1995.10.04 / Richard Blue / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones logic Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 20:40:34 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Mitchell Jones makes certain claims about his way of doing physics as being superior to the way the rest of us do it. I think we may question whether Mitchell can even be true to his own way of doing things. We already know he is not going to do physics our way. Principle of Continuity. Mitchell makes this the cornerstone of his condemnation of orthodox quantum mechanics. According to him, "The Principle of Continuity states that no entity may come into existance out of nothing or vanish into nothing." If this is the basis for his condemnation of quantum mechanics there must be some examples from quantum theory that are in violation of this principle. What are they? Perhaps I have not thought hard enough about this, but I can't think of anything in quantum mechanics that represents a clear violation. When it comes to specific examples Mitchell suggests that quantum mechanics dictates discontinuous changes in velocity. Firstly, I question whether that is the case. Does the existance of a stationary state or a spectrum of stationary states represent a violation of the priciple of continuity? I don't think so. They are rather the epitome of continuity. How can you get more continuous than a constant? Of course I also wonder how it is that velocity gets to be an "entity", but that is another question. If Mitchell is to object to there being physical observables that take on only discrete values on purely philosophic grounds should he not throw everything that bears the taint of quantization? Yet we see him using the concepts of particles and of photons even! When it comes to photons Mitchell does appear to admit to there being photons that travel at the speed of light (or something approaching that at least). He, however, makes a subtle addition of something akin to a photon in the process of becoming. I take it that is to satisfy his need for something that shares some properties with our kind of photon but is yet free to be different with regard to its interactions with matter. That is, I think, a form of "tweaking" in the crudest sense. What excuse does Mitchell have for assuming that his photons start out with zero velocity and accelerate? If it is continuity he wants why is he not disturbed by the entire concept of the creation and annihilation of photons? If they are to be created why not create them with the proper velocity? At this point I begin to wonder whether Mitchell is aware of where the concept that electromagnetic radiation travels at velocity c first appears? You can't blame that on quantum theory or even on relativity. Curve Fitting and Tweaking. Of course Mitchell has an advantage in this area. His theory fits no data. It has no numerical values to tweak. If you like his kind of theory maybe we have a winner here. However, most of us doing physics expect to make a connection between theory and real observations. Unless you have done it yourself it may be difficult to appreciate the differences between fitting a curve to data when there are fewer free parameters than data points and when there are more free parameters than data points. I would suggest that Mitchell has not learned the significance of constraints and degrees of freedom. Visual Thinking. I get the uneasy feeling that what Mitchell is really saying here is that everything must be closely analogous to things we can see in the macroscopic world. You know - electrons are tiny baseballs with the neatest little horsehide covers and stitching. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Robert Eachus / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: 04 Oct 1995 15:23:39 GMT Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. I should probably ignore this and just Plonk Mitchell Jones but: In article <21cenlogic-0110951150010001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > ***{Matt, I've stated it many times in postings to this group, and so I > take it you are only an occasional reader here. In any case, to repeat: > the principle of continuity states simply that no entity may come into > existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. --Mitchell Jones}*** > ***{As I have stated many times in other posts, I believe in it because > it supports the entire structure of human knowledge. --Mitchell Jones}*** > ***{It's bad to violate it because, without it, the entire structure of > human knowledge collapses. Simply put: if things can leap into existence > out of nothing, then we have no basis for the inference from sensation to > source... Welcome to quantum mechanics. The debate about the "meaning" of QM has raged for most of the century, but the predictive power of QM is unchallenged. And the only way to get the predictions to come out right is to assume that particles do appear from nothing all the time (vacuum fluctuations). If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it. A lot of physicists and other people have had trouble swallowing something so foreign to "common" sense. (In fact all of QM seems to be hard to swallow, you mentioned causality. The jury is still out, but you can't have all of general relativity, quantum mechanics and causality. Most physicists today sacrifice global causality with little thought, but are uncomfortable with throwing local causality with it.) What do you think Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle is all about? Since the virtual pions that mediate the strong force are generated "from nothing" by these fluctuations, everthing more complex than the hydrogen atom depends on something from nothing. (If the color force holding the quarks which make up every baryon together is also mediated by virtual particles, then even hydrogen depends on something from nothing for it's existance. I'm assuming that that issue is unresolved.) -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... cudkeys: cuddy04 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Estascy@euphor / cmsg cancel <44u621$k0s@globe.indirect.com> Originally-From: Estascy@euphoria.