1996.01.16 / Vertner Vergon / Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Originally-From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Date: 16 Jan 1996 07:45:22 GMT Organization: Cinenet Communications,Internet Access,Los Angeles;310-301-4500 This is a test. ERIC RENOUF (017776r@axe.acadiau.ca) wrote: : In article <4d5ibg$edk@marina.cinenet.net> vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes: : >From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) : >Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes : >Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:57:35 GMT : : >Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote: : >: Anthony Potts wrote: : >: : >: > : >: > : >: >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote: : >: > : >: >> I always wonder how physicists could say that something : >: >> with no mass and no charge exists. : >: >> : >: >If you always wonder this, you must have a very boring life, how do you : >: >have time to converse with people or read books? I am (as I have pointed : >: >out previously) a physicist, and I can tell you that if you are going to : >: >stick to your intuitive ideas about how the universe should behave , then : >: >you will have a very hard time taking in modern physics. You would do : >: >much better to wonder what we can predict about a massless and chargeless : >: >particle, and how well this fits in with the actual behaviour of neutrinos. : >: > : >: : >: And its just SO much more fun. Stretch the mind a little and : >: try to imagine it and how it behaves. Don't try to force the : >: universe to follow your beliefs (you lose), force your mind : >: to follow the evidence. Only slightly harder and MUCH more : >: entertaining. NB A neutrino is better than that. It has no : >: mass, but it does have spin, : : >Then *what* spins? : : : >: which is closely related to : >: angular momentum. : : >Spin in a neutrino is as closely related to angular momentum as it is : >in a top. No mass, no top, no angular momentum. : : >: Thinking classically will really make this : >: a hooey. : >: ------------------------------- : >: 'Oz : : >The only hooey here is the ridiculous position just expounded. : : >I get so tired (and nauseated) listening to that tired old drivel about : >'you must give up your old fashioned outmoded intuitive ideas and enter : >the never never land of modern physics'. : : >This is put forth by people who have lost the way, who have bought : >ridiculous conclusions arrived at through erroneous mathematical : >procedures that lead to reductios ad absurdom. : : >The fact is that when you arrive at a reductio ad absurdom, or any : >other type nonviable conclusion, what you say is 'this is a dead end, I : >must go back and redo it until I come up with something that makes sense. : : >Physics is *physical* and the physical can be visualized (at least : >approximately). : : >Unfortunately, this type of thinkig became fashionable with the advent : >of SR. : : >SR is a mathematical solution to the problems Newtonian dynamics : >suffered at high velocities. : : >It was the genius of Einstein that he saw a bigger picture and discussed : >the invariance of physical laws between frames in relative motion. : : >However, the solution WAS mathematical and the *physical causality* was : >completely negelected. : : >Thus was born the philosophy that you cannot look intuitively at the : >universe. : : >NOT SO. : : >Human nature being what it is those bying the nonphysical universe : >opened a pandora's box. But they don't have the acumen to perceive : >the folly of their ways. : : >Instead they pontificate to those still in control of their senses : >about how they should enter the world of Alice in Wonderland and : >smoke pot. : : >It puts me in mind of the lunatic asylum where the cackling paper : >doll cutters inside think the people on the outside are crazy -- and : >tell them so. : : >Stick to your guns, Herve. : : There are somethings that we observe that simply cannot be explained using : the older ways of thinking. I read your supposed correction to SR, and I : replied to that. I don't think that you have replied to my post yet have : you? If so, I have missed it, so could you please do so again. : : SR aside, how do you visuallize the distortions of the spacetime continuum : that are predicted, and observed, by GR. I have never met anyone who can : actually visuallize that, but it seems to happen. If you don't give up the : concept of absolute space, and time, GR and SR are out of your scope, and : you will find that they don't make sense; however, those who adopt this new : concept of spacetime will be able to see how well SR and GR describe the : universe with virtually no problems. There are no paradoxes in either of : those theories for those who accept the whole theory. Problems only arise : when you hold onto the old concepts of absolute space and time. : : Many things in QM are the same, though I'm not as familiar with this as with : relativity. These are theories that, test after test, provide correct : answers that match what we observe. What reason do you have for not : accepting what these theories tell us? Your own intuition? That isn't : something that offers you any observable evidence. In fact, I think that : you will find that if accurate enough measurements are made, your intuition : will incorrectly predict the results of any experiment. Even something as : simple as the sum of the angles in a triangle will be wrong. Your intuition : will probably tell you 180 degrees, but if you make carefull enough : measurements you will find that the sum of the angles of a tringle is almost : never 180 degrees. : : The reason that we tell you that you have to abandon your old ways of : thinking if you want to understand modern physics is because that is what : the universe tells us. If theory matched observation, then there is a good : chance that there will be some truth to that theory. : : The history of physics is filled with people forcing us to change the way : that we think of things. It was once thought that there were only 4 : elements, if that way of thinking had not been abandon we could never have : progressed even as far as the theory that you cling to. The universe was : once thought to go around the earth, then the sun. Both of those ideas were : given up, so why is yours one that will never have to be given up? What is : so special about the way that you think that makes it eternally correct, : even in the face of observations that contradict it? : : Eric Renouf : 017776r@axe.acadiau.ca cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Giles Colborne / Electronic Journals Originally-From: custserv@ioppublishing.co.uk (Giles Colborne) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Electronic Journals Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 20:20:16 GMT Organization: IOP Publishing I'm part of the Electronic Journals Development Team at The Institute of Physics. We've been working to put all our journals on the Web and the first 14 have just gone online. This includes several which I thought would be of interest to readers of this group. If your library has a print subscription, then you can access them free (your librarians should have registration and password details). More info is available at our Web site: http://www.iop.org/ Journals available from 15 Jan 1996: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical & General Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics Journal of Physics Condensed Matter Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics Journal of Physics G: Nuclear & Particle Physics Classical & Quantum Gravity European Journal of Physics Measurement Science & Technology Nonlinearity Physics in Medicine and Biology Plasma Physics & Controlled Fusion Pure & