1995.09.27 / Ramon Prasad / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com (Ramon Prasad)> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: 27 Sep 1995 07:35:29 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote (amongst many other things): >Needless to say, I present the protoneutron theory as a hypothesis >subject to verification or falsification. Mitchell, I am not in the business of opposing anyone's theory because I believe that the scientific estblishment generally is too conservative for its own good. It would be much healthier for all concerned if practising scientists took a more relaxed view of new ideas and new experimental results. Time will inevitably reveal whether there is anything substantial, but while this is happening life is made extremely difficult for innovators whether experimenters or theoreticians. I agree with Wallace that the walls of vested interest are now far too high, and most people have forgotten where they have come from. To re-invent ideas in common use from first principles is a very enlightening exercise. That said there are a number of comments that could be made about your theories (not theory!). (i) You do not have a coherent framework. You say you use classical mechanics, but you make frequent use of concepts that are buried within quantum theory like covalent, divalent bonds, electronic orbits, ions, etc. The process of electron capture which turns a protoneutron into a neutron, followed by neutron beta decay are ideas which are buried in quantum theory. If you say, for example, that you are not interested in neutrinos, then how can your theory be tested because they are involved in both of these processes? (ii) One of the key observed facts about cold fusion is nuclear products. Someone might say that your theories cannot apply in experiments which have revealed nuclear products. (iii) Your energy production mechanism is (correct me if I am wrong) is the balace between electron capture (when a protoneutron becomes a neutron) a deficit, and neutron beta decay, a surplus. No other nuclear processes are involved. This is a very small amount of heat energy production. Does it square with the very large amount of heat production in some cold fusion experiments? There are other points which might be raised, but answers to these will help understanding. Very Best Wishes, Yours Sincerely, Ramon Prasad cudkeys: cuddy27 cuden530 cudfnRamon cudlnPrasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / 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, 27 Sep 1995 02:48:16 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote: > 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. ***{Horace, Einstein's mass transformation doesn't work for photons. Period. You can't solve it to find the mass at lightspeed regardless of whether you treat the rest mass of the photon as 0 or as some number greater than 0. Either way, the denominator of the right side of the equation is zero, and the result is undefined. Frankly, this result doesn't bother me, because curve fitted mathematics is notoriously flaky when used to extrapolate rather than to interpolate. I am satisfied if it predicts results that lie between the experimentally determined data points, and I do not expect it to work for results that do not. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Regards, > > Horace > -- > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy27 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Barry Merriman / Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi; D-beam into Ti Date: 27 Sep 1995 05:20:31 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE In article <1995Sep12.133019.2403@plasma.byu.edu> writes: > > > Nope, not so simple. Kasagi et al. deal at length with the D(3He,p)4He > reaction, suggested by Sevior above -- and rule it out. > Is it possible that the D(3He,p)4He reaction occuring between a D & 3He in moving CM reference frame---one with the center of mass energy at several MeV---could be the source of the high energy spectrum of p's and alpha's? This would require D's and 3He's with energies of several MeV, but it seems such could exist as the result of prior reactions _and_ collisions with, say, 14 MeV protons from the D(3He,p)4He reaction. For example, suppose a 3He (present either as a 0 MeV impurity, or a 1 MeV product of D(D,p)3He) collided with a 14 MeV p from a D(3He,p)4He reaction, to boost its energy up to several (~4) MeV, and then entered into a D(3He,p)4He---it seems the p & alpha produced could each carry a couple MeV extra into the detector. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Bruce TOK / Re: Latest results at TFTR, JET? Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Latest results at TFTR, JET? Date: 27 Sep 1995 11:39:40 GMT Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching Eric Carruthers (carruthe@candu.aecl.ca) wrote: : 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. Here is a well-stocked list: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/ipp/fusion-sites.html Our institute is incorrectly listed there; it is at http://www.ipp.mpg.de/ -- Mach's gut! Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTOK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / 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: 27 Sep 1995 13:59:41 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas, ACC In article <44ab1k$nv2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: [chart and other stuff deleted] |> Question from your chart, does nothing decay down into a single |> proton or a single neutron? First: I only listed particles with mass < of a proton (with an exception, the eta'). Secondly, these particles are all mesons, which are bound quark anti-quark pairs. The first point means that they CANNOT decay into protons or neutrons. The second point means that it is merely unlikely for them to decay into protons or neutrons. Some Mesons do, like the J/Psi or the upsilon. But its not a favored decay. Baryons mostly decay to other baryons (of which protons and neutrons are the lowest energy baryons, and the most stable.) Side question, what does your HAS theory say about anti-matter. (I know, since its anti-matter, it doesn't matter, har har.) -- 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: cuddy27 cudeniblum cudfnIra cudlnBlum cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 27 Sep 1995 17:27:47 GMT Organization: cea bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: > >The key here is what constitutes a "valid reason". I believe that >France and the rest of the world have widely differing opinions on >whether nuclear testing is a "valid reason" and this is a matter >beyond resolution at the present time. Agreed. >> That being said, all precautions must be taken to reduce this risk to the >>minimum. > >The only way to reduce the risk to a minimum is to immediately cease >all testing. The damage that has already been done can not be undone, >but there is no justification (IMHO) in making the potential situation >far worse. > >How would France feel about posting a suitable "Guarantee Bond" with >the World Bank to cover the liabilies that might arise in the future >from contamination due to the testing? I think 100 billion dollars is >a small price to pay. France could of course borrow money against the >security represented by this bond so the only *actual* cost would be >the interest involved. The fear in this part of the world is that >once testing is complete, France will turn around and declare Tahiti, >Mururoa and other territories to be "independant" (under the guise of >"you asked for it, you got it"), thus enabling her to shirk any >responsibility for future problems. We need some kind of guarantee to >avoid this happening ... and France has proven by her actions over the >decades that she can not be trusted to honour her word so a simple >assurance or promise is not enough. No country (not only France, I would welcome examples) can be trusted to honor its word on the matter. Nevertheless, that is true for a lot of things. Should we require such a "bond" every time some ship containint dangerous substances enter our territorial waters ? Do you ? The potential risk of a ship loaded with arsenic is much worse than the Mururoa nuclear waste.... >> 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 ? > >Apart from the five known nuclear powers in the world, everyone else >seems happy to make this decision. Why should France be so different? Some are happy. But a lot have no choice. > >> 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. > >This is somewhat analogous to lining up a group of one hundred and >fifty people against a wall; pulling out a revolver; putting a single >cartidge into it; spinning the chamber and asking "who should I point >this thing at?" This is not a viable question, nor a viable course of >action. The only *real* decision is not to expose *anyone* to >unnecessary danger -- regardless of the "greater cause". To say that >the end justifies the means is a weak argument. Nevertheless a valid one. A lot of human decisions put "someone" at "some" risk. The problem of knowing what level of risk is tolerable in regard to the "end" to be achieved is an everyday fact of life for a lot of people. Otherwise, there would be no firemen. > >By the way ... just look at what your damned nuclear testing has done >to New Zealand already! A huge volcanic erruption and numerous >earthquakes. Coincidence -- maybe so -- but can you prove it? :-) > Sorry, but that is the most irrational statement I have seen for a long time ! It is not me that has to prove that there is a coincidence, there is you that has to prove the link. Otherwise I could affirm that the economic crisis in France is all caused by your bloody sheep exports. Can you disprove it ?? Regards, Mario cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 27 Sep 1995 17:55:02 GMT Organization: cea bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: > >> 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. > >Tahitians are *not* the only people who are at risk and it would seem >that at least a very vocal minority are extremely reluctant French >citizens. Let us not forget that French Polynesia is only a French >territory because they chose to annex the individual island nations >back in 1844. We now have the hypocrisy of France claiming the >importance of sovereignty and the defense of its citizens yet testing >their nuclear weapons in territory gained as a result of invasion and >annexation. > True. But that is true for any region of France as well. Only Paris and its sorrowndigs are strictly "french". The rest was taken from the Romans, the Burgundians, the Britons, the Arabs, and so on. Nice, which today is unquestionably considered as being French, was "annexed" to France in the middle of last century. Tahitians are in a majority to wish to remain French as long as France finances a large part of their budget. Why should they have only the "good sides" of being french ? > >> 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. > >Your argument is flawed. Stopping the tests does not alter the the >fact that France already has a significant nuclear deterrent force. My argument does not try to prove the nuclear tests are NECESSARY. I am not wholly convinced they are. My argument is that ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED, THEY MUST BE PERFORMED. If Chirac changes his mind under international pressure, the french nuclear deterrent will have no credibility whatsoever. >I think that France's potential adversaries will >be only too aware that her existing capability is more than enough to >inflict unnacceptable losses. Many a crime has been committed with an >unloaded gun.. this is what deterence is all about. See my previous answer. Let's for the sake of the argument accept that everybody is persuaded that the French nuclear capability is enough to inflict unacceptable losses. But who will believe that Chirac would be READY TO USE IT in a crisis if he backs down now under pressure ? >Secondly, perhaps Mr Chirac should compare the risk of invasion with >the risk of testing on Continental France and decide which is more >likely to result in the death of French citizens. If the risk of >invasion is (apparently) so high then the risk of performing the tests >on Continental France surely would pale into insignificance by >comparison. > As I said: however small the risk of testing in France, if this risk can be reduced, it should be. > >You are agreeing that the majority of French (69%) do oppose the >testing them. > Yes, while in the same time thinking France should keep a strong nuclear deterrent at 70%. People want to have their cake and eat it. >Personally, I would hate to see a world *without* a nuclear deterrent >force. I have no doubt that this would result in a return to the type >of large-scale conflicts that we saw in WW1 and WW2. I think you'll >find that many