  This is all we are saying.

 I understand very well what you are saying and why. But this is a case of
conflicting interests. You do not want your people to be put at risk. I do
not want the life of french people to be put at risk, as it was during the
last war, because their country was not able to defend itself. We are both
right, from different points of view.
 That being said, all precautions must be taken to reduce this risk to the
minimum.

>
>With the nuclear testing at Mururoa the benefit is only to France but
>the risk is shared by many other countries.  I do not accept that
>France has any right to endanger the lives of myself or any of my
>friends and familly simply to ensure its own sovereignty.
>

 See my previous argument. Do you think the french government has the right
to endanger the life of its own citizens by not being able to defend itself ?

>> That does not mean of course that France should not take any measure
>>which will reduce both the probability of a nuclear accident, and the
>>potential effect of it. In that sense, the Mururoa site is the best of
>>the available ones.
>
>*best* for who?  Certainly not the inhabitants of the South Pacific.
>France's attitude is not only arrogant but selfish.
>
 The best in general terms. If you can indicate a place to do this tests
which would reduce the risk for people WHATEVER THEIR NATIONALITY, please, do.

Regards

Mario Pain

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 /   /  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: 25 Sep 1995 02:46:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:

>The radial probability density for the electron in the ground state of
>the hydrogen atom, actually has its maximum at the Bohr radius, not at
>the nucleus, as you appear to be saying here (i.e. your function has a
>value of 1 when r = 0).

Not at all. Check (for one out of many sources) Quantum Mechanics by
Messiah (yeah I know I took this stuff a long time ago), Vol. 1 page 484.
The radial wave function for the n=1 (ground) state varies as exp(-r/a)
where a is the bohr radius. If you calculate the *average* radius (i.e.
integrate the square of the above times r) you will get the fact that the
mean is 1.5a.

>>
>>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.

>It all seems so simple, when you only look at half of the picture.
>
>The point I am trying to make is that it is not true that the
>potential energy of the electron proton pair is zero when they are
>infinitely far apart, and thus representable by zero mass.
>You may wish to define it so, that doesn't make it true. In other
>words, you are not free to choose your zero point of potential energy
>where you choose. If you don't believe this then consider the
>following thought experiment.
>1) Take a 6 foot long piece of elastic.
>2) Tie one end around your head.
>3) Tie the other end around a tennis ball.
>4) Ask a friend to take the tennis ball and back up a few steps, until
>the elastic is stretched to the limit.
>5) Arbitrarily assign a total energy of zero to this state of the
>system.
>6) Ask your friend to let go of the tennis ball.
>7) You have nothing to worry about....,the potential energy of the
>system is zero...you just defined it that way! :->

Again, not at all. It's rather fundamental that I *can* choose any point
as the zero of potential energy, this is usually learned in freshman
physics. The reason I can is that it is the *difference* between the
potential energy values at two different locations which determines how
much kinetic energy is gained or lost when (in your amusing example) the
tennis ball moves between those two locations. Another way of putting this
is that the force is the derivative of the potential, and the derivative
is insensitive to the addition of a constant.

It is easiest to define the potential energy as zero at infinite
separation. If we do that then one can calculate the mass of an
electron-proton pair as the sum of the rest masses of the particles (which
are determined in isolation from each other) plus the (negative) potential
energy.

As I told Zoltan (who was finally able to convince himself of this) in
another related thread, conservation laws are great because they are
independent of (although consistent with) the underlying details. If your
detailed analysis disagrees with conservation laws then you need to check
your analysis.

This thread sounds almost exactly like those discussions of perpetual
motion machines. If the details of the machine are complicated enough, the
inventor thinks that he can get something for nothing. Never happens in
reality, however. This is relevant here since, if your analysis were true,
we would have non-conservation of energy - just check the difference
between the rest mass of a hydrogen atom and the rest mass of the neutron
(even forgetting the neutrino) and you will see.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: A simple speculation
     
Originally-From: Ramon Prasad <100437.530@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A simple speculation
Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:05:50 GMT
Organization: Geometrica Press Ltd.

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>What is the mean D-D distance in deuterated Pd?
>What is the mean D-D distance in D2O?

The bond length in palladium is given by my old and battered
copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as

                Pd-Pd  = 2.7511 Au

The bond length between two H atoms on H2O, taking account of
the bond angle is given as

                  H-H = 1.5144 Au

I hope you found this information an enjoyable experience! 

-- 
Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.24 /  SoBernardo /  Swords of Armageddon Nuclear Weapons Info Service
     
Originally-From: sobernardo@aol.com (SoBernardo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Swords of Armageddon Nuclear Weapons Info Service
Date: 24 Sep 1995 19:37:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

For those who might be interested, I have started a U.S. nuclear weapons
information service called "The Swords of Armageddon;" I am currently
offering 2,600 pages of text, 345 illustrations, 62 tables, and three
appendices in eight volumes on microfiche and CD-ROM.

For more details, drop me a note at hansenc@attmail.com or
sobernardo@aol.com

Chuck Hansen
Author, "U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History" (Orion, 1988)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensobernardo cudlnSoBernardo cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Ramon Prasad /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 25 Sep 1995 08:25:19 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:

>The deuteron has S=1 and T=0...
>If the relative strengths of the singlet and triplet interactions were
>reversed, so this state has S=0 and T=1...

My original observation was that there is no bound n-n state and
no bound p-p state. These are experimental facts and not theoretical
facts. I was not suggesting that there should be, or that there ought to
be.

My uderstanding of the pion exchange theory of nuclear forces is that
there is no satisfactory calculation yielding a bound deuteron, and
no stisfactory calculation yielding the binding energy. The nucleon-
nucleon interation is charge independent in the sense that if you
interchange p <--> n then the corresponding interaction is obtained
by the interchange pi(+) <--> pi(0).

We do not need there to be a bound dineutron. We only need the
pion exchange, which is (presumably) holding the deuteron together
in its bound state, to cotinue holding together the n-n system for a short
period of time. The n-n system at its point of creation is surely 
exchanging pions as the parent p-n system was. (If you believe in the
pion exchange theory of nuclear forces.) This is a final-state iteraction
problem. Now the question is for how long are they held together?
Is it long enough for the dineutron to encounter another deuteron
or dineutron?

Very Best Wishes, Yours sincerely,
Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / A Plutonium /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
     
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: Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition 
Date: 25 Sep 1995 00:43:16 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <jeffo.338.3060A8E4@rayleigh.lanl.gov>
jeffo@rayleigh.lanl.gov (Jeff Olson) writes:

> >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.

  Could someone please post all the relevant particles all in MEV data,
and what they decay into and their lifetimes all in terms of seconds.
Thanks
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 24 Sep 1995 20:52:01 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

}I wrote, in reponse to a trivial pro-test argument by Pain:
}
}>Does the big bad Deutsch Mark scare the poor little old franc?  
}>
}>Chunnel tourists from Britain ordering boiled beef in your restautrants? 
}>
}>EuroDisney still open?  
}>
}>Nothing like a sovereign decision to make you feel better. 

In article <43k1jm$pjc@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> 
Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
>
> That is a trivial way to see it. 

Then I see that my remarks had the intended effect, since then you might 
see just how trivial your original argument 

|>   But the nuclear tests by France have also another goal: to make credible
|> the french nuclear deterrent, by showing that France is still a sovereign
|> country and is ready to take soverign decisions and carry them out whatever
|> the rest of the world may think of it.

was, and, since you wrote 

> If the purpose of this forum is to throw 
>insults at each other, then drop dead.

perhaps you are beginning to understand why so much of the world is 
deeply insulted by these tests and such an argument in favor of it. 
They are rightly concerned that France might say "drop dead" and mean it 
literally.  After all, France has made many sovereign decisions in the 
past that are sufficiently insulting to make their threat credible.  What 
else can one think of a nation that has acted to increase the spread of 
nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states?  

Remember, the key issue behind the CTBT is that the non-proliferation 
treaty required that the nuclear states stop testing by a date that 
arrives quite soon in exchange for the forbearance of the non-nuclear
states.  France's actions in the past and the present undermine this 
very important and very successful treaty. 

> But the tests are being done "right in france", since for your information
>tahitians are french citizens. 

Odd that we saw them rioting in the streets but did not hear from their 
representative in the current government. 

>                               And before you start shouting that that is
>colonial nonsense, remember that the USA also has a few "colonies" in the 
>region. But that is not the point.

For your information, the residents of those territories vote in US 
national elections.  It is the *attitude* of France that is colonial 
nonsense, just as the US's great-white-father activities on Bikini 
Atoll were also.  But at least we did all of our underground tests, and 
more than a few atmospheric ones, right on the continental US where the 
fallout could land right in my backyard.  And, I might add, 40 years 
later we have *learned* from our actions in the past. 

> Testing nuclear weapons in continental France would not "prove that you
>are ready to commit national suicide", since there is very little chance of
>a nuclear accident. The only thing it would prove is readiness to risk the
>political future of the government for no real benefit !

You don't get it, do you?  That is *just* what they must demonstrate, 
since the actual use of those weapons would require just such an act. 
They could start by showing some spine in the Balkans. 

Since you do not seem to understand the issues, what would be your 
thoughts if it was Germany starting a series of nuclear tests? 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 24 Sep 1995 21:00:57 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <43n8th$o2v@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
>
>When a neutron decays it emits an electron and a neutrino and becomes a
>proton.
>
>The neutrino and electron share about 0.782 MeV energy. In every reaction
>a different portion of the energy is carried away by the electron. 

Correct. 

>I believe the energy of 0.782 is needed in addition to the kinetic energy
>gained by the electron falling into the proton.

Classical thinking alert!  

That energy of 782 keV is more than the mass (511 keV) so this is 
already a relativistic electron being shot at the proton.  

Anyway, the point is that the energy is measured asymptotically when 
you do the experiment (in your detector in the decay, or in your 
source for the reaction).  

>Incidentally I am wondering how much energy the electrons have due to
>their thermal motion in the lattice. 

So work it out.  It is about a million times smaller. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 24 Sep 1995 21:08:52 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

: Ramon Prasad <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
:
: >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.

I think I got the quotes right.  Anyway, the above is correct. 

In article <43sarj$844@martha.utcc.utk.edu> 
mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes:
>
>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. 

That misses the important experimental issue, and that is *which* p+n 
state is bound.  The deuteron has S=1, and thus has T=0 (it is an 
iso-singlet) as required by the Pauli principle and the need for a 
symmetric spatial wavefunction in the lowest state.  If the relative 
strengths of the singlet and triplet interactions were reversed so 
this state has S=0 and T=1, then there would be a stable n+n bound 
state.  The important observation is that the singlet scattering 
length shows the interaction is attractive, but not enough to bind, 
consistent with the non-observation of a T=1 bound state in pn. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / David Tonhofer /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: tonhofer@inf.ethz.ch (David Tonhofer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 25 Sep 1995 11:48:31 +0100
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

In article <gxZXwoOi2lVf084yn@fox.nstn.ns.ca>,
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> wrote:
>In article <43erug$4qr@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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 
>
>Actually, it has not, at least in the case of stars and stellar
>evolution.  What we've ended up with is stars that, according to our
>models appear to be much older than the universe.  The models do explain
>the range of stars, but there is something wrong with the time frames
>they produce.  Either that or general relativity is quite wrong.

 I would rather guess that the estimates of the universe's age are
 off. There are LOTS of systematic errors you can make. Or maybe
 the cosmological models are wrong.

 To sum:

 It's relatively easy to tweak the parameters used in calculating the age
 of the universe. I would NOT conclude that GR or QM/fusion models are
 in need of even a minor revision based on the measured distances to other 
 galaxies.

> --
> Dave Oldridge
> doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
								-- David


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentonhofer cudfnDavid cudlnTonhofer cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.21 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis
Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:52:03 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <21cenlogic-2009952340130001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

[deletia]

... 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.
> 

I'd like to point out that you've assumed the photon to be at zero speed
prior to emission.  While your arguments about continuity and intermediate
states are interesting, you've yet to explain why you feel the photon is
curled up at rest inside the nucleus, waiting to spring free.  (You've
only got one demonstrable velocity, so the argument about intermediate
states is meaningless.)

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / guiness att /  One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok)
     
Originally-From: gfp@docunet.mv.att.com (guiness.mv.att.com!gfp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:05:29 GMT
Organization: ndg132d00

There might still be time your change your major to Engineering, or 
preferably Law:
Please see "At the Going-Down of the Nuclear Sun" THE ECONOMIST 16-22 
Sept 1995. If there is anything to alternative concepts, they will likely 
be the only work being done in the field in 5 years.(As privatly funded 
enterprises).The last 20 years of national fusion funding were an 
anomaly, a reaction to the first oil crisis. D site might soon become a 
route one overpass, just like the Princeton-Penn accellerator site is 
now. See ya.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengfp cudfnguiness cudlnatt cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Mario Pain /  Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ?
Date: 25 Sep 1995 14:12:11 GMT
Organization: cea

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

>Here is an idea that is not new, but might be worthy of a brief project to
>reexamine it in light of today's superconductor and permanent magnet
>developments.
>
>A pre-stellerator idea was to use magnetic bottles, to inject an ion beam
>into the bottle so it would bounce back and forth between the magnetic
>mirrors at the ends. This could not work because particles collide (the
>main objective) and some change their angle of approach to the ends of the
>bottle and escape out the ends. Also, successive collisions and drift
>eventually permit particles to escape the walls of the bottle.
>
>One strategy to improve the situation is to put a succession of bottles
>end to end, with a slight angle to each mirror so that a circle is formed.
>Unfortunately, the greater the angle, the greater the drift created at the
>"elbows". So the larger the machine and the more bottles the greater the
>confinement time for individual particles.
>
>A potential strategy to compensate for drift is to generate a current
>through the central axis of the bottles. The direction of the current
>would be unimportant, so an alternating current is fine. The idea would be
>to maintain sufficient current that compression to offset drift occurs. 
>To do this air core RF coils could be used. A sawtooth wave form would be
>used to minimize the secondary current transition time, i.e. to come as
>close as possible to generating a square wave current in the center of the
>bottles.  This RF current would also assist neutral beam injection and
>heating.
>
 Sorry, but by doing that, you are re-constructing something very much
akin to a tokamak (albeit a strange shaped one). What would be the advantage
of this configuration over the tokamak one ?

Regards

Mario Pain
























cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / S Russia /  SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION (VNTIC)
     
Originally-From: Scientific & Technical Infocenter of Russia <aist@glas.apc.org>
Originally-From: aist@glas.apc.org (Scientific Aist Technical Infocenter of Russia)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION (VNTIC)
Subject: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION (VNTIC)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:59:15 +0300

Originally-From: aist@glas.apc.org (Scientific Aist Technical Infocenter of Russia)
Subject: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION (VNTIC)



   THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTRE OF RUSSIA:

                      Status and Activities


     The Scientific  and  Technical  Information Centre of Russia
(the Russian acronym - VNTIC) is  a  nation-wide  (i.e.  federal)
information  institution  responsabile for the maintenance of the
complete all-Russia (before 1991 - all-Union) fund for scientific
R&D   reports   (projects)   and   dissertations  (candidate  and
doctoral). The presentation of the documents to the VNTIC fund is
obligatory  for  all  the organizations engaged in state budgeted
scientific  research  and  development  and  is  carried  out  in
accordance  with  the  Federal  Law  of  the  Russian Federation,
adopted by Russian Parlament and published in January  17,  1995.
The  fund  is  supported  in  two forms:  human-redable full-text
primary  documents  (reports  and   dissertations),   stored   on
microfiches;  machine-redable  (secondary)  documents,  contaning
bibliographic descriptions and abstracts of the primary ducuments
and  stored  in  database structure to provide online information
search and retrival. Thus, VNTIC is original database geneator.
     For more  25  year  of  VNTIC  existence  there  are above 5
million documents tatally  accumulated  in  the  fund  reflecting
state-of  the  main  results  of R&D activities undertaken in the
former Soviet Union (FSU) and now in Russia and civering all  the
areas  of  human knowledge including not only exect,  natural and
engineering sciences and technology but also social sciences, the
humanities, arts, medicine and religion.
     The uniqueness of the VNTIC fund is twofold:  the  documents
presented in the fund are not being published and circulated i.e.
they exist only in two type- or  computer-written  copies  on  of
which  belongs  to  the  author of the source institution and the
other goes to VNTIC and since the  documents  are  not  available
elsewhere  including such fomous Russian information institutions
like The All-Russia  institution  for  Scientific  and  Technical
Information  (VINITI),  International  Centre  for Scientific and
Technical Information (ICSTI) and  largest  regional  information
centres;  the information from the documents becomes available to
users with the least  possible  delay  of  about  2-3  months  as
compared  to  1-2  years  for  the  same  (or even less complete)
information to appear in a published  form  (in  journals,  book,
monographs).
     The VNTIC fund,  therefore,  is  an  integral  part  of  the
national  scientific  and  cultural  wealth  of  the  Russia  and
undoubtfully is of the world importance and value.  In  the  long
run the information from the fund may save billions of dollars to
the world  scientific  community  providing  information  on  the
expensive  and  sometimes harmful to human health and environment
researches (say,  in chemistry  or  nuclear  physics)  that  have
already  been carried out in the FSU or Russia.  The fund and the
databases of VNTIC are of great interest not only to  specialists
but also to generalists - economists,  politologists,  ecologists
or NGOlogists  -  who  are  engaged  in  transformation  research
concerning Russia and FSU.

