1995.10.18 / A Plutonium /  Origins of HYASYS: Hydrogen Atom Systems == Strong Nuclear 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Origins of HYASYS: Hydrogen Atom Systems == Strong Nuclear 
Subject: NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES, part 3 of 3
Subject: ELEMENT 0, THE NEUTRON
Date: 18 Oct 1995 18:32:03 GMT
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 21:36:12 GMT
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 03:15:11 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Subject: NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES, part 3 of 3
Message-ID: <CCLDCI.AnK@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 21:36:12 GMT
Lines: 190


	But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an already
existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The reaction
in the Sun is   
                                    P into  PN*+ energy then
          			PN into PNN*+ energy then    
				PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP into  
				N*PNP+ energy

 	What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?  Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The
second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes. 
	Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics  71st edition 1991  pages 10-264 to 10-267: 
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   16.0
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Zinc (30)   MV  3d5/2   10.1    
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    50.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (80) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ?
Thorium (90) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ?
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
	The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for
electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
	Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were
known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the
wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are
variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to
materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level
the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V
on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. 
	On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.  If the materialized
neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen,
then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy
subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.  
	The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star
plasmas.  The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron
inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a
device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a
large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all
hydrogen plasma.  
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Subject: ELEMENT 0, THE NEUTRON
Message-ID: <CEK6DE.CBx@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 03:15:11 GMT
Lines: 22

 What I especially want to emphasize are any superlatives of the
elements, i.e. , the chemical properties and the nuclear properties
which each element has which are unique, aside from the fact of the
uniqueness of atomic number. Please point out any superlatives which I
have overlooked. If there are mistakes in these descriptions please
notify me of the mistakes.

Element 0, neutron, Xyz, is a subatomic particle which has an overall
neutral charge, a 0 charge, but has an internal distribution of charge
as revealed through scattering experiments.  Neutrons are small magnets
allowing for the production of beams of neutrons. Neutrons are
indispensable in the building-up of the elements for it is impossible
for 2 or more protons to exist in a stable condition in a nucleus
(distance range of about 10^-13 cm) without neutrons. The neutron has
spin of +1/2 in terms of h/(2pi), and so acts as a fermion.  The
neutron with atomic mass of 1.008665 has slightly more mass than a
hydrogen atom at 1.00794.  Of all the atoms, only the hydrogen atom has
no neutron.  A neutron by itself is very unstable and it quickly
radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom system of proton plus
electron.  The half-life of a neutron is  10.61+ 0.16 minutes, and it
radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom. In the free state, neutrons
are important as a propagating agent for fission chain reactions.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Contained within several copyrighted editions 1990-1993 of the book
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE

Posted to Internet 1993-1994

--- start of quoting from my book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE ---
	The concept of atoms superpositioned onto atoms, that is, atoms inside
atoms, or atoms inside subatomic particles is true, as evidenced by
radioactive decay.  As examples, uranium 232U decays into lead 208Pb
and neon 24Ne, and nobelium 252No decays into radon 214Ra and sulfur
38S.  From radioactive decay products it is seen that atoms were inside
atoms. Atoms are built-up from other atoms.  A quantum definition of
the term inside is superpositioned onto, and it comes from the quantum
superposition principle. 
	The concept that subatomic particles such as a neutron, are built-up
from an atom is true because every neutron has the potential of
radioactively decaying into a hydrogen atom. An atom contains other
atom parts, atoms inside atoms. Atoms inside atoms is the Bohr
complementary principle, where whole and parts complement each other.
This is true because a hydrogen atom consists of 1 electron moving
around 1 proton, and the subatomic particle, the neutron, in any
particular atom when it radioactively decays emits 1 proton, 1
electron, and perhaps 1 neutrino.  Thus, a neutron emits a hydrogen
atom.  A hydrogen atom is superpositioned onto (inside) a neutron which
is a subatomic particle.
	Before the Plutonium Atom Totality, most books termed electrons,
protons, neutrons, and quarks, and the many other particles as
"elementary particles."  Implying that electrons, protons, neutrons,
and quarks were more elementary, more fundamental than atoms. This
textbook argues that atoms are the most elementary of particles. 
Electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks have no meaning without atoms.
Atoms are the last elementary particle, since every proton is
associated with an electron and thus it is a hydrogen atom.  Plutonium
231Pu under this scheme with its 94 protons and 94 electrons are 94
hydrogen atom systems plus the 137 hydrogen atom systems inside each of
the 137 neutrons in the nucleus. When the 94 and 137 hydrogen atom
systems are superpositioned as one, they make the atom 231Pu.  Before
this textbook, elementary particles were seen as subatomic particles;
after this textbook, subatomic particles are parts-totality
complementarity.  Electrons are constructed from atoms.  Quarks are
made of atoms. And since quarks are impossible to isolate, that is the
strongest argument against calling quarks as elementary, for they can
only exist in combinations. Quarks are more of a math construction than
a physical construction, see my geometry discussions below. Atoms are
the last and most elementary particles that there are.  Atoms are all
and everything; the only things that exist are atoms. The void between
atoms is the electron space of our atom totality.
	A math analogy is the best illustration for the concept of elementary
particle. What is the smallest positive number? That is, what is the
smallest (most elementary) positive number?  If we take zero as
positive then zero serves that function but if zero is not taken as
positive then there is no smallest positive number.  Zero is the
neutron, and a neutron is a hydrogen atom inside of it. The number 1 is
a hydrogen atom, and the hydrogen atom is superpositioned onto (inside)
a neutron which is 0.
--- emd of quoting from my book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE ---
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:36:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>The SOFE conference did not go on for 197 days.  I must be missing
>something.  Although I would calculate a lower amount of energy produced
>it is still impressive and greater than the possible chemical energy.
 
As I explained in another thread, the 85 MJ was in an earlier test run.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:30:13 -0700
Organization: AltNet - http://www.alt.net

In article <pbPEg+Q.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
> 
>     "As I see it, a much more important questions Dick raised are why can't
>     the SOFE result/demonstration be explained in terms of known chemistry?"
> 
>Oh come now. You must be kidding. That is even stupider than the flow
>calorimeter question. That is colossally stupid! Do you think a match can burn
>for a month? Get real! There is no chemical fuel in the cell. There is only
>water, plastic and 40 milligrams of metal, and none of it burns. This cell, I
>remind you, produced 85 megajoules of energy nonstop, before the conference.
>The best common chemical fuel is gasoline. It would take 2 kilograms of
>gasoline to produce that much energy. Can you tell the difference between 0.04
>and 2000? This cell produced 50,000 times more energy than any chemical cell
>could. (Don't forget that water does not burn.)
> 
>Only an innumerate and scientifically illiterate fool like Richard Blue would
>seriously propose that this might be a chemical reaction.
> 
> 
>     "Is there any evidence of fusion other than heat?"
> 
>I don't know. I have not discussed that issue with anyone except George Miley,
>and he did not have much to say about it yet.
> 
> 
>     "What is the assumed fusion reaction given the description of this
>     device as working with "light water"?"
> 
>The people at CETI make no assumptions about the fusion reactions involved.
>They don't know what causes the heat. However, they do know that the reaction
>cannot be chemical, because unlike Richard Blue they understand the second law
>of thermodynamics and they can tell the difference between 0.04 and 2000.

Let repeat what your logic seems to be

1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
2) no possibility of any significant error
3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
4) no evidence of fusion other than heat

Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion.

Of course there is no possibility you have overlooked something or not
considered something of importance.

Somehow this "logic" is simply not convincing. Bluster and insults doesn't
make it anymore convincing. In fact, bluster and insults suggests to me
there is a lack of completeness or ability to give answers to questions.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Malcolm McMahon /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:29:56 GMT

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote:

>In article <pbPEg+Q.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Let repeat what your logic seems to be

>1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
>2) no possibility of any significant error
>3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
>4) no evidence of fusion other than heat

>Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion.

Have you asked yourself the question: Does it _matter_ if it's fusion?
If cells can be made that consistently put out heat for long periods
and, in a year or two, I can stick one in my central heating system it
wouldn't make much difference if it was fussion or the heat was put
there by the energy fairy.

Of course it's nice to have a theory and it helps optimise the design
but in the past technologies have been used for years without anyone
understanding how they worked.


 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
 --------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmalcolm cudfnMalcolm cudlnMcMahon cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 10:08:00 GMT
Organization: cea

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
>Why should I show respect for contrarian debunkers like Richard Blue?

 Because, unless I have been misinformed, you have not got God's personal
assurance that you are in the right.

>He is not serious.

 Neither are you.

>He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg of matter can produce
>80 MJ of energy.

 Unfortunately, I find very hard to believe this figure.

>He knows that a flow calorimeter is better for a demonstration than a static
>calorimeter. He is posting messages like that in order to confuse the issue and 
>make trouble. He knows he is wrong, but he does not care. He is here to spread
>propaganda & confusion, and mislead people and start gratuitous arguments.

 That is your interpretation, and a paranoiac one if you ask me. If you think 
that people write posts only to "make trouble" because you are the object of
"propaganda and confusion", then I can only suggest you see a doctor. You are
in great danger of ending up in mental hospital with a persecution delirium.

>And you! How about yourself?

 Ah! a subject on which there is a lot to be said!

>Talk about a spoiled brat!

 Thanks very much. Caming from you it is more than a compliment.

>How many times have I given you the flow rate of SOFE demonstration cell?
>Three times ? Four times ?

 Never. I got the figure in a post by somebody else. By the way, you thanked
him in one of your posts for "bringing the figures".

>Didn't I e-mail it directly to you?

 No, you did not. And by the way, you never gave the pressure drop either.
 
>Yet you *still* come back here whining and moaning like a 2-year old saying
>"somebody tell me what the flow rate is! Somebody give me the numbers!" 

 You are very kind in thinking that I could ask for a flow rate when I was 
only two.

>Just like a damn 2 year old demanding to be spoon fed.

 Asking for the figures is considered a normal scientific attitude when you
analyse an experiment you could not see yourself.

>You have all the information you need to prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT that water 
>friction has nothing to do with the heat.

 Not thanks to you. When I requested it from you, you only told me that the
pump was a small one and that you did not intend to give me any more information.

>If you don't believe me, I am sure you are capable of buying a fishtank pump
>or any small lab pump, setting up a 14 ml/min flow, and measuring the
>temperature yourself.

 I do not need to. If you had given me the figure in the first place. But you
did not. Worse than that, from other people who where present at the SOFE
it is not clear wether it is 14 ml/minute or /second.

>Yes, even you can shut up and do an experiment -- anyone can.

 I can do an experiment. To shut me up is much more difficult.

>So you don't need to whine, moan, complain, kick and carry on, you can
>shut up and find out for yourself.

 I did. I was there in the Harwell experiment. It did not work.

>But no, that is not the Way Of The Skeptic. A "skeptic" never *does* anything,
>he never thinks for himself,

 Of course not. On the other side, the Non-skeptic believes wathever Jed 
Rothwell says as an article of faith.

>he never looks up any numbers,

 True. On the other side, the Non-skeptic asks Jed Rothwell for the figures
and gets insulted for it.

>he never bothers to call the scientists at U. Ill. (although he might call the
>public relations office, where they know nothing).

 True again. On the other hand the Non-skeptic looses enourmous amounts of
time speaking to people who refuse to answer precise questions on their
experiments...

>No, the Way Of The Skeptic is to bother other people and demand that other
>people do all their thinking for them, and when a "skeptic" sees Dick Blue
>go wandering off into never-never-land spouting nonsense that happens to
>violate thermodynamics, the "skeptic" says "baa, baa" and follows along like
>a good little lamb.

 You are a very perceptive man: True again! On the other hand, the Non-skeptic
allows Jed Rothwell to do their thinking for them. When a Non-skeptic sees Jed
Rothwell go wandering into wonderland spouting statements that violate not only
thermodynamics but common sense, the Non-skeptic says "hi-hooo, hi-hooo" and
follows along like a little donkey.

>He believes anything Dick Blue tells him;

 The Non-skeptic prefers to believe everything Jed Rothwell tells him.

>he questions nothing; he knows nothing; he does no experiment; he reads no
>papers.

 On the other hand, the Non-skeptic never questions Jed Rothwell, who by
special decision of God almighty knows everything.

>Well, I say you are a bunch of fools and jerks,

 Oh God ! I will never recover from such condemnation. I go hang myslef as
soon as this post is sent !

>and a disgrace to science,

 Better hear that than being deaf!

>and a laughinstock.

 In that you are the opposite. You would rather make people cry... for you.

>All of you!
> 
>- Jed

 After your passionate speach which proves nothing, says nothing and is to
stupid it is not even insulting, I shall refrain from comment.

Regards

Mario Pain
Accomplice of Dick Blue
Disgrace to Science (and proud of it)

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 17 Oct 95 13:49:03 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <BPPDvFq.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
  
>>Also, the person I spoke with was under the impression that 
>>Miley had nothing to do with the construction or testing of
>>the cell---that he merely allowed CETI to set up the demo
>>at his meeting. Can you clarify what involvement Miley
>>had with this demo?

Jed replies:
>  
> As I VERY CLEARLY STATED in my message, the Miley group built the calorimeter
> and they also independently fabricated beads according to the patents, tested
> them, and saw excess heat. As I said, for the purpose of this demonstration
> they used beads on loan from CETI. Are you having trouble reading plain
> English? I made it very clear the Miley's group *replicated the experiment
> independently*. Naturally they got assistance and cooperation from CETI, but
> Miley is an expert in thin film, as anyone who is familiar with his previous
> CF work knows.
>  
> I do not understand why you are asking questions and raising doubts about
> simple matters of fact that I made clear in my first message. I wish that
> you would take the time to read my messages more carefully, so as not to
> introduce confusion into the message stream. I got my information directly
> from the people who performed the experiments (where else?), and I got the
> same story from two different sources. Furthermore, I have been following
> this development for weeks, and talking to people as the work evolved.
>  
> - Jed

I spoke to George Miley at U. Illinois last week, just before going to
an APS meeting in NY (Rochester Inst. Tech.).  George said that since he
was busy from being in charge of the SOFE 95 meeting, he had very little
involvement in the demo of the Patterson cell -- this was done primarily
by students, he said.  However, he intends to get involved in the next
few weeks to check things.  The following came out of our discussion:

1.  This cell involves *light* water -- and p-p fusion is really out of the
question as a heat source (!).

2.  The way the students had the cell running, some "excess heat" was 
indicated, but he did not have any idea of the source.  He intends to
find out, including the possibility of calorimetric error or H2 + O2
recombination.

3.  The cell is an *open* one, that is, with H2 and O2 bubbling out and
presumed to leave without recombination.  If recombination occurs inside
the cell -- which cannot be ruled out at present -- then this recombination
provides a source of heat that appears to be "excess" but of course is not.

I referred to some tests that we used in a light water cell, where we were
able to demonstrate the occurence of recombination on the electrolyte-covered
electrodes.  Using the usual way of calculating excess heat, we were able
to get 700% "excess heat" -- which was in fact due to recombination.
Thus, "overunity"   is *not* sufficient to establish
a non-chemical source of heat.  Please see our paper in J. Physical Chem.
1995, 99:6973 for details.  By removing dissolved H2 and O2 (by sparging
with N2) we were able to "turn off" the putative 'excess heat' completely.

So hold your horses, Jed, before you go claiming "The cold fusion device
produces ten times more energy out than you put in, whereas the hot fusion
output is only 0.3 time input"  and "The cold fusion device costs a few dollars
to manufacture, and it is roughly the size of a person's thumb.  The hot fusion
device costs billions to manufacture and it is as big as a factory."
(Quotes from Jed's spf post "Cold Fusion at SOFE '95", 3 Oct. 1995)

You're jumping the gun again, Jed, riding the latest entry in the 'cold fusion'
sweepstakes, as the horses peter out one by one.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Lawrence E /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: "Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:27:17 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

  I had a question about this 85 MJ produced. Where did it come from?

Suppose we are producing 5 watts of power.  Then the time to produce
85 MJ is:

t = 85 E6 / (5*86400) = 197 days

The SOFE conference did not go on for 197 days.  I must be missing
something.  Although I would calculate a lower amount of energy produced
it is still impressive and greater than the possible chemical energy.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenWharton cudfnLawrence cudlnE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Lawrence E /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: "Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:30:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

 I had a question about this 85 MJ produced. Where did it come from?

Suppose we are producing 5 watts of power.  Then the time to produce
85 MJ is:

t = 85 E6 / (5*86400) = 197 days

The SOFE conference did not go on for 197 days.  I must be missing
something.  Although I would calculate a lower amount of energy produced
it is still impressive and greater than the possible chemical energy.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenWharton cudfnLawrence cudlnE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / I Johnston /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 11:06:46 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: Why should I show respect for contrarian debunkers like Richard Blue? He
: is not serious. He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
: of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy.

What interests me is that of all the material in this system, Jed _knows_
that 40mg is reponsible for the energy production. And, bearing in mind
the long time over which the experiment runs and the electrical and
mechanical energy being put into it, 80MJ isn't very impressive. Or
unimpressive either. Bad calorimetry integrated over time produces
bigger numbers - so what?

Griggs, Potapov and now this - it has been a good year for Cold Fusion.
Hasn't it?

Ian

PS Scaling point: my cat produced a megajoule of heat last night...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Mario Pain /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: Mario Pain <pain@drfc.cad.cea.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 10:15:45 GMT
Organization: cea

Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net> wrote:
>  As someone who has been following this thread for quite some time as a 
>"lurker", I feel that I have to interject something that is quite 
>similar tohe last posting.
>  Cold fusion works. Period. There is no denying that.

 But "there is denying that". Unless the working of cold fusion is like
the holy word, which cannot be argued against, you have to be prepared for
scientific discussion.

>  "But wait! That continuous over-unity reading there MUST be from a 
>faulty meter!!!"

 Any good experimentalist finding a phenomenon which goes against accepted
physics has to question the quality of his instruments before jumping to
any conclusion.

>  What's the point? Those who continue to rebuke the idea as skeptics 
>will ALWAYS do so, even years after this phenomena becomes classroom 
>science.

 Not necessarily. But you have to accept that more than five years after
F&P announcement there is no repeatable conclusive experiment on the matter
and still less a theoretical explanation.
 I am not saying CF does not work. It may well be that it works. But for the
time being I am not convinced. And it is not Jed rantings that are going to
convince me. My feeling is that the CF community has a paranoiac behaviour 
accusing everybody of persecuting them instead of using the tools available
to them to devise a convincing experiment.

>
>  There is no point to further discussion...
>
 Indeed. There is however a need for convincing experimental evidence presented
in a complete and scientific way.

Regards


Mario Pain


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpain cudfnMario cudlnPain cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / mitchell swartz /  CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF demo at SOFE
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:31:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <462n46$gsb@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston), Edinburgh University, writes:

 = jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 = :  
 = : Why should I show respect for contrarian debunkers like Richard Blue? He
 = : is not serious. He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
 = : of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy.
 = 
 = "What interests me is that of all the material in this system, Jed _knows_
 = that 40mg is reponsible for the energy production. 
   [zip]  
 = Ian
 = 
 = PS Scaling point: my cat produced a megajoule of heat last night..."

The scaling involves the fuel (respiration, metabolism, etc) and not just
the feline.

  Such a cat therefore produces 239 kilocalories overnight if true,
and therefore consumed  -- as fuel -- and burned using
oxidative metabolism an quantity of fuel consisting of 
about 59 or more grams of carbohydrates and protein.

 It may not surprise you, the food (or fuel) produced the megajoule of heat, 
and not the cat.   Therefore, carry this out in full, please.
Taking the true equivalence (assuming your cat data is
true),  for 80 megajoules, one gets

80 * 59 grams  =  4720 grams  (cat type unspecified, amount
             based upon conventional respiration and metabolism)

     versus

               >>  40 milligrams (cold fusion if purported weight
           noted above correlates to the observed excess enthalpy)

Another good example, showing the importance and efficacy
of this technology.

  Well done, Ian.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 09:14:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

From what I have come to understand about cold fusion, electron capture
must be happening. This converts protons to neutrons and explains why we
can get element transmutations.It also explains why we can get nuclear
reactions with light water. In the lightwater cold fusion cell I assume
the following reactions:

e + p  --->  n  -  0.782 MeV                   (1)

The resulting thermal neutron will either collide with another proton or
with a Palladium 
nucleus.

n + p  --->  d  +  2.22 MeV                    (2)

n + Pd(106)  ---> Pd(107)                      (3)

 Where (3) is just an example because at least 4 isotopes of Palladium are
common. The newly created isotopes decay with minimal energy radiation.
The (3) or similar reactions may not happen as often as the (2) because
the electron capture occurs outside of the Pd ion, in space inhabited by
protons and electrons. The heat produced by (2) is more than enough to
offset the energy loss of (1). Actually (1) and (2) may happen almost
simultaneously in a three body reaction where the electron mediates close
approach of the two protons. See my postings under "The electron capture
hypothesis" and also earlier messages under "Marshall Dudley hypothesis"

Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 18 Oct 1995 09:14:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I don't remember the possibility of sustained reactions being refuted. The
number of reactions that could happen in a complex system as this is
large, and possibly we don't know about all of them yet. Some that come to
mind are:

n* + Li7 ---> Li6 + n + n                                (1)

This is our original reaction, where I denoted the fast neutron with a *
for simplicity.

n  + Li7 ---> Li8 (life is 0.844 secs)                 (2)

In this (2) the neutron is slow.

Li8  --->  e  +  Be8 (life is 0.067 femtosecs)     (3)

Be8  --->  He4  +  He4                                   (4)

The consecutive (3) and (4) yield a whopping 16 MeV of energy taken away
by the electron mostly (I think). We also have the following:

n  +  Li6  --->  T  +  He4                                 (5)

This yields some energy (I think about 4 MeV)

Of course so far we have nothing producing fast neutrons. Perhaps these
reactions can be used to build a reactor which is operated by an external
fast neutron source.

Of course we have the deuterium to think of, so we have:

n  +  d  --->   T

or the fast T from the (5) will collide with other nuclei present in the
system possibly causing fission/fusion and thereby replenishing our fast
neutron supply. One example:

T  +  d  --->  He4  +  n*

This reaction can complete a circle of positive feedback to make the
system supercritical, because our original fast neutron has been
replenished and we have lots of heat producing reactions. 

This whole system can be used to build a "dirty" nuclear reactor. Perhaps
it can be constructed sub-critical and run by the external neutron source
(gas discharge tube) or maybe it can be moderated. 

This whole thing has been discused under the "Farce of physics".  



Zoltan Szakaly
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Horace Heffner /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:19:58 -0900
Organization: none

In article <4618fo$iul@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:

> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> >      "What is the assumed fusion reaction given the description of this
> >      device as working with "light water"?"
> >  
> > The people at CETI make no assumptions about the fusion reactions involved.
> > They don't know what causes the heat. However, they do know that the
reaction
> > cannot be chemical, because unlike Richard Blue they understand the
second law
> > of thermodynamics and they can tell the difference between 0.04 and 2000.
> 
> With just as much confidence one can say "unless they show evidence of
> 10^9 fast particles per second we know that the reaction can't be nuclear
> either."
> 
> More realistically it is either
> 
>         1) very unusual chemistry
>         2) very unusual nuclear physics
>         3) both
>         4) subtle experimental error
>         5) fraud
> 
> >  
> > - Jed

I think you have left out another obvious possibility. All quantum
mechanical events are not nuclear. It may be possible, without violating
the laws of thermodynamics, assuming the universe is a closed
interconnected system, to obtain energy from elsewhere in the universe and
transfer it from that more energetic place to a local, less energetic,
environment. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics practically demands
it!  This kind of transfer may be going on all around us in the form of
vacuum fluctuations or other unobserved phenomina. Lots of small events
added together can obviously create big events. If we are in the middle of
some giant energy flux, it may be a simple issue of finding a way to
interfere with the balance to obtain or transfer the energy.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / I Johnston /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:29:46 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston), Edinburgh University, writes:

:  = PS Scaling point: my cat produced a megajoule of heat last night..."

: The scaling involves the fuel (respiration, metabolism, etc) and not just
: the feline.

: Long discussion of warm feline vs cold fusion deleted.

What I wanted to point out was that 80MJ, which Jed keeps bandying around
to impress us, is not really very much heat, particularly when you
consider the runs lengths of which he also boasts. If my cat was running
on cold fusion then the neutron flux would have obviated one little trip
to the vet.

And as for the 40mg of material: are you telling me that this demo only
had 40 mg of material in the calorimeter? If not the decision to
attribute all the excess heat to it needs explained. Why not drop in a
microgramme of lithium and attribute the heat to that? The numbers would
be even more impressive.

Does anyone remember the perpetual motion device Ariadne of the New
Scientist built for a BA meeting some years ago? It ran for the meeting
- a week or so - and out of the many attempts none of the scientists
present were able to work out how it was done.

Sorry Mitch and Jed - you ain't proved nuffin'.

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Horace Heffner /  Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
     
Originally-From: hheffner@matsu.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Rocket Question ( Koloc ?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 06:53:23 -0900
Organization: none

In article <MATT.95Oct14134945@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

[snip]
> 
> No, I was thinking of ways of getting around the fuel requirement that
> are known to be possible under current physics, or at least that
> aren't known to be impossible.  Things like light sails (possibly
> using lasers based in your home solar system), or Bussard ramjets
> (probably impossible, but there's still a tiny bit of hope), or
> multi-generation ships, or suspended animation.
> -- 
>   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."

It seems to me that determining if vacuum fluctuations exist is criticle
to this determination.  If vacuum fluctuations can be utilized to create
(transfer) mass to a moving ship, they can also transfer energy. This
would mean ship impluse is therefore available without carrying fuel or
mass reactants.

As such a ship approached light speed, the mass of the ship and the mass
of the reactants would increase proportionately. From the ship's
viewpoint, constant acceleration could be maintained indefinitely.  From
the viewpoint of earth, the velocity of the reactants (exhaust) would be
reduced by the Fitzgerald contraction as the ship approached light speed.
Since the apparent reactant velocity is slowed, the apparent specific
impulse is reduced, and the maximum possible velocity of the ship is C.

From the passenger's point of view, however, earth time would be
accelerated.  The net result, from a passenger point of view, is such a
ship can be designed assuming acceleration can be maintained without
relativistic effects, provided it is a one way trip. The negative impact
to passengers only occurs upon a very late return to earth.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  Kennel /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 17 Oct 1995 21:50:48 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>      "What is the assumed fusion reaction given the description of this
>      device as working with "light water"?"
>  
> The people at CETI make no assumptions about the fusion reactions involved.
> They don't know what causes the heat. However, they do know that the reaction
> cannot be chemical, because unlike Richard Blue they understand the second law
> of thermodynamics and they can tell the difference between 0.04 and 2000.

With just as much confidence one can say "unless they show evidence of
10^9 fast particles per second we know that the reaction can't be nuclear
either."

More realistically it is either

	1) very unusual chemistry
	2) very unusual nuclear physics
	3) both
	4) subtle experimental error
	5) fraud

>  
> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 17:07:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Horace Heffner <hheffner@matsu.ak.net> writes:
 
>Do you know if the beads are, or will be, for sale?
 
Honestly, I don't know. I have not discussed the business much. The only
thing I am aware of is that they have a select group of customers and
universities they are cooperating with. They bring people in for
training, set them up with beads and make sure the customer gets
excess heat. I have talked to the university people they are working
with, but not with any of the companies. The U. Ill. people and others
say that CETI is doing a fine job assisting with the experiments and
patent replications.
 
They told me they are interested in dealing with a select group of very
serious industrial and academic customers. I do not think they want to
get into the business of selling beads to the general public. Presumably,
in the fullness of time, their industrial customers will sell beads. They
did not say so, but that is the logical conclusion I draw from their
marketing tactics. As I said, I have not disucussed this matter in any
detail. I had a few casual conversations about it during ICCF5.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  prasad /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 17 Oct 1995 21:02:12 GMT
Organization: sometimes

In article <460qlq$qo4@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|> now claim I have earned the collected money.  As usual I did
|> not get all my expenses.  If anyone objects let me know.

A welcome end to the voting/decision-making headaches!


|> It is a little worrisome to me that I am the only one Griggs
|> seems to trust.
|> ...
|> Near the end of the trip, Griggs put his arm around me and
|> confided that he still has not bought a log book.  So I

Tom, you've such a nice touch of humour.

Let's hope it comes across as hot water, not hot air, on the TV.
So what's it gonna be, I wonder, the Next Step, Beyond 2000,
Terra X: Modern Man's Mysteries,... ???

|> evidence that it was instrumented or that they were doing
|> any tests on it.

Given up theoretically, most likely.  Still strongly suggest
reading up obscure 50s-60s texts on ol' van der Waals.

Time someone recalled an old reference, a philosophy that fell
off when Atlas, that darned idiot, shrugged responsibility.
When a *logical* theory fails, it must be the *premises*.
As the lady liked to say, (it's always good to) think twice.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenprasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 /  Kennel /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov (Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 17 Oct 1995 21:46:51 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

ZoltanCCC (zoltanccc@aol.com) wrote:
> In article <45ugc1$m7a@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov
> (Kennel) writes:
> >
> >I doubt that any terrorist group has a 'nuclear backpack' unless it was
> >provided or stolen from the USSR or USA.  Probably none of the other
> nuclear
> >powers has had reason or motivation to develop such forms of weaponry
> >(making bombs which are either smaller or bigger than Hiroshima is 
> >difficult!)

> Somehow I am not buying a word of what you've written. In the fourties the
> Manhattan project developed the two bombs dropped on Japan in a very short
> time, and with immediate success. This tells me that it was not very hard
> to build the bombs.

The net cost of the manhattan district project was something like  
10% of GNP of the most industrialized nation on earth during wartime. 

> (And the one used for testing) The fact that the Bravo
> device later generated 15 Megatons tells me that it is not very hard to
> build large nuclear bombs. 

I consider the total effort expended by the USA between 1943 and 1954 as
indicative of a "very hard" problem.

There were various industrial commodities (mercury? I can't remember what
ones in particular) where the fission and fusion bomb projects consumed
the majority of the world's supply. 

Even the conceptual idea needed to build H-bombs wasn't realized until
quite late despite the majority of the worlds physicists working on the
manhattan project and many continuing thereafter. 

> All you need is a little lithium deuteride.

And a titanic manufacturing base and brains. 

> Zoltan Szakaly

cheers
Matt

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 22:29:30 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Corporation

In article <Z3Nm4aR.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>Bob Sullivan <bsulliva@sky.net> writes:
> 
>>the stronger the case for the Patterson cell.  Whether you intend to or not, 
>>you give the impression that results are an artifact of one specific 
>>measurement protocol and are so tenuous that they will not standup to any 
>>variations. You really know how to build confidence in the things you 
> 
>Obviously you did not read Richard's messages or mine either. This exchange
>started when I pointed out to him that they have used both types of
>calorimeter. Richard is merely insisting that they should have brought in
>the other type to the conference. He doesn't mean it and he does not know
>what he is talking about. If I said they have type X and Y and they brought
>X, he would insist that only Y will do. He does not need a reason and he
>clearly does not have the foggiest what X and Y are in this case, or how
>they work, or what the advantages or disadvantes are. If you read the first
>message in this thread you see that he is wandering around in an impossible
>fantasy world where anything can be true. As the Germans would say, he is
>lost in cloud cuockoo land.
> 
>- Jed

Jed, let me start off by saying that I certainly enjoyed your recent absence. 
Now, I suggest that you not make unwarrented assumptions. I do, in fact, read 
your posts, and I give them every bit of weight they deserve. 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / David Seghers /  Re: Return to Rome
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return to Rome
Date: 18 Oct 1995 00:40:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <460qlq$qo4@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>Return to Rome                                      951017
>
>I have now completed a second trip to Rome.  So far this has
>cost me about 5 vacation days and two exhausting trips, so I
>now claim I have earned the collected money.  
[snip}

Well done!
[snip]

>They did about an hour and a half of me being a talking head
>while they asked a list of prepared questions.  The
>questions were fair and balanced, mostly designed to get my
>view across.  But who knows what they will use.
>
[snip]

Now we have our own s.p.f. TV celebrity! :-)}  

>They seem to have found a few applications for the machine
>whether or not it is over unity.  More power to them to find
>commercial success.
>
>Tom Droege
Amen!  

Now the $700 question can rest in peace!  I bet this is one
of the few times such a group has had to deal with the problem of too 
much money....

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.corp.HP.COM) 415-960-5657
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:51 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> Still the
-> believers are ready to scale up this process to arbitrary temperatures
-> and power levels.  But isn't it just a bit strange the the two
-> demonstrations of this effect that have been reported here have involved
-> a scaling down to smaller size?
 
I don't consider it strange at all.  In fact, that seems to be what would be
expected.  I once demonstrated how you could make a steam powered car and how
the utilities make electricity by burning fuel and using steam.  I did not
bring a steam powered car or a fossil fueled power plant to do the
demonstration, but instead used a small table top boiler and turbine.  No one
seemed to think it strange that I used a scaled down version for demonstration.
To have done otherwise would have been insane.
 
I suggest you attend a science fair some time.  You will find that almost
everything is scaled down for demonstration in those events.  The entries I
made when I was in high school were a beehive, scaled down to one comb,
cracking of crude oil, scaled down from the refinery level, and a computer made
from telephone stepper relays (this was early 60's), scaled down from the
typical computer which whould have taken up a whole room in those days.
 
 
                                                                 Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:08 -0500 (EST)

Jed, I just ran across the announcement that the students at UT (here in
Knoxville) won first prize in Crysler Alternative energy car competition.  They
received $7,750 and a good bit of publicity.  The entry was not anything new,
it was a Neon with an electric engine.
 
Now if this device can be scaled up, and can produce steam, an entry such as
this would be a fantastic publicity.  I can see no way that such an entry that
gets 10,000 mile per gallon of water (or whatever it turns out to be) would
not win first place.
 
I suspect that all they would need to be supplied with would be the power cell
(probably on a loan basis), and they would supply everything else, including
the car, batteries and turbine or steam engine and of course the engineering.
 
If you think they might be interested, I can put them in touch with the
professor and students which have now won first place 4 times in 8 consecutive
alternative fuel competitions.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Robert Tilley /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: Robert Tilley <tilleyrw@digital.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 03:55:16 GMT
Organization: Seekers of Truth

  As someone who has been following this thread for quite some time as a 
"lurker", I feel that I have to interject something that is quite 
similar tohe last posting.
  Cold fusion works. Period. There is no denying that.
  "But wait! That continuous over-unity reading there MUST be from a 
faulty meter!!!"

  What's the point? Those who continue to rebuke the idea as skeptics 
will ALWAYS do so, even years after this phenomena becomes classroom 
science.

  There is no point to further discussion...

tilleyrw@digital.net


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentilleyrw cudfnRobert cudlnTilley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.17 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:02:11 -0700
Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net

In article <45vfah$8rv@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com wrote:

>Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
>: So with 5 watts  and 14 ml/sec I can compute 5/14 joules/ml which
>: directly equates to a pressure. Assuming the other numbers posted are
>: correct, this should be equivalent to 206 atmospheres.
>
>I hope not because 14 ml/sec at 5 joules/sec equates to a pressure drop
>of 3.4 atmospheres!
>
>Note that you should have taken 14 ml per MINUTE, or 0.233 ml per SECOND. :-)

Oops. I guess you get to add me to the list of people who post a little
too fast at times.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Re:  new moderated fusion list
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  new moderated fusion list
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:05:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rich,

The French have a saying:  nothing endures like the provisional.  I hope that
the word fusion hasn't yet been carved into stone in the name of your new
moderated group.

Mixing together hot fusion and so-called cold fusion has produced and will
continue to produce nothing but sterile arguments and confusion, insofar as
the two groups communicate with each other at all.

The evidence accumulated by light water experiments since 1991 leads to two
conclusions:

1)  A new energy-producing phenomenon has been discovered.

2)  It isn't fusion.

In 1989, it was natural to call this group sci.physics.fusion, but that has
turned out to be an inappropriate name.  With 20-20 hindsight, a name like
sci.physics.cf would have been a better choice.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenTstolper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / mitchell swartz /  CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:21:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 In Message-ID: <462vga$kn6@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:

= : Long discussion of warm feline vs cold fusion deleted.
= What I wanted to point out was that 80MJ, which Jed keeps bandying around
= to impress us, is not really very much heat, particularly when you
= consider the runs lengths of which he also boasts. If my cat was running
= on cold fusion then the neutron flux would have obviated one little trip
= to the vet.

  Not sure what warm feline fusion is, but if your "cat" ran on 
cold fusion (nickel and H2O or Pd and D2O) it would be
aneutronic, and there would be no neutron flux.  You might
check the literature, or Dieter's refs, on that matter.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Matt Austern /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:36:42 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience)

In article <1995Oct17.134903.2431@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:

> 3.  The cell is an *open* one, that is, with H2 and O2 bubbling out and
> presumed to leave without recombination.  If recombination occurs inside
> the cell -- which cannot be ruled out at present -- then this recombination
> provides a source of heat that appears to be "excess" but of course is not.

This is an important point.  "Excess heat" is a somewhat ambiguous
phrase, and the ambiguity has the potential to be misleading.

If one doesn't read the fine print, one might naively think that
"excess heat" means that you're getting out more energy than you're
putting in.  In fact, though, it tends, in these experiments, to mean
that you're getting out less energy than you're putting in but more
than your theoretical calculations say you ought to be getting out.

I hope everybody realizes that the second claim is far weaker than the
first, and that it depends crucially on your calculations of how much
heat you should expect.  As Steve Jones has pointed out, it's easy to
get spuriously "excess" heat if some of the assumptions in your
calculation are even slightly wrong.

An experiment that really did involve getting out more energy than
you're putting in---especially, an experiment that involved getting
out enough energy to do work---would not be vulnerable to that
criticism.  It's a pity that there have been no such experiments.
-- 
  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:
cuddy18 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Jones cites recombination
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones cites recombination
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 13:15:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Regarding the CETI cell at SOFE, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
 
     "3.  The cell is an *open* one, that is, with H2 and O2 bubbling out and
     presumed to leave without recombination.  If recombination occurs inside
     the cell -- which cannot be ruled out at present -- then this
     recombination provides a source of heat that appears to be "excess" but
     of course is not."
 
In my report of the cell, I wrote: "In a flow calorimeter, the Delta T
temperature rise was 4 to 5 degrees C, because the flow rate was set at 14.28
ml/min (60 joules = 14.28 calories). Input was 3 volts at 0.02 amps. [60
milliwatts]" I wrote that output was 80 times greater than input. As anyone
can see, that would be the case with total recombination. If no recombination
is occurring then of course the cell is producing roughly 160 times input
energy.
 
I am sure that even Professor Jones realizes that recombination cannot
possibly explain the heat in the CETI cell. He has written this message in
order to confuse readers who are too stupid to understand what "recombination"
is. His message is deliberate, calculated obfuscation. It is an attempt to
evade the issue and bamboozle the public. Jones does not want to admit that
the reports of excess heat from cold fusion have virtually all been correct
and confirmed, and that his arguments to disprove them have no scientific
merit.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  The 80+ MJ from the CETI cell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The 80+ MJ from the CETI cell
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 13:16:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Lawrence E. Wharton" <Wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
     "I had a question about this 85 MJ produced. Where did it come from? . .
     . The SOFE conference did not go on for 197 days.  I must be missing
     something."
 
Yes. You are missing my first message in a previous thread, in which I
reported: "A similar CETI cell at another lab recently ran uninterrupted for
seven weeks, producing a steady 20 watts excess, which adds up to 85
megajoules."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rowe describes Jed's logic incorrectly
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 13:17:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) write:
 
     "Let repeat what your logic seems to be
 
     1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
     2) no possibility of any significant error
     3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
     4) no evidence of fusion other than heat
 
     Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion."
 
This is incorrect. I have NEVER asserted that the process is fusion. I have
always said that fusion appears to be the best working hypothesis, but perhaps
it is something else, like zero point energy. I have repeated time after time
that I do not know what it is, and I don't care either. I am sure it is not
chemistry. I am sure it causes no gross pollution or danger, and I know that
it can produce high temperatures and high power density, so I think it will
become a useful source of energy.
 
Many, many supporters of CF, myself and others, have repeated this simple
logic over and over again. Hundreds of times! Why is it so difficult for
someone like Rowe to follow? It could not be simpler:
 
1. CF cannot be a mistake because the effect is so large and so widely
replicated. In particular, it cannot be "subtle" mistake, because subtle
mistake don't cause gigantic effects.
 
2. It cannot be chemistry because a match cannot burn for a week.
 
3. It must be something that produces far more energy than chemistry. Fusion?
Perhaps. Zero point energy? Something else, completely unknown to science? I
have no idea. That is no concern of mine.
 
 
Rowe also writes:
 
     "Of course there is no possibility you have overlooked something
     or not considered something of importance."
 
Not me -- you. You have not overlooked anything, or failed to consider
anything of importance. For six long years you skeptics have been attempting
to find an error in the cold fusion experimental work. You have not found any
yet, and you never will. The statute of limitations has run out. If there was
an experimental error in the calorimetry of McKubre, or Bockris, Oriani,
Kunimatsu, Cravens, CETI, Amoco Production, Shell Oil or any of the others you
would have found it by now. You would have gleefully come down on them like a
ton of bricks! But that has not happened. There are no "skeptical" critiques
of any of these experiments. You have looked for errors and found NOTHING.
Nothing, that is, unless you count the blather and nonsense from people like
Steve Jones, who claims the CETI heat comes from recombination even though he
knows that would only reduce the excess from 5 watts to 4.97 watts.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Doug Shade /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:20:45 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <pfIHwaU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> He knows damn well that no chemical reaction from 40 mg
> of matter can produce 80 MJ of energy.

He probably knows damn well that it is no *known* chemical reaction...
just as well as it could be no *known* nuclear reaction...
or some other kind of interaction that does not fit into our
current paradigms.  We do after all have a view of the world 
composed of simplifed abstractions.

IMHO all the arguing (discussing) parties are awfully presumptuous 
in saying things like "it is not chemistry" or "it is not fusion".
If someone correctly says "it is not scienceX" then they must be a 
god or soothsayer; knowing all there is to ever know about the way
our world works.

Enough of Grigg's
and his over grown water heater.
A 50 horse blender, 
with a modified beater.

On to CETI,
and beads of metals rare.
Generating free energy,
some in the form of hot air ;)

Keep the posting up Jed.  I'm looking forward to CETI's explanation or
a much scaled up demonstration.  (Now if Griggs just used a palladium
rotor....)

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Bill Page /  Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 7Li(n,2n)6LI driven fusion (was: Farce of Physics)
Date: 18 Oct 1995 17:35:45 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <21cenlogic-1710950953290001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) says:

>        As for your attempt to reclassify this topic under a different
>name, why do you insult Mr. Wallace in this way?

Jeez, get off my back why don't you! You are the only one who is
being insulting here...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones cites recombination
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones cites recombination
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 13:37:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I should add that Jones' message gave the false impression that Miley himself
does not know much about the CETI replication at U. Ill. Furthermore, Jones
refers to the demo of beads from CETI, but he deliberately failed to mention
that the U. Ill. team also replicated the beads independently, tested their
own beads, and observed excess heat. This is more obfuscation from Jones. I
spoke with Miley and he explained many details about the fabrication and
testing. He expressed no doubts about the calorimetry, which we discussed
at length. I do not know whether he did any of the physical labor or not, but
I am sure he knows a lot about the work. I have also hear from the grad
students and the people at CETI who assisted.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 18 Oct 1995 19:47:19 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:

>  Since both h and e are
> constants, m must change.  In fact it must grow by a factor of
> 0.528e-10 meters / 1e-15 meters, or in other words, by a factor of
> 52800.  That would place its mass higher by an order of magnitude
> than a tau and higher by two orders of magnitude than a muon.  So
> tell me, AP, is your conjecture predicting the existence of a new
> lepton of rest energy in the order of 26000 MeV (nearly 30 proton
> masses)?  And if so, why does a neutron weigh far less than 30 proton
> masses, since according to material that you posted above (and I
> agree with) the electron (or whatever you claim is the proton's
> partner in your model of a neutron would have to have that amount
> of mass?

  Brief reply for now since I am thinking on this and HYASYS, far and
away the the most important science in the world, for it is the first
exploration into the Strong Nuclear Force. 
  I suppose it is always best to let the math do all the talking; math
be the final lay-me-down-to-rest; the final arbitrer; math the
explainor as well as explainee, rather than for " me imposing something
extra" for something I am searching for.
  I am seeking the magical number of 83 or 84 or between 83 and 84,
because the Coulomb repulsive force of the nuclear protons disallows
for any more stable isotopes. Perhaps I should not be so narrowly
focused and not seek the 83-84. Perhaps it is not 83-84 but closer to
100? Perhaps all isotopes are radioactively unstable even helium.
Perhaps our understanding of "stable" was just a misunderstanding.
Perhaps stable was just orders of magnitude less radioactive than say
thorium 232@90 which occurs naturally and is the most abundant
occurring isotope of @90 having a half-life at 1.4 x 10^10  years.
Perhaps the half life of 4@2 helium is something like 10^80 years and
if we were to get enough of it in one place and waited long enough we
could measure the decay of some of those helium atoms? Come to think of
it, this kind of makes math logic sense and would explain why no
technetium and promethium stable isotopes. No isotopes are stable, all
decay. For by math logic, if Nature had a fundamental physical laws
which gave "nuclear stability to infinite time" then, by math logic,
both technetium and promethium should have stable isotopes because not
until @83 do you run into difficulty

  Karl, perhaps I should always let the numbers do the talking. And a
valuable lesson learned. Too quick am I at looking for the clear cut
black and white of 83. Instead I should look at the fact that of the
numbers of decay rate at around 100. They drop off exponentially at
over a 100. So 100 is perhaps the vital math numbers.

  I have to research the tau. Somehow the Strong Nuclear Force is the
reconstituting of Electron Space. A normal Electron occupies a huge
space and the space of the normal electron is the difference of its
mass ratio between the proton of approx 1800 times. Thus, when you take
a normal electron and package it up inside a neutron and put the
neutron into the nucleus of an atom, that normal electron transforms
into a nuclear electron where the normal electron space becomes the
Strong Nuclear Force or Energy or Nuclear Coulombic Force. It is not
the mass scale measurement. Instead it is Electron space, space
converted into nuclear electron Strong Nuclear Coulombic Force.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:01:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Austern <matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
 
>putting in.  In fact, though, it tends, in these experiments, to mean
>that you're getting out less energy than you're putting in but more
>than your theoretical calculations say you ought to be getting out.
 
That is a bunch of crap! That is complete, utter, nonsense. There is no
such thing as an experiment where you put in X amount of energy and you
get out LESS than X. That is physically impossible. It is a violation
of the conservation of energy! There were a few experiments back in
1989 where they put in X, and they got out heat + free oxygen and
hydrogen, where the potential energy in the free gas had to be added to
the heat to equal more than the total input energy. Let me repeat: there
were a FEW EXPERIMENTS like that, below the limits of recombination.
The vast majority of CF experiments since 1989 have been either
incorporated a gas recombiner in a closed cell (so that heat from the
gas is added to the other heat), or they have produce far more energy
than the input, so the energy lost to the gas makes no difference.
In the case of the SOFE demonstration, the cell produces 160 times energy
out than you put in. Or, if you want to pretend there were no bubbles
in the tubes and no gas flowmeter, and you want to pretend there was
total recombination (which is what Jones is doing) then there was only
80 times more output than input. Big deal! So what!
 
What on earth makes you think that an experiment can swallow up energy?
What does it mean to say that "you're getting out less energy than you're
putting in." Where do you think it goes? Never never land? Not even a hot
fusion scientist could pull off that trick, and they make the most
innefficient, screwed up energy experiments in history.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Bill Page /  Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
     
Originally-From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Demo at SOFE '95 Worked Well
Date: 18 Oct 1995 21:29:31 GMT
Organization: Daneliuk & Page

In article <MATT.95Oct18103642@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>, matt@godzill
.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) says:
<<
 An experiment that really did involve getting out more energy than
 you're putting in---especially, an experiment that involved getting
 out enough energy to do work---would not be vulnerable to that
 criticism.  It's a pity that there have been no such experiments.
>>

Eh? Are you reading the same newsgroup as the rest of us?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenwspage cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / A Plutonium /  Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Date: 18 Oct 1995 22:47:48 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <951017152438@are107.lds.loral.com>
hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn) writes:

> A neutron size is on the order of 1e-15 meters.  Substitute that into
> the right hand side of equation 38.12.  Since both h and e are
> constants, m must change.  In fact it must grow by a factor of
> 0.528e-10 meters / 1e-15 meters, or in other words, by a factor of
> 52800.  That would place its mass higher by an order of magnitude
> than a tau and higher by two orders of magnitude than a muon.  So
> tell me, AP, is your conjecture predicting the existence of a new
> lepton of rest energy in the order of 26000 MeV (nearly 30 proton
> masses)?  And if so, why does a neutron weigh far less than 30 proton
> masses, since according to material that you posted above (and I
> agree with) the electron (or whatever you claim is the proton's
> partner in your model of a neutron would have to have that amount
> of mass?

  Karl, are you related to a Erwin Hahn who studied solitons at
Stanford? Son?

  Anyway, I see the problem of this huge mass in the nucleus -- yet
when we weigh the mass of the nucleus we do not get these orders of
rest mass/energy something like 30 proton masses. However I feel I can
overcome this obstacle by saying that the 30 proton masses of these
nuclear electrons is in fact the Strong Nuclear Force. I was hoping the
number would have come out around 83-84 or 100 where the Coulombic
force of proton repulsion is dramatic.

  But we can never deny the math and must always in the end rely and
depend firstly and foremost on the math. So, yes, HYASYS will predict
another lepton much higher than the tau within the range of this 26000
MEV of approx. 30 proton mass.

  I feel I can overcome this problem of explanation of mass with the
idea that the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is deficient in the
area of the nucleus and needs a tune-up to our modern day physics. This
new version of UP must subsume the old Heisenberg plus make the nuclear
region right. The new UP must be more general than the old and contain
the old as a term.

  I have this new reformulation of UP worked out qualitatively for now,
and hope to apply math to it to make it right. UP is the same as saying
that if you have a block of pure 100% metal, say all 238@92 uranium.
Then after some days after accurate and precise measurement there will
exist some isotopes of elements lower in number than 92, say lead and
helium from decay of some 238@92. But also, there will exist some atoms
of higher elements such as neptunium and some plutonium in that
starting out pure block of uranium. The old Werner Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle as a principle gave only the radioactive decay
side of the house of probabilities, but it did not give the radioactive
growth side of the experiment. This I feel is a better statement and
more precise than was even the old UP of Heisenberg. And if we
formalize this more general UP into math then old Heisenberg UP will be
a special term of this more general form of UP. And this more general
UP will allow me to escape the "nuclear electron" mass and say that the
Nuclear Strong Force is the difference in that 30 proton mass, that
26000 MEV which is not measured because it went into holding the
protons together as the sticking force the glue of the Strong Nuclear
Force.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.10.18 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: CF demo at SOFE
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF demo at SOFE
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:17:14 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <browe-1710952030510001@10.0.2.15>, browe@netcom.com (Bill
Rowe) wrote:

> In article <pbPEg+Q.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> >browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes:
> > 
> >     "As I see it, a much more important questions Dick raised are why can't
> >     the SOFE result/demonstration be explained in terms of known chemistry?"
> > 
> >Oh come now. You must be kidding. That is even stupider than the flow
> >calorimeter question. That is colossally stupid! Do you think a match
can burn
> >for a month? Get real! There is no chemical fuel in the cell. There is only
> >water, plastic and 40 milligrams of metal, and none of it burns. This cell, I
> >remind you, produced 85 megajoules of energy nonstop, before the conference.
> >The best common chemical fuel is gasoline. It would take 2 kilograms of
> >gasoline to produce that much energy. Can you tell the difference
between 0.04
> >and 2000? This cell produced 50,000 times more energy than any chemical cell
> >could. (Don't forget that water does not burn.)
> > 
> >Only an innumerate and scientifically illiterate fool like Richard Blue would
> >seriously propose that this might be a chemical reaction.
> > 
> > 
> >     "Is there any evidence of fusion other than heat?"
> > 
> >I don't know. I have not discussed that issue with anyone except George
Miley,
> >and he did not have much to say about it yet.
> > 
> > 
> >     "What is the assumed fusion reaction given the description of this
> >     device as working with "light water"?"
> > 
> >The people at CETI make no assumptions about the fusion reactions involved.
> >They don't know what causes the heat. However, they do know that the reaction
> >cannot be chemical, because unlike Richard Blue they understand the
second law
> >of thermodynamics and they can tell the difference between 0.04 and 2000.
> 
> Let repeat what your logic seems to be
> 
> 1) more energy than observed from any known chemistry
> 2) no possibility of any significant error
> 3) can't imagine anyway to explain it with chemistry
> 4) no evidence of fusion other than heat
> 
> Therefore the process is not chemistry but fusion.
> 
> Of course there is no possibility you have overlooked something or not
> considered something of importance.

***{Bill, why do you post stuff like this? Surely you must be aware that
the probability that something has been overlooked depends upon the amount
of time and effort that one has invested searching for it. Jed has been
analyzing this stuff for literally years, and arguing about it with people
such as you and Dick Blue. At some point, he is entitled to conclude that
he hasn't overlooked anything and that the effect must be real! The fact
that you and Dick appear to be utterly impervious to reason on this topic
doesn't mean that everybody else has to be! --Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> Somehow this "logic" is simply not convincing. Bluster and insults doesn't
> make it anymore convincing. In fact, bluster and insults suggests to me
> there is a lack of completeness or ability to give answers to questions.

***{If I understand you, you are saying that Jed should be infinitely
patient. In other words, no matter how rockheaded you guys are, no matter
how many times you ask the same question or succumb to the same fallacy,
no matter how stubbornly you ignore evidence and logic, no matter how long
you cling to positions that are crudely, blatantly, obviously
indefensible, he is obligated to continue politely responding to you,
forever and ever. The implication would seem to be that you guys don't
need to argue well, or bring forward sound evidence, or in any way
demonstrate a shred of a basis for your disbelief. All you have to do is
remain pig headed and obtuse until your opponent's patience is exhausted,
at which point you can point to the resulting intemperate outburst as
evidence of the weakness of his position! Wow! --Mitchell Jones}***   
> -- 
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain"

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 19 04:37:05 EDT 1995
------------------------------