people agree that it was only the nuclear capabilities >of Russia and the USA that have stopped a major east/west conflict >since the end of WW2. > Agreed. >> 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. > >Then why not agree to the logical extension that a situation that >offers *no* risk (ie: no further testing) is better than one which >offers (in your words) "a small risk". > You do not take into account the risk for France of not having a credible deterrent... > >I truely believe that the paranoia expressed by the French is >unfounded. It is very convenient to use this fear of invasion as an >excuse for stockpiling a nuclear arsenal but given the structure of >the world as it is today and the strong allies that France has in >Europe I truely believe that it is infinitely overstated. These "strong allies" can be trusted as far as their interests coincide with ours. It is not always the case. > >> 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". > >Then do you believe that the tests are necessary? > I am not wholly convinced they where in the first place, although I would tend to think they were. But ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED by Chirac, they cannot be stopped while retaining any credibility. >We know you believe them to be acceptable. > Correct > >> 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. > >What superior force? All that he has been confronted with to date has >been argument. Apart from some sanctions by economically >insignificant countries such as Australia and some informal boycots by >the citizens of other countries, nobody has threated France with any >kind of force over this issue. Paranoia again. > I meant force as a metaphor. There has been a lot of pressure from the media on that issue. > >> 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. > >With what do you back this assertion? Political leaders back-down on >crucial issues every day, all over the world. Frequently they end up >gaining the respect of their citizens and their peers for having the >courage to do so. Perhaps the French attitude is a little different? Could you please give me an example ? We are talking of issues where the capacity of taking a decision and keeping by it is important (see previous paragraphs). > >One can't help but be irritated by the way France seems to be pitting >itself against the rest of the world. "Everyone is out to get us" >would seem to be the cry on the mouths of French politicians. What >justification does France have for such ludicrous beliefs? Did her >allies not come to her aid each time she called this century? No they did not. I lived a long time in Britain so I know Anglo-saxons have another view of recent history. But WWII was a classic example. The "allies" intervened late, negociated with Petain up to the last limit, and wanted to impose on France an American administration (I can give you the references if you like). De Gaulle had enormous difficultys to prevent the Americans from installing this administration. > >See my comments on France's annexation of the islands which later >became French Polynesia way back in 1844. French Polynesia did not go >to France and beg to be made a territory -- they had no choice in the >matter. This is somewhat akin to the USA invading France, claiming it >as a US territory and then conducting nuclear tests there. May I remind you that the territory where the American tests were carried was taken from the Indians in about the same times. Would you object to that ? > >But his arrogant stubbornness has already ruined his credibility in >the global forum. How credible can a person be when they refuse to >listen and simply discount the legitimate concerns of their friends >and allies? > I do not think that arrogance (however irritating) has ruined any politician standing. The career of a very successfull british prime minister is there to prove it. > > > >I do not recall the NZ government ever making a statement to the >effect that it wanted to see France ousted from the South Pacific >region (which is not to say that it is not so). Certainly if the >government *did* say that then France could hardly claim that it is a >"covert agenda" could they? > I is a covert agenda in the sense it does not have anything to do with nuclear testing. >There is no benefit to New Zealand in French Polynesia gaining its >independance -- in fact quite the opposite. They would most likely >turn to us (and Australia) for financial assistance. > >I think this is more French paranoia. > I do not know why the Australian Prime Minister chose to take this position. But it certainly did. Regards, Mario cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.24 / Ian Gay / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: gay@sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: 24 Sep 1995 22:21:56 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) writes: >Ian Gay (gay@sfu.ca) wrote: >: In article <43k16f$h4@hopper.kenyon.edu>, >: Timothy Sullivan wrote: >: >He-3 is a decay product of tritium and tritium is used in hydrogen >: bombs. >: >Hence, He-3 is a byproduct of our nuclear weapons stockpile. So it is >: >being manufactured "earthside". Quite expensive, but I don't have a >: >figure. Off the top of my head I seem to remember $1000/STP-liter. >: Just tried to look it up. All my current isotope catalogs fail to give a >: price (Why? wildly fluctuating?) and say 'please call'. >It's probably a DOE controlled material. Well, yes, the catalogs all say they can't export more than $5000. worth without approval. But why are they reluctant to say how much I can buy for 5k? cudkeys: cuddy24 cudengay cudfnIan cudlnGay cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner / Re: A simple speculation Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: A simple speculation Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 10:26:44 -0900 Organization: none In article <445kcf$kb3$1@mhafm.production.compuserve.com>, Ramon Prasad <100437.530@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote: > > >What is the mean D-D distance in deuterated Pd? > >What is the mean D-D distance in D2O? > > The bond length in palladium is given by my old and battered > copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as > > Pd-Pd = 2.7511 Au > > The bond length between two H atoms on H2O, taking account of > the bond angle is given as > > H-H = 1.5144 Au > > I hope you found this information an enjoyable experience! > I can't find the H-H reference. Do you have an edition and section reference? The Pd-Pd bond looks correct, but there is no H-H bond in water. The H-O bond length is 0.958, and the bond angle is 104.54 Deg. Using a little trig. this amounts to a distance of 1.515 A. However, the covalent radius of H is .32 A, so there would be circumstances of approach of .64 A of H nuclei in water between two adjacent molecules. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:06:13 -0900 Organization: none In article <446dbr$rn3@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>, Mario Pain wrote: > 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 Hopefully I posted this to the right thread. I was intending to post in response to a request for ideas for grad. students. This idea addresses that need. It is a concrete suggestion for an exercise to generate new ideas. The purpose of the suggested exercise is to provide some basis for a young mind to step back in history and reexamine old issues. This seems like a good idea because the farther back you go the more divergent any new thoughts gained from the exercise might be. I assume the genereral interest is in confinement fusion, so you just can't go much further back. I would expect such an exercise might produce ideas for several areas of investigation. Methods of improving simulation efficiency might be one area. Looking at the interaction of 30 keV D+ ions with superconducting surfaces might be another. Standing wave electromagnetic confinement might be another. A broad analysis of economies of scale and eliminating iron core electromagnets is another. Using small self destructive assemblies in stead of lasers for inertial confinement type fusion is another. Playing with parameters and geometry might find some succesful wierd combined magnetic electrostatic configuration, like a magnetic bottle created between two superconducting magnets supplied with oscillating potentials in resonance with D nuclei trapped in the bottle, or a large superconducting sphere oscillating in potential to create a focused standing wave in it's center. In addition, doing the necessary literature search of old material may find that road less traveled by. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / 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: 27 Sep 1995 13:08:41 -0600 Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 This little exchange is getting way to long, so forgive me for massibe editing and a relatively brief response... In article <21cenlogic-2609951811480001@austin-2-15.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <446nte$1mqq@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU >(Martin Gelfand) wrote: > >> 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: >> > >> >> 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 .... >> >> 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. > >***{I'm not sure why. Dirac put forth an ether theory under a new name, >made predictions based upon it, and was hooted at by his professional >peers. But then, oddly, his predictions proved to be correct! This is a selective reading of the history. It is true that Dirac's considerations concering his first-quantized relativistic theory of the electron led him to postulate the existence of positrons: a remarkable achievement. But it is also true that the Dirac equation leads to some definitely incorrect predictions which; attempts to account for its deficiencies ultimately led to the development of quantum electrodynamics. Which is why I ask you to please desist from saying that physicists currently believe in Dirac's ocean (even if they refuse to admit it to be true): we "believe in" (and actually have excellent experimental evidence for) vacuum fluctuations, which is quite different from believing in the reality of an infinite density of negative-energy electrons. > Result: he >received the Nobel Prize and, thereafter, no knowledgeable physicist dared >to claim that the vacuum was empty in the sense that had been intended by >those who, a mere thirty years before, had contemptuously tossed out the >earlier ether theories. And what's in a name, Martin? The question of >whether or not the ether exists, surely, must have to do with whether or >not "space" is empty, right? I mean, if we all agree that what we are >calling "space" is a complex substance with manifold properties, just as >the classical physicists claimed, then are we really being fair when we >continue to hoot at them and teach unsuspecting students that their >theories were refuted? I think not. --Mitchell Jones}*** Hardly. The classical ether theories were not merely statements that "space" is a complex substance; they were more specifically claims that light waves could be understood as mechanical oscillations of a continuous elastic media which permeated (or indeed constituted) "empty space". That particular notion has indeed been refuted. > [...] >(even though in practice >> quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every >> experiment one can construct) > >***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever. >"Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted >mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt >philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent >that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the >results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once >mathetical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured >data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated >regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What >does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?" >--Mitchell Jones}*** Rubbish yourself. You have no idea what consitutes curve fitting. Surely there is quite a bit of curve fitting done in physics, for the purposes of summarizing the results of experiments (or calculations), but quantum mechanics and relativity per se don't involve any fitting whatsoever. If you do a calculation of the "twin paradox effect" (for want of a better name; I trust every knows what the twin "paradox" is) _what is being fit_? Likewise, if one calculates the spectrum of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger equation, where is any fitting being done? The bankrupt philosophy is yours. Simply put, what has your philosophy done for you lately? The efficacy of quantum mechanics and relatively are pretty obvious, on the other hand. [....] > >In summary, a classical ether requires three things: (1) an acknowledgment >that "space" has attributes; (2) an acknowledgment that entities are the >bearers of those attributes; and (3) an acknowledgment that entities >behave in strict accordance with the principle of continuity. Since you >cannot deny (1), the game is up, because attempts to argue against the >epistemological validity of (2) and (3) are quite hopeless, as I will >happily demonstrate to you if you care to get into it. --Mitchell >Jones}*** This is strikingly reminiscent of a pre-Newtonian natural philosophy. Notice the absence of any sort of mathematical formulation (at least so far). Good luck, Mitchell, and farewell to this conversation. I have some "curve fitting" to do. Martin Gelfand Dept of Physics, Colorado State University cudkeys: cuddy27 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Horace Heffner / Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate? Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:43:30 -0900 Organization: none In article <4485to$spv@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote: > In article , hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) says: > > >Specific heat is important because a specific heat for aqueous inorganic > >solutions can be less than .85 that of distilled water. > > Horace, roughly how much "salt" do you have to put in to get it down > that low? > > Do you have any data on typical specific heats of tap water? First, let me say that there really is no typical tap water. Water chemistry can vary significantly even within a single network. I learned a little bit about this because I am president of our local Class A water utility (the only person luniacal enough to take this thankless, bureaucracy entangled, unpaid job), so have attended various water testing and treatment courses offered by the National Rural Water Association. It is true that it may take a lot of "salt" to depress the specific heat enough to account for the observed 9-10 percent excess heat, but combined with density decreases due to outgassing, you have a significant uncontrolled experimental variable. To more specifically answer your question, the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 29th edition, pp. 1743-1744 has specific heats of various inorganic aqueous solutions at different temperature ranges. Concentrations, for which specific heats are given, are in ratios of water molecules to molecules of solutes (25, 50 and 100). Here are some examples: Ferric chloride: 0.666, 0.750, 0.854 Magnesium chloride: 0.787, 0.861, 0.914 Potassium carbonate:0.760, 0.851, 0.916 Potassium nitrate: 0.832, 0.900, 0.943 Sodium carbonate: 0.865, 0.907, 0.943 Sodium sulfate: 0.819, 0.878, 0.960 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Bruce Simpson / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 22:40:04 GMT Organization: FaxMail Technologies Mario Pain wrote: >bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) wrote: >>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. Tahitians are *not* the only people who are at risk and it would seem that at least a very vocal minority are extremely reluctant French citizens. Let us not forget that French Polynesia is only a French territory because they chose to annex the individual island nations back in 1844. We now have the hypocrisy of France claiming the importance of sovereignty and the defense of its citizens yet testing their nuclear weapons in territory gained as a result of invasion and annexation. >>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. Your argument is flawed. Stopping the tests does not alter the the fact that France already has a significant nuclear deterrent force. You already have your "nuclear shield" to scare away would-be invaders, these test serve only to refine existing technology. How can you argue that this will make French citizens safer in their beds at night? You argue later that there are matters of reliablity and precision that mandate the use of tests -- I would argue otherwise. Precision is not a nuclear issue.. it is a guidence and delivery issue. Reliability is irrelevant. If France's nuclear weapons are ever actually used -- it will be too late to cry over one or two which failed to detonate. I think that France's potential adversaries will be only too aware that her existing capability is more than enough to inflict unnacceptable losses. Many a crime has been committed with an unloaded gun.. this is what deterence is all about. Secondly, perhaps Mr Chirac should compare the risk of invasion with the risk of testing on Continental France and decide which is more likely to result in the death of French citizens. If the risk of invasion is (apparently) so high then the risk of performing the tests on Continental France surely would pale into insignificance by comparison. > 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. You are agreeing that the majority of French (69%) do oppose the testing them. Personally, I would hate to see a world *without* a nuclear deterrent force. I have no doubt that this would result in a return to the type of large-scale conflicts that we saw in WW1 and WW2. I think you'll find that many people agree that it was only the nuclear capabilities of Russia and the USA that have stopped a major east/west conflict since the end of WW2. > 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. Then why not agree to the logical extension that a situation that offers *no* risk (ie: no further testing) is better than one which offers (in your words) "a small risk". >>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). I truely believe that the paranoia expressed by the French is unfounded. It is very convenient to use this fear of invasion as an excuse for stockpiling a nuclear arsenal but given the structure of the world as it is today and the strong allies that France has in Europe I truely believe that it is infinitely overstated. > 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". Then do you believe that the tests are necessary? We know you believe them to be 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. What superior force? All that he has been confronted with to date has been argument. Apart from some sanctions by economically insignificant countries such as Australia and some informal boycots by the citizens of other countries, nobody has threated France with any kind of force over this issue. Paranoia again. >>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. With