     The fund and databases allow VNTIC to provide users with the
following kinds of services:
     - publishing the abstract journals on 28 series;
     - partial database dessemination in machine-readable from on
       different subject areas;
     - online and delay search database access;
     - translating  the  abstracts  of  reports and dissertations
       into English language databases;
     - publishing  the English language abstracted editions on 10
       series;
     - publishing  the  Russian  and  English  version of the R&D
       organization directories;
     - database  on  CD-ROM with the Russian and English language
       documents.

     For more information, call or write:

              VNTIC,
              14, Smolnaya St., Moscow, 125493, Russia

     tel/fax: +(095)456-8593       E-mail: aist@glas.apc.org
         fax: +(095)456-7521               aistmain@vntic.msk.su

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenaist cudfnScientific cudlnRussia cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / 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: 25 Sep 1995 11:12:14 -0600
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

In article <21cenlogic-2309950219360001@austin-1-10.i-link.net>
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
>In article <43srd2$3kko@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU
>(Martin Gelfand) wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>> 
>> The statement 'every knowledgeable physicist today accepts 
>> the existence of "Dirac's ocean"' is about forty to fifty years out
>> of date, now.  ....
>
>***{Martin, the issue here is not what present day physicists will *say*
>if asked whether they believe in an "ether" or in "Dirac's ocean." What
>they will say is influenced by non-rational considerations (e.g., the
>desire not to be laughed at or labeled a crackpot). The question, instead,
>has to do with whether an observer who is not concerned about peer group
>acceptance might reasonably say that they believe in such things as an
>ether or Dirac's ocean. ...

To summarize:  What Mitchell meant initially is that nowadays 
physicists don't view the vacuum as "empty", because of 
vacuum fluctuations (the quantum-field theoretic analog of the
zero-point motion of the simple harmonic oscillator).  So far, so
good, even if the statement was made initially in a manner that
offended my sensibilities.  

>> 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.
>
>***{You fail to understand that the curve fitted mathematics associated
>with "relativity theory" can be interpreted classically. One need not, for
>example, treat Einstein's t' as indicating time distortion. An accelerated
>clock may simply run slower than a clock that is not accelerated. Why?
>*Perhaps because the pressure exerted by particles of "Dirac's ocean"
>(i.e., "the ether") moving between the atoms of the clock causes it to run
>slowly!* Moreover, similar alternative interpretations are available for
>all aspects of the mathematics used by Einstein. Just as there is nothing
>in the mathematics of "quantum mechanics" that requires the "Copenhagen
>interpretation," so there is nothing in the mathematics of "relativity"
>that requires Einstein's interpretation. (The math, as I have said
>repeatedly, doesn't give a hoot in hell how it is "interpreted.") Bottom
>line: since Einstein's mathematics can be interpreted classically, the
>fact that Dirac incorporated it into his own theories does not imply that
>his "ocean" cannot serve as a classical ether. --Mitchell Jones}*** 

Oh dear.  While it is true that the interpretation of quantum mechanics
is in some sense a difficult problem (even though in practice
quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every
experiment one can construct) relativity is in a lot better shape.
I'm not going to repeat the "canonical" view, which you can find
good descriptions of in many elementary texts.
What I find totally puzzling is how the vacuum fluctuations can
give a "classical ether".  As I understand the notion, such 
a classical ether is at rest _in a single inertial frame_; this
special frame is _the_ frame with respect to which all other frames
have some absolute velocity.  (Then one can try to view E-M radiation
as mechanical oscillations of the ether, which then leads to
classical Doppler shift formulae (i.e., those for sound waves)
_which are incorrect for light_ and thus gives one good reason
to say such an ether does not exist.)  However, the spectrum of vacuum
fluctations is identical in all inertial frames, and so can't
allow you to choose any particular one as special.
So Mitchell, what do _you_ mean by a "classical ether"?

Martin Gelfand
Dept of Physics, Colorado State
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / S Russia /  cmsg cancel <APC&63'0'788b601'ecf@glas.apc.org>
     
Originally-From: Scientific & Technical Infocenter of Russia <aist@glas.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <APC&63'0'788b601'ecf@glas.apc.org>
Date: 25 Sep 1995 13:44:24 GMT

EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca.

See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19950925.15 for further details
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenaist cudfnScientific cudlnRussia cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Matt Austern /  Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok)
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One For RF HEETER (cc p kolok)
Date: 25 Sep 1995 18:29:03 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <DFGpp5.4ro@nntpa.cb.att.com> gfp@docunet.mv.att.com
(guiness.mv.att.com!gfp) writes:

> Please see "At the Going-Down of the Nuclear Sun" THE ECONOMIST 16-22 
> Sept 1995. If there is anything to alternative concepts, they will likely 
> be the only work being done in the field in 5 years.(As privatly funded 
> enterprises).The last 20 years of national fusion funding were an 
> anomaly, a reaction to the first oil crisis. D site might soon become a 
> route one overpass, just like the Princeton-Penn accellerator site is 
> now.