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <44u621$k0s@globe.indirect.com> Date: 4 Oct 1995 12:47:21 GMT EMP/ECP (aka SPAM) cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce, report 19951004.04 for further details cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenEstascy cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Matt Austern / Re: Crackpot Index Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Crackpot Index Date: 04 Oct 1995 18:42:51 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience) In article <3442@giga.slc.unisysgsg.com> p-smith@advtech.slc.unisysgsg.c m (Patrick J. Smith) writes: > Given the takeover of s.p.f by the "free lunch" crowd, this seemed so > appropiate to this group that I just couldn't resist. Unfortunately, > I don't know who the author is. (If this "Index" has already been > posted to this group, please accept my apologies in advance.) John Baez. (With help from a number of sci.physics regulars.) -- 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: cuddy04 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Euphoria Tape...Try it with a Lover! Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Euphoria Tape...Try it with a Lover! Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 16:57:11 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >Do The Euphoria Tape alone the first time, and then >with a lover. It's a phenomenon you will feel within >the first 3 minutes of use -- what you feel the rest of >the time is unbelievable. This sounds like a source of excess heat, but I suspect the heat is entirely chemical . . . As much as I support free speach, I hope we can find a way to keep Internet newsgroups free of irrelivant advertisements. Is there any way of preventing this? I do not know much about the mechanics of Internet. Regarding the free speech issue: I regard a "sci." newsgroup as the functional equivalent of a scientific seminar or meeting, in which anyone can put up a poster of any paper. The author gets to decide if it fits the topic or not. On the other hand, people who put up posters advertising soap or erotic tapes should be excluded because these topics are not scientific or in any way related to science or to the topic at hand. It is like free speech in a church or a town meeting. You cannot stand up and try to sell the audience insurance in the middle of a town meeting. You can say anything you like about the topic, and it has to be very wildly off-topic before anyone would complain. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / jedrothwell@de / Re: Crackpot Index Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Crackpot Index Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 17:03:51 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Patrick J. Smith writes: >Given the takeover of s.p.f by the "free lunch" crowd, this seemed so >appropiate to this group that I just couldn't resist. Unfortunately, Your perception of the situation here is mistaken. This group was not taken over by the 'free lunch' crowd, it was created for and by the cold fusion crowd, back in 1989. I do not think that cold fusion is 'free energy' or a 'free lunch' any more than hot fusion or fission is. I presume -- and I think 99% of the CF scientists would agree -- that CF is not a violation of the conservation of energy. In any case, this droll little system of assigning points has been posted before. Thanks. If you try applying it to the postings here, you will soon find that "skeptical" opposition rates very high in the pathology department, since they are constantly inventing and reinventing phyisics, and they claim to know things that science has not yet discovered. You will also find that the CF scientists (who never post here) have very low pathology indexes. Only a few of them claim unique or unusual theories as far as I know. I cannot judge theory well, but the only radical theory that I know which is given any credence by other CF scientists is the Mills theory, which a few other people subscribe to. - Jed cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.30 / Blair Bromley / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: bromley@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (Blair Patric Bromley) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: 30 Sep 1995 19:17:48 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana alexey@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Alexey Goldin) writes: >In article <444lm4$png@morgoth.sfu.ca> gay@sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay) writes: > 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? >Well, I've heard numbers around $2000 -- $3000 per mole (3 grams >for He3). He3 sometimes used to cool down cryogenic detectors, >like those to measure cosmic microwave background >radiation. If you boil it in the vacuum you can easily get >temperature .5K or even less. It is all recycled, of course. >So if you can bring few tons of stuff from the moon you really >will pay all expences if you sell so expencive. The problem is >that market is not that big. >I was told that He3 is a product of tritium decay so now after >the end of cold war the stuff is going to be more expencive. >BTW, He3 is not the fuel that is easiest to burn in fusion >reactor. Deuterium plus tritium is much easier. Just for the >case somebody does not know. True, it is easier to achieve breakeven with D-T reactions, since the fusion reaction rate for the D-T reaction rate peoks close to 10 keV (relative ion energy) while D-He-3 peaks between 50 and 100 keV. However, the energy yield from D-He-3 is larger slightly, and the D-He-3 reaction is aneutronic, meaning that neutron activation of reactor components is much less of a problem, plus, extracting the energy could be much more efficient through the use of and MHD direct energy converter. If all the energy is locked up in neutrons, then one will be limited to the effciency of a thermodynamic cycle using water, perhaps even gaseous He or H. To make the powerplant more economical, reducing the wastes it produces , reducing the radiation safety hazard, and improving the efficiency are vital. The D-He-3 fuel choice makes this possible. Besides, after the D-T reaction, the D-He-3 is the next easiest to do. Blair cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenbromley cudfnBlair cudlnBromley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.01 / Stephen Bennett / Re: Making He3 and related questions Originally-From: sbennett@gate.net (Stephen Bennett) Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Making He3 and related questions Date: Sun, 01 Oct 95 04:14:08 GMT Organization: Federal Aviation Administration In article , hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) wrote: >In article <811949958.10639@codesmth.demon.co.uk>, Andy Dingley > wrote: > >[snip] > >> If all it takes is an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, >> how come AOL haven't written any Shakespeare yet ? > >It's all there, the letters are simply in the wrong order. 8^) > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > In fact, I once held the position of proofreader, searching for famous passages. Thought I'd really hit the jackpot this one time. "To be, or not to be? That is the kazornenplat!" So, close! (-_^) (from an old Bob Newhart routine.) Stephen Bennett cudkeys: cuddy01 cudensbennett cudfnStephen cudlnBennett cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Robert Heeter / Re: Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them? Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them? Date: 4 Oct 1995 04:15:26 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article <44shm6$6rm@aggedor.rmit.EDU.AU> Patrick Joseph Dieter, s9511925@minyos.xx.rmit.EDU.AU writes: > i am a student at rmit that is despretely seeking some kind of basic >info on nuclear fusion, can anyone give me any information or html sites >that would be handy for me? The official home of the Conventional Fusion FAQ is: http://www.pppl.gov/~rfheeter The intro/overview section is posted every other week on this group and several others. It should still be visible on sci.answers, if your site is reasonable about hanging onto FAQs. The full FAQ is only posted quarterly since it's so large. ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Heeter Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Mario Pain / Re: French nuclear test agenda Originally-From: Mario Pain Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: French nuclear test agenda Date: 4 Oct 1995 13:38:06 GMT Organization: cea jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote: >Mario Pain writes: >> >>You are asking the question of nuclear deterrent. > >No, I am asking about nuclear strategy. France already has a >deterrent. No, no, no, NO! France has the material basis for a nuclear deterrent. But a deterrent only works if other people BELIEVE that there is a chance you may use your nuclear weapons in case of attack. If Chirac renounces the tests under international pressure, nobody will believe that the same Chirac would be prepared to push on the button in any circumstances whatsoever. That is why I say that regardless wether the tests are or are not necessary in the first place, once the y have been announced by Chirac they become a question of credibility and therefore MUST BE CARRIED OUT. > Now France is spending your tax money to 'improve' >its nuclear weapons. The only reason to do this is if there is >reason to believe that there are circumstances where these new >improved H-bombs will be used, so I was asking about those cases. >If France would be deterred from using its bombs, as the US was >during the Berlin crisis despite having a massive advantage, why >waste the money -- especially when the action can be construed >as promoting the idea that proliferation is a good idea because >those weapons really do have a potential use. Your arguments may be relevant. As I said, I have little knowledge of military matters and I am ready to accept that the tests are not necessary to the MATERIAL credibility of France's deterrent. But as things stand NOW, they are indispensable to the POLITICAL credibility of it. >>Chirac cannot change his mind: if international pressure can stop nuclear >>tests, what credibility is left that he will be ready to use a nuclear >>weapon in a crisis situation. >I have read a great deal on the theory of deterrence, and this whole >concept is a new one for me. That is why I called it a trivial >argument. During all the years that the US wasted its resources >on weapons testing and production of unbelievable quantities of >warehoused nuclear explosives, I never heard this used to justify >that policy and I do not remember ever seeing it in the theory >of the subject. If you can find a reference to it in Kahn or >Kissinger, please post it, but they always argued that you had >to engage in actions that put your citizens lives at risk (like >fighting small wars) to prove your willingness to fight. This concept is exactly the same Kissinger advocated: That you have to engage in actions that put YOUR INTERESTS (and not only your citizens) at risk in order to show your willingness to fight. More still, there is a general political principle that a sovereign power must NEVER be seen to back down on a strategic matter under foreign pressure. That is why France MUST do the tests in the teeth of international protest and even boycott (that is, to put at risk its economic interests). > >> As I said: If Algeria thought France intended to use nuclear weapons against >>it (a loony idea, but lets consider it as an hypothesis), then the tests do >>not change anything because France has this capability without the tests. > >So why are new weapons needed? I never said they were. I think we are discussing at cross purposes here. You are trying to prove that this tests were not necessary on military grounds. I am trying to prove that ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED, they become indispensable on political grounds. The two statements are not contradictory... Cheers, Mario Pain cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Richard Blue / Re: Why no CF maybes? Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Why no CF maybes? Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 18:26:12 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Mitchell Swartz seems to think my comments about "fussy surface conditions" are refuted by analogies to semiconductor chips and Boeing 747's. I am rather puzzled by that line of argument. I think we can both agree that these are two fine examples for which the maintenance of proper surface conditions are an essential part of making the device operate as desired. Is Mitchell suggesting that these surfaces maintain themselves such that no precautions need be taken to assure that the plane is airworthy and that all its chips are chirping? The question at hand is whether the surface conditions of CF cathodes are maintained as well as airplane wings or semiconductor chips. Although this analogy has limited validity I will use it anyway now that Mitchell has introduced these two examples. Suppose the airplane wing or the chip were immersed in electrolyte and subjected to the same treatment that a CF cathode undergoes for 30 days. Would we then perhaps have some doubts as to the performance of these devices? Now where did I get the notion that CF cathode surfaces may not always be in satisfactory condition? I took a clue directly from what CF advocates have been saying as well as the data they have been providing. Without proper attention, they assert, to the details of surface conditions attempts to replicate CF successes are very likely to fail. That is CF orthodoxy! Even the experts, when pressed, will admitted to failure rates in the 80-90% range. The question I have been raising is a simple one. If, as they say, there are both successes and failures why are there no maybes? If the reason for failure is bad surface conditions that are too subtle to be defined yet why don't subtle changes in surface conditions occur during the course of a measurement? I don't believe Mitchell has addressed that question. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Estascy@euphor / Euphoria Tape...Try it with a Lover! Originally-From: Estascy@euphoria.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Euphoria Tape...Try it with a Lover! Date: 4 Oct 1995 14:34:41 GMT Organization: Internet Direct, Inc. I.C.P., Suite 578-101, 5360 E. Bay Dr., Clwr., FL 34624 The Euphoria Tape Do The Euphoria Tape alone the first time, and then with a lover. It's a phenomenon you will feel within the first 3 minutes of use -- what you feel the rest of the time is unbelievable. The Euphoria Tape. It was first whispered about on college campuses, and only experimented with in seclusion, or among close friends in private settings, but it has now become a cult rush and is considered the next passion of our Cyber lifestyles. The Euphoria Tape. Not a drug, not a chemical, but an audio stimulation of brain centers controlling pleasure. And agony. And ecstacy. The buzz. An audio mesmer signal strokes the base of the mind, choking out pain sensations and producing the violent flow of... euphoria. The Euphoria Tape. Copies have changed hands from friends to friends to other friends. It is not regulated, there are no laws yet restricting use of The Euphoria Tape. The Euphoria Tape is rushing the masses. ************************************************* Stereo audio cassette. Scientific treatment included. Shipped immediately upon receipt of $11.88 personal check or money order. Absolute satisfaction guaranteed (and experienced) or full purchase price refunded. Offered only to adults 18 years or older. ******************* IntraNet Cyber Products Suite 578-101 5360 E. Bay Dr. Clearwater, FL 34624 ******************* Tape Duplication prohibited. $2.00 for Scientific Treatment. Copyright 1995 Intranet Cyber Products, All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------------------------------ cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenEstascy cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Richard Blue / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 19:15:19 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I think Bob Heeter is correct in his assertion that Kasagi's test to rule out 3He secondary reactions does not properly evaluate that possibility. I would add that one more significant factor may be missing in the Kasagi analysis. I believe there is an implicite assumption that the distribution of deuterons in the target is spatially uniform. Perhaps that assumption is not correct. I would suggest that there may be significant "self targeting." That is to say that deuterons from the incident beam that are brought to rest in the target may contribute to an increase in the local deuteron target density. Then, as Bob correctly points out, a beam of incident 3He ions has a well determined direction with respect to the detector, but the 3He secondaries are emitted in a complete angular distribution. Those 3He travelling at 90 deg to the original deuteron beam will then see a much thicker deuteron target than would be the case if a uniform volume distribution of target nuclei is assumed. Ultimately, I think the Kasagi conjecture of a three-body nuclear reaction is on very weak footing when compared to a process involving two conventional two-body reactions in sequence. To a large extent they are the same thing except for the fact that the latter process has a much larger phase space available. If the only argument against the sequencial process is that the "calculated" spectra don't match the data the place to start is to improve the calculation. If an experimental simulation does not match the data, Kasagi should be doubly sure that he has done the correct simulation. If he sees "no alpha particles" under conditions where they are kinematically forbidden that sheds very little light on the matter. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Richard Blue / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones hypothesis Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones hypothesis Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 19:45:28 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway With regard to my remark concerning trashy water as the operating fluid for the Griggs device, it appears, Mitchell, that you came in late on this discussion. Let me review for you the measurements put forth to support claims that the Griggs device has demonstrated over-unity operation. There are two types of measurements involved: (1) Laboratory measurements in which the working fluid is essentially tap water. (2) Measurements in the field using dirty water such as recycled process water in carpet mills. I made reference to type (2) measurements. Now you suggest that the type (1) measurements offer sufficient proof making the dirty water measurements irrelevant. I believe you are incorrect for the following reason. None of the laboratory measurements that have been reported here demonstrate that the observed level of performance can be sustained indefinitely. When that point was raised, Jed Rothwell made reference to the ongoing operations in carpet mills. If you now want to discard that data because it may involve dirty water that is fine with me. You are then left with no data to support a claim that the performance observed in the laboratory can be continued indefinitely. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Patrick Smith / Crackpot Index Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.unisysgsg.com (Patrick J. Smith) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Crackpot Index Date: 3 Oct 95 16:36:27 GMT Organization: Unisysgsg, Salt Lake City, Utah Given the takeover of s.p.f by the "free lunch" crowd, this seemed so appropiate to this group that I just couldn't resist. Unfortunately, I don't know who the author is. (If this "Index" has already been posted to this group, please accept my apologies in advance.) | THE CRACKPOT INDEX | A simple method for rating potentially | revolutionary contributions to physics. | |1) A -5 point starting credit. |2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. |3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. |4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. |5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful |correction. |6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results |of a widely accepted real experiment. |7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those |with defective keyboards). |8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally |misguided (without good evidence). |9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or |claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided |(without good evidence). |10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this |were evidence of sanity. |11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. |12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or |claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without |evidence). |13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if |they were fact. |14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) |ridicule accorded to ones past theories. |15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, |claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc.. |16) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is |engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its |well-deserved fame, or suchlike. |17) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but |giving no concrete testable predictions. -- cudkeys: cuddy3 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Patrick Dieter / Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them? Originally-From: s9511925@minyos.xx.rmit.EDU.AU (Patrick Joseph Dieter) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Fusion FAQ's; where can i get them? Date: 3 Oct 1995 23:40:54 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. hey there guys; i am a student at rmit that is despretely seeking some kind of basic info on nuclear fusion, can anyone give me any information or html sites that would be handy for me? thanks heaps, fellas. cudkeys: cuddy3 cudens9511925 cudfnPatrick cudlnDieter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / 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: 3 Oct 1995 19:59:38 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute In article hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner) writes: > > ... If the H >atom electron is in an orbital the integral of its electron charge >probability distribution (integrated over three axes, not just one) nets >out to -1 at the location of the nucleus. No. The integral over all space nets out at -1, but that value is not 'located' anywhere. Since you integrated over an infinite volume, you do not know where it was. The integral *at* the origin is zero since the volume is zero. Anyway, if you ask "where is the electron" you have to take the matrix element of r (the "where" operator) so you do not just do a volume integral. That is whence things like the rms radius come from. The center of the distribution is at the origin, but to say that the electron is there is like saying that the asteroid belt is at the center of the sun because its center of mass is there. -- James A. Carr | 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: cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / 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: 3 Oct 1995 19:52:49 -0400 Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute } I wrote: } }>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? In article <448cs2$ltc@anemone.saclay.cea.fr> Mario Pain writes: > >You are asking the question of nuclear deterrent. No, I am asking about nuclear strategy. France already has a deterrent. Now France is spending your tax money to 'improve' its nuclear weapons. The only reason to do this is if there is reason to believe that there are circumstances where these new improved H-bombs will be used, so I was asking about those cases. If France would be deterred from using its bombs, as the US was during the Berlin crisis despite having a massive advantage, why waste the money -- especially when the action can be construed as promoting the idea that proliferation is a good idea because those weapons really do have a potential use. >Chirac cannot change his mind: if international pressure can stop nuclear >tests, what credibility is left that he will be ready to use a nuclear >weapon in a crisis situation. I have read a great deal on the theory of deterrence, and this whole concept is a new one for me. That is why I called it a trivial argument. During all the years that the US wasted its resources on weapons testing and production of unbelievable quantities of warehoused nuclear explosives, I never heard this used to justify that policy and I do not remember ever seeing it in the theory of the subject. If you can find a reference to it in Kahn or Kissinger, please post it, but they always argued that you had to engage in actions that put your citizens lives at risk (like fighting small wars) to prove your willingness to fight. > As I said: If Algeria thought France intended to use nuclear weapons against >it (a loony idea, but lets consider it as an hypothesis), then the tests do >not change anything because France has this capability without the tests. So why are new weapons needed? Who does France intend to attack that requires *new* weapons? -- James A. Carr | 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: cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Bill Rowe / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 19:05:44 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-0310951051560001@199.172.8.129>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: [lots of stuff deleted thru out] >terms. Moreover, I also stated why I believe the distinction, in recent >times, has been blurred to the point of nonexistence: because the types of >superficial rote memorizers who have taken over the faculties of state >universities feel threatened by the kinds of students who want to know >what the mathematical constructs *mean.* To defend themselves against >students who embarass them by asking questions which they cannot answer, >they bury their classes in a flood tide of material. >***{Martin, one of the things I have learned in my life is that people who >try to divert discussions away from the topic at issue by engaging in >demeaning speculations and ad hominem attacks are driven by fear: fear of >loss of face, and fear that they will lose the argument, if they stick to >the issue. Apparently, you don't feel characterizing someone as a "superficial rote memorizer" as you have done above isn't an ad hominem attack. While it may not be an ad hominem attack on Martin (you didn't characterize Martin in this fashion), it is an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should heed your own advice relative to ad hominem attacks. >***{As I have repeatedly noted, the constructs of curve fitted mathematics >support accurate interpolations and, to a lesser degree, extrapolations. >However, as even you admit, when such a construct ceases to "fit" the >experimentally determined data points, it is either "tweaked" or >discarded. And yet, in spite of this, you continue to get bent out of >shape when I say that the construct is "curve fitted!" Wow! (A more >perfect example of a distinction without a difference could hardly be >imagined!) Since you really haven't defined what you mean by curve-fitted, I can't truly disagree with you. However, I strongly suspect the way I would define curve-fitted differs from your definition in that I would agree with Martin that QM is not an example of curve-fitting. Perhaps the reaction you are getting is due to the lack of agreement on what curve-fitting is. >***{To repeat: understanding of causation has value, Martin. Why? Because >it opens minds to possibilities that, without it, could not have been even >considered. For example, if the LeSage theory is correct, then antigravity >is possible. (General relativity holds that antigravity is impossible.) So >one of the immediate effects, if the LeSage theory were accepted, would be >physicists who were open to the possibility of antigravity devices, and >thus likely to recognize evidence of antigravity processes if it were >encountered. The point is that a population open to a possibility is more >likely to recognize an opportunity to realize it. (This is is the same >sort of effect that the protoneutron theory would have, if accepted, >relative to "excess energy" phenomena.) This is not--repeat: not--an >implication to be taken lightly. Understanding has enormous value. Far >more value, I might add, than does a mathematical construct which >expresses experimental data points in a compact form and permits some >interpolations and, with luck, extrapolations. --Mitchell Jones}*** I would certainly agree it is invaluable to understand causes. However, presenting as a cause something that is essentially untestable is a rather useless exercise. I agree the LeSage model provides a simple visualization of gravity. However for it to be useful the assumed particles need to have properties that make them detectable and perhaps give us the abiltiy to manipulate them. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy03 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.04 / Robert Heeter / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 4 Oct 1995 00:52:05 GMT Organization: Princeton University In article <44q984$n13@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Joe Guokas, joeguokas@aol.com writes: >A useful test would be to beam 3He at the target. This beam would >simulate the >product 3He of the primary reaction d(d,3He)n, and demonstrate its >secondary >reaction of d(3He,alpha)p. > >Kasagi performed this test (see page 781 of his paper). The flux of the >3He beam >was more than 100 times that of the 3He products of the D beam, yet no >alphas >were observed. From this he estimates there must be less than 10e-7 >secondary >reaction per primary reaction. So the number of secondary reactions must >be at >least one order of magnitude less than the number of alphas observed in >the D >beam experiments. Steven Jones also pointed this out here. In a response to his article I noted that a 3He *beam* at 1.5 MeV is not kinematically equivalent to a spherically symmetric 3He birth distribution at 1MeV, especially for backwards scattering. (Kasagi et al do not describe their viewing geometry for the second set of experiments.) In TFTR here, a D-D triton born in the plasma has roughly a 1% chance of fusing with a plasma D ion as it slows down. The background plasma is basically cold in both cases, but in the solid TiDx target it's a lot denser. The fusion reaction rate is linear in the target density; the fast-particle slowing-down time is inversely proportional to the density. The integrated fusion probability as the particle slows down goes like the product of these two quantities, so my hunch is that it's independent of the target density. The cross-section for D-3He fusion is only about 1 order of magnitude less than for D-T at the energies which are relevant, so from a theoretical point of view I'd say the 3He should have a 1 in 10^-3 chance of fusing as it slows down. I'm therefore quite skeptical of a paper which claims a 3He has less than 10^-7 probability of fusing as it slows down, particularly when the experiment in question is not described in any detail. (Unlike the D beam experiments, they don't say much about the 3He experiments, even though they were done at a different facility, at a different time, and presumably under different conditions.) ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Heeter Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above. cudkeys: cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 5 04:37:05 EDT 1995 ------------------------------