what do you back this assertion? Political leaders back-down on crucial issues every day, all over the world. Frequently they end up gaining the respect of their citizens and their peers for having the courage to do so. Perhaps the French attitude is a little different? >>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. One can't help but be irritated by the way France seems to be pitting itself against the rest of the world. "Everyone is out to get us" would seem to be the cry on the mouths of French politicians. What justification does France have for such ludicrous beliefs? Did her allies not come to her aid each time she called this century? >>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). See my comments on France's annexation of the islands which later became French Polynesia way back in 1844. French Polynesia did not go to France and beg to be made a territory -- they had no choice in the matter. This is somewhat akin to the USA invading France, claiming it as a US territory and then conducting nuclear tests there. Not acceptable I'm afraid. >>* 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. But his arrogant stubbornness has already ruined his credibility in the global forum. How credible can a person be when they refuse to listen and simply discount the legitimate concerns of their friends and allies? >>* 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. One does not need to improve a nuclear arsenal to *retain* its deterrent force. The only thing that compromises the effectiveness of an existing deterrent is a mechanism which adequately defends against it -- this is not the case. France's nuclear weapons are more than adequate to perform the deterrent role now, and for the forseeable future. >>* 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. I have already addressed the issues of reliability and precision earlier. > 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. I do not recall the NZ government ever making a statement to the effect that it wanted to see France ousted from the South Pacific region (which is not to say that it is not so). Certainly if the government *did* say that then France could hardly claim that it is a "covert agenda" could they? There is no benefit to New Zealand in French Polynesia gaining its independance -- in fact quite the opposite. They would most likely turn to us (and Australia) for financial assistance. I think this is more French paranoia. >>Can you really argue that France is justified in their actions? > Yes I can, and do ! And here we must agree to differ :-) >Best regards, Ditto pour vous. Bruce *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----* | bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz | *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-* cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.26 / 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: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 18:11:48 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <446nte$1mqq@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) wrote: > 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. ***{I'm not sure why. Dirac put forth an ether theory under a new name, made predictions based upon it, and was hooted at by his professional peers. But then, oddly, his predictions proved to be correct! Result: he received the Nobel Prize and, thereafter, no knowledgeable physicist dared to claim that the vacuum was empty in the sense that had been intended by those who, a mere thirty years before, had contemptuously tossed out the earlier ether theories. And what's in a name, Martin? The question of whether or not the ether exists, surely, must have to do with whether or not "space" is empty, right? I mean, if we all agree that what we are calling "space" is a complex substance with manifold properties, just as the classical physicists claimed, then are we really being fair when we continue to hoot at them and teach unsuspecting students that their theories were refuted? I think not. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >> 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 ***{The "problem" is simply this: if things can leap into existence out of nothing and vanish into nothing, then we have no basis whatsoever for making the inference from sensation to source. Result: we have no basis for believing in the existence of anything, including ourselves, the physical world, "quantum mechanics," "relativity," etc. The "problem," in short, is that if "quantum mechanics" is "true," then the very concept of truth itself collapses. That is a problem indeed! --Mitchell Jones}*** (even though in practice > quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every > experiment one can construct) ***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever. "Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once mathetical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?" --Mitchell Jones}*** relativity is in a lot better shape. ***{Exactly the same as the above may be said of "relativity." To repeat: to the extent that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, "relativistic" calculations tend to be extremely accurate. But, again, where is the surprise? Once mathetical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?" To repeat the example I used earlier: if I use the Lorentz transformation to predict the rate of a clock, or of a radioactive decay, at near the speed of light, that is just the application of curve fitted mathematics. No "interpretation" is required, and the proponents of a particular interpretation have no basis whatsoever for claiming that the correctness of the calculation supports their view of the world. This is simply not the way philosophical issues are decided. Such claims, in fact, are a con game designed to lure ignorant students to embrace the bankrupt philosophy of logical positivism or its "modern" derivatives, nothing less, and nothing more. --Mitchell Jones}*** > 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"? ***{Classical mechanics is based on the principle of continuity--i.e., the belief that no entity may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. Any interpretation that attributes properties to space without violating that principle is strictly classical; any interpretation that violates it is non-classical (and, incidentally, dead wrong). The key point here is the existing agreement about the facts: the "vacuum" is an active agent in many important physical phenomena. Period. No competent person denies that nowadays. Since, in the classical--and the commonsensical--mode of description, properties are carried through space by *entities,* it follows that as soon as we attribute properties to the "vacuum," we open ourselves to the classical mode of description. We permit the question of what the unseen entities are, in "space," that are the bearers of the properties which we have admitted to exist. To Dirac, they were the particles of his "ocean:" the enormous multitude of "extraordinary electrons" that, in his interpretation, pervaded all of space. My own personal view is somewhat different from his. I strictly respect the principle of continuity in every interpretation I make, and I call the particles "etherons" rather than "extraordinary electrons," but the underlying commonality is there. (Why call such particles etherons? Simple: it is my way of acknowledging the fact--and it is manifestly a fact--that the great physicists of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were not, in terms of essentials, any more wrong about their view of "space" than about anything else. An honest man does not spit on those upon whose shoulders he is standing.) In summary, a classical ether requires three things: (1) an acknowledgment that "space" has attributes; (2) an acknowledgment that entities are the bearers of those attributes; and (3) an acknowledgment that entities behave in strict accordance with the principle of continuity. Since you cannot deny (1), the game is up, because attempts to argue against the epistemological validity of (2) and (3) are quite hopeless, as I will happily demonstrate to you if you care to get into it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Martin Gelfand > Dept of Physics, Colorado State =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy26 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.26 / Barry Merriman / Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: The Protoneutron Theory of "Cold Fusion" Date: 26 Sep 1995 23:44:07 GMT Organization: UCSD SOE I see two obvious problems with your protoneutron theory: Stripped of non-essential details, you imply the fundamental reaction is p + e + gamma(0.7MeV) -> n If such were the case, there would be three rather easily observed effects: (1) free neutrons would be emitted from the device. While the cross-section for n + H -> D is large, there is still a mean free path of inches for free thermal neutrons in H20 (for an example medium), and so a fair number of them would escape the experimental cell. Such copious neutrons would be easy to detect, and probably fatal. (2) D would be produced in large amounts. The n that do not escape are most likely to engage in a n + H -> D reaction, and so plenty of D should be produced in a pure H system. Also easy to detect, simply by weighing the distilled effluent water. (3) Gamma's should be produced. Your proposed gamma source is n + H -> D + gamma(2.2MeV), and even *ignoring* the frequency mismatch (your proto-neutron wants a 0.7 MeV gamma, but mainly 2.2 MeV are created---we will ignore this, because in your world view QM does not hold) again, the cross sections for stopping these gamma's would require on the order of a meter of shielding to prevent them from escaping the device. There would not be enough proto-neutrons to alter this situations---e.g. in the Griggs device, the proto-n's are created at cavitation centers, _which is an extremely small fraction of the working fluid volume_. Any conceivable cross section for gamma capture by a proto-n is limited by the extent of the coulomb field around the proto-n, and that extends only on the order of submicrons. Thus even with classical reasoning there is no way for the capture cross section to be big enouhg to prevent significant gamma escape. Again, easy to detect, probably fatal. I would say (1), (2) and (3) alone---without invoking many other obvious problems---eliminate your theory. -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome) cudkeys: cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.22 / Henry Spencer / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 07:02:06 GMT Organization: U of Toronto Zoology In article browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: >...However, tritium is not a naturaly occuring form of hydrogen. Well, actually there are minute amounts of it found in nature, produced by cosmic rays. However, the quantities are far too small for practical uses. -- The problem is, every time something goes wrong, | Henry Spencer the paperwork is found in order... -Walker on NASA | henry@zoo.toronto.edu cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenhenry cudfnHenry cudlnSpencer cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.22 / Robin Spaandonk / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 13:27:18 GMT Organization: Improving In article , Thomas J. Nugent, Jr. wrote : [snip] >H and He3 don't just "combine" and let off lots of energy. They >need to be _forced_ together (which takes lots of energy) in order >to fuse, at which point they release energy. This is fusion. >All nuclear reactors today utilize _fission_, which is what happens >when heavier elements such as uranium "fall apart" which they >do without being forced to, at a certain rate (which determines >their half-life). So "spraying around H" would not cause >you to get vaporized - it would NOT react (in a nuclear sense >that is) with the He3, unless you "sprayed" it with _very_ >high energy. > >Currently there is alot of research going on into making fusion >a feasible power supply. But it still takes _more_ energy >to fuse elements than is released by the reaction, hence it's >not worth it. Furthermore, different elements can be fused, >with varying degrees of difficulty. The first fusion reactors >will probably use Deuterium (D) and Tritium (T), because the >energy needed for a D-T fusion is lower than a H-He3 fusion. >But D-T releases neutrons, which is undesirable because that's >"harmful" radiation. But H-He3, on the other hand, creates >almost exclusively charged particles, which are "easier" to I've never heard of He3 combining with H at all. Would you care to specify the reaction? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* cudkeys: cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / A Plutonium / Re: 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: Re: First experimental predictions of Hydrogen Atom Systems Date: 27 Sep 1995 01:57:08 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <446ihk$l1o@news.utdallas.edu> iblum@utdallas.edu (Ira K Blum) writes: > > 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 Thanks much for this valuable data. That is odd very odd that the muon lives but briefly and two neutrinos carry away all the huge energy leaving a normal electron. This is what I mean by only hydrogen atom systems and protons and electrons exist, all else is derivative thereof or is a building up of hydrogen atom systems. Why 9, I don't know yet. But since you say there is nothing between the .5 MEV and the muon 105.66, my first guess would be that that is the point where the space of the nuclear electron equals the space of proton. You would have to correlate the fine-structure variable. Clearly if you are true in no electron system being between .5 and 105 then that is quantized and means it has to fit some specific feature of the nucleus. My first guess is that if you take a normal electron and put it into the nucleus where the protons are then the normal electron of occupying electron cloud space would have to collapse into the space covered by a proton and the muon is just that characteristic of a collapsed normal electron to coincide with the space of a proton. > 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. Question from your chart, does nothing decay down into a single proton or a single neutron? cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Bruce Simpson / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: bruce@faxmail.co.nz (Bruce Simpson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 22:40:01 GMT Organization: FaxMail Technologies Mario Pain wrote: >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. The key here is what constitutes a "valid reason". I believe that France and the rest of the world have widely differing opinions on whether nuclear testing is a "valid reason" and this is a matter beyond resolution at the present time. > 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. The only way to reduce the risk to a minimum is to immediately cease all testing. The damage that has already been done can not be undone, but there is no justification (IMHO) in making the potential situation far worse. How would France feel about posting a suitable "Guarantee Bond" with the World Bank to cover the liabilies that might arise in the future from contamination due to the testing? I think 100 billion dollars is a small price to pay. France could of course borrow money against the security represented by this bond so the only *actual* cost would be the interest involved. The fear in this part of the world is that once testing is complete, France will turn around and declare Tahiti, Mururoa and other territories to be "independant" (under the guise of "you asked for it, you got it"), thus enabling her to shirk any responsibility for future problems. We need some kind of guarantee to avoid this happening ... and France has proven by her actions over the decades that she can not be trusted to honour her word so a simple assurance or promise is not enough. I'm not saying that the people of the south pacific can be "bought off" but at least it provides some form of insurance policy. > 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 ? Apart from the five known nuclear powers in the world, everyone else seems happy to make this decision. Why should France be so different? >>*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. This is somewhat analogous to lining up a group of one hundred and fifty people against a wall; pulling out a revolver; putting a single cartidge into it; spinning the chamber and asking "who should I point this thing at?" This is not a viable question, nor a viable course of action. The only *real* decision is not to expose *anyone* to unnecessary danger -- regardless of the "greater cause". To say that the end justifies the means is a weak argument. By the way ... just look at what your damned nuclear testing has done to New Zealand already! A huge volcanic erruption and numerous earthquakes. Coincidence -- maybe so -- but can you prove it? :-) *----[Fixed-price software development over the net ]----* | bsimpson@iprolink.co.nz or bruce@faxmail.co.nz | *--[C/C++, Win, OS/2, POSIX, device-drivers, fax, comms]-* cudkeys: cuddy27 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSimpson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.27 / Darin Vrancic / Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Originally-From: darin@iglou.com (Darin Vrancic) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: ? Singularity Technology ? Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 06:13:59 GMT Organization: IgLou Internet Services (1-800-436-4456) zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) wrote: >Would you tell us where the RGeorge Home Page is. >Thanks, >Zoltan Szakaly Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I don't get to go online very often. The Rgeorge homepage is at: http://www.hooked.net/users/rgeorge/index.html As I said before, he has a very novel approach to "cold" fusion, although his brand is not as cold as others. cudkeys: cuddy27 cudendarin cudfnDarin cudlnVrancic cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.24 / Andy Dingley / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: Andy Dingley Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:40:35 GMT Organization: Codesmiths Software Development Ltd. Simon Rowland wrote: > I'm really curious about this He3 stuff, and would appreciate _any_ >info you have. OK then, if you want *any* info. He3 is now being used to map out ocean-bottom water currents (according to BBC Radio 4). The well-discussed geothermal vents are sources of detectable quantities of He3, due to some subfloor radioactive decay process. This then forms a "plume" which can be tracked for thousands of km. Helium 3 is also used in cryogenics. In a university lab, He4 boil-off is usually collected for recycling in a fairly casual manner, but recycling of expensive He3 is an absolutely paranoid process ! -- Andy Dingley dingbat@codesmth.demon.co.uk If all it takes is an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, how come AOL haven't written any Shakespeare yet ? cudkeys: cuddy24 cudendingbat cudfnAndy cudlnDingley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 28 04:37:05 EDT 1995 ------------------------------