Entirely plausible.  The estimates I've seen suggest that we're
several decades away from a working tokamak power plant; I just don't
think that the US (either the US government, or US corporations, or
the US general public) has the attention span for a project that lasts
that long.  There will probably be a battle every year to keep the
field alive, and it's so much easier to kill a program than to
resurrect it.  We've seen several other example of that in US
politics.

It's a pity, because I do think there are things that take several
decades to do that are worth doing.  I marvel when I realize that in
the Middle Ages it sometimes took centuries to build a cathedral; the
mentality it took to begin a project whose completion could only be
seen by ones's remote descendents is completely alien to me.
-- 
  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:
cuddy25 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Eric Carruthers /  Latest results at TFTR, JET?
     
Originally-From: Eric Carruthers <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest results at TFTR, JET?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:17:21 -0400
Organization: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Do any of the fusion labs have WEB sites or anything where they post 
their latest results?
Or is this info hidden somewhere in that really long FAQ I haven't read yet?

Judging by the traffic here, Archemedes P. is the bestest physicist on 
the Net.


I have yet to create a sufficiently witty .sig, but off the top of my 
head, how about...

The Lurker Descends.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencarruthe cudfnEric cudlnCarruthers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Eric Carruthers /  JET/TFTR Web Pages found
     
Originally-From: Eric Carruthers <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JET/TFTR Web Pages found
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:35:41 -0400
Organization: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

I found the Web pages in the FAQ.
Sorry for the wasted bandwidth.

Please flame me for not reading the FAQ, if you have nothing better to do.

http://www.jet.uk
http://www.pppl.gov


.temp .sig.   "What is Man without the beasts ... All thing are connected"
              Chief Seattle
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencarruthe cudfnEric cudlnCarruthers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Eric Carruthers /  Re: JET/TFTR Web Pages found
     
Originally-From: Eric Carruthers <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JET/TFTR Web Pages found
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:03:53 -0400
Organization: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

The TFTR Updates on their Web site are really good and informative.  JET 
seems to have much less information.  Does JET publish/email/post any 
more detailed info on their experiments?

Thx in advance
Eric

# error reading file .sig, please check if file exists #
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencarruthe cudfnEric cudlnCarruthers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Paul Karol /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:49:20 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 22-Sep-95 Re: The electron
capture th.. by ZoltanCCC@aol.com 
> The supporting info I found is a similar reaction, the decay of Li8. From
> the CRC handbook of chemistry page B-109 I gather that the ground state of
> Li8 decays with simultaneous alpha fission and electron emission with a
> time constant of 0.844 second. This shows that a leftover nuclear system
> consisting of one proton and three neutrons will not just fall apart and
> the extra neutron will not just float away but instead the system
> immediatly emits an electron to become He4. This is exactly the same
> system that we have after the electron capture. 

The little information I have on the decay of Li-8 says it undergoes
beta-decay to Be-8 in .8 s and that Be-8 state is unstable and
afterwards...afterwards breaks up into two alpha particles.  That's NOT
a simultaneous decay into an electron and two alpha particles.  The CRC
Handbook does not distinguish beta-delayed particle instabilities too
well.

PJK
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The electron capture theory of cold fusion
Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:15:01 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <43v6td$b86@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
>
>I have found further information to support the reaction:
>
>d  +  d  +  e  -->  He4*  +  e  +  nu  +  nu
>
>In this reaction I propose that the electron mediates close approach of
>the deuterons and subsequently gets caught up in the reaction, 

This sort of thing is calculable, since it is just the electron version 
of muon catalyzed fusion.  You are not going to like the answer. 

>                                                               i.e. one of
>the deuterons undergoes electron capture absorbing the electron and
>emitting a neutrino. 

This is a weak process.  Even the most energetically favored and 
superallowed transitions do not go very fast since the coupling is, 
well, weak.  And this one is not superallowed, so you are working 
with something that is not very likely even if the overlap was good. 
It also requires that you go quite a ways off-shell, so the chance 
that it will have to 

>                      The resulting system immediatly undergoes beta
>emission due to the excess neutrons present 

is reduced further assuming this second reaction went easily, which 
it does not because it is also mediated by the weak interaction. 

>The supporting info I found is a similar reaction, the decay of Li8. From

This is not a similar reaction. 

>the CRC handbook of chemistry page B-109 I gather that the ground state of
>Li8 decays with simultaneous alpha fission and electron emission with a
>time constant of 0.844 second. 

It is not simultaneous, but close, and it is not fission.  Be-8 is not 
stable against particle emission.  Specifically, the lowest state of 
Be-8 is a pair of alphas that are unbound (it is a resonance, with a 
width indicating a lifetime of about 10^{-16} seconds).  When you make 
Be-8, it falls apart, since it was never "there" in the first place. 
(Detail for cognoscenti: you can observe the population of this broad 
'state' in the continuum in decays or direct reactions.)  

Thus the decay of Li-8 is an example of what we call beta-delayed 
particle emission.  The decay takes you to Be-8, which falls apart. 

>                                This shows that a leftover nuclear system
>consisting of one proton and three neutrons will not just fall apart and
>the extra neutron will not just float away but instead the system
>immediatly emits an electron to become He4. 

You have the order wrong.  The beta decay produces the alpha cluster, 
which then falls apart.  The 3 neutrons and 1 proton are bound in Li-8
because of the presence of the other 4 nucleons.  H-4 is in the ? 
category in my latest data tables so I gather that it is not clear if 
it is particle-stable or not. 

>                                              This is exactly the same
>system that we have after the electron capture. 

What you are trying to do is put the two alphas and the electron 
together.  This is not as easy as waiting for the decay and watching 
the thing fall apart. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:21:06 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

}rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) wrote:
}
}>The radial probability density for the electron in the ground state of
}>the hydrogen atom, actually has its maximum at the Bohr radius, not at
}>the nucleus, as you appear to be saying here (i.e. your function has a
}>value of 1 when r = 0).

In article <445j93$bg8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes:
>
>Not at all. Check (for one out of many sources) Quantum Mechanics by
>Messiah (yeah I know I took this stuff a long time ago), Vol. 1 page 484.
>The radial wave function for the n=1 (ground) state varies as exp(-r/a)

Which, if you look closely, is 1 at r=0 and falls off as r increases. 
That is what Robin is talking about. 

>where a is the bohr radius. If you calculate the *average* radius (i.e.
>integrate the square of the above times r) you will get the fact that the
>mean is 1.5a.

Which is because you are weighting it by r.  

What Robin is missing is that it is the *probability* that matters in 
the end, which requires that you multiply the density by a volume.  The 
volume element at the origin is zero, so that peak does not contribute 
much to any observable.  It is less misleading if you plot psi^2 times 
the volume element rather than just psi^2, since the former is what 
appears in every calculation. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Multineutron systems
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Multineutron systems
Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:44:08 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|Among other things, I wrote:
|
|>The deuteron has S=1 and T=0...
|>If the relative strengths of the singlet and triplet interactions were
|>reversed, so this state has S=0 and T=1...

In article <445p1f$8q7@dub-news-svc-1.compuserve.com> 
<100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> writes:
>
>My original observation was that there is no bound n-n state and
>no bound p-p state. These are experimental facts and not theoretical
>facts. I was not suggesting that there should be, or that there ought to
>be.

So is what I wrote.  The most important fact is that the deuteron does 
not have a T=1 bound state, the fact you editted out.  Further, the 
understanding of data follows from analysis.  The absence of a p-p bound 
state is expected and adds no new information.  The non-observation of 
an n-n bound state could reflect the extreme difficulty of doing the 
experiment.  Have you ever seen a neutron target?  The absence of an 
n-n bound state is deduced from final state interactions, which is 100% 
theoretical.  In contrast, the levels and resonances in the n-p system 
can be seen very clearly in a resonance spectrum.  The amount of 
analysis required is much less. 

 (Sidebar: A colloquium here covered some now-declassified aspects 
  of US weapons testing.  The most memorable fact in that talk was 
  that they tried to do a colliding beams experiment with neutrons 
  to get at the n-n phase shift directly - it was parasitic to the 
  real experiment which he could not discuss - but that it failed 
  to work when part of the shaft collapsed and wiped out their data 
  acquisition system.  Yes, it would have been feasible.  Darn.) 

>My uderstanding of the pion exchange theory of nuclear forces is that
>there is no satisfactory calculation yielding a bound deuteron, and

The Bonn potential does quite well.  Pion alone is not enough since 
that only gives you the long-range part of the tensor force.  You 
need correlated 2-pi and rho etc to get the intermediate attraction. 

>no stisfactory calculation yielding the binding energy. The nucleon-
>nucleon interation is charge independent in the sense that if you
>interchange p <--> n then the corresponding interaction is obtained
>by the interchange pi(+) <--> pi(0).

Which are not the same, breaking the symmetry, which is where the 
theoretical ambiguity enters the deduction of n-n properties from 
n-p data, but this can be tested against p-p data.  

>We do not need there to be a bound dineutron. We only need the
>pion exchange, which is (presumably) holding the deuteron together
>in its bound state, to cotinue holding together the n-n system for a short
>period of time. 

Well, there is *some* force, which you can quantify by just taking 
it all from the low-energy nucleon-nucleon scattering data if you 
wish to avoid solving QCD.  ;-)  Again, my point was that you can 
estimate how unbound the n-n is by looking at the T=1 spectrum of 
deuterium.  Now it is *you* talking about theory instead of data!  

The time will be short, because those resonances are not narrow.  I 
can't put my hand on the A < 4 tables at the moment, but this is 
all strong decay of unbound states where the timescale is fm/c. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: French nuclear test agenda
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda
Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:54:50 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <446h6k$rn3@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> 
Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr> writes:
>
> I understand very well what you are saying and why. But this is a case of
>conflicting interests. You do not want your people to be put at risk. I do
>not want the life of french people to be put at risk, as it was during the
>last war, because their country was not able to defend itself.  

Ah, now I see where you are confused.  You think more nuclear weapons make 
you safer.  Think about the consequences if those weapons are used, most 
likely on French soil against forces of an invading army, with the wind 
blowing towards Paris.  Or would you launch a preemptive attack on the 
capital of a threatening power?  Would that make that other country's 
army smile and go home to smoking rubble, or would they attack?  Now 
what if that other country has nuclear weapons also? 

Consider the other possible scenario.  Suppose the French tests lead to 
the collapse of the non-proliferation treaty, and Germany and Slovakia 
build a bomb together while the Ukraine reconsiders its decision about 
what to do with all those f-USSR weapons.  Would France feel safer?  Do 
you think what France is doing is making those people feel safer and 
thus less likely to pursue an independent weapons program?  Suppose the 
Algerians figured they were the target and sought weapons from some 
independent vendor? 

Go back and read what Bethe wrote in 1960 about why testing should end. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  What a long strange trip it's 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  been.        
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |              Jerry Garcia
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |                1942-1995 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 /  DUPREE /  Re: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
     
Originally-From: DUPREE <cmd0936@omega.uta.edu>
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: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:27:01 -0500
Organization: University of Texas Arlington

On 20 Sep 1995, Michael Varney wrote:

> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> > All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
> >hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
> >is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
> >extra energy.
> 
> What are you talking about? If a 'hasys' is an hydrogen atom with extra energy,  and 
> any other atom is just the hydrogen atom with more energy, then why would a neutron 
> be a hydrogen atom with extra energy?  A neutron is NOT even an atom!
> 

  Don't know where the neutron part is coming from.  However, since we 
can't solve the S.E., a common method of finding the wave function for 
more complicated atom is by placing the individual electrons in other 
atoms in various hydrogen orbitals, and then superposing them.  I think 
that is what is being said here.  That is, the 1s orbital in hydrogen is 
a valid solution to the S.E. so the Helium atom can be described by 
placing it's two electrons in 1s orbitals, and then linearly superposing 
them, which would still be a valid solution, although not necessarily a 
good description of helium.  Obviously there are better ways of doing 
this approximating process.

> -- 
> Michael Varney
> 
> Department of Physics
> 
> Colorado State University


  More enlightenment from the state that decided all humans are equal, 
but hetrosexuals are more equal.  Shades of _Animal Farm_.  

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencmd0936 cudlnDUPREE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.09.25 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost neutron mass and electron capture
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:57:15 GMT
Organization: Improving

Normally when the mass of protons and electrons are measured they are
separate. Therefore this mass already "contains" the potential energy
of separation. So that while the kinetic energy of the electron
increases as it approaches the proton, this is just sufficient to
compensate for the loss in mass of the proton electron pair (or the
loss in mass represented by the potential field as it were). In short
an electron and proton sitting next to one another at rest, masses
less than the sum of the individual masses that we normally measure.
My problem is that I am used to thinking in terms of mass being
conserved when potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Consequently I would like to apologise for my sharp tong, to those of
you who had the patience to try and explain to me. I also owe Zoltan
an apology  for leading him astray.
PS It looks like I'm the one with the black eye! ;-)}}}
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:
cuddy25 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep 26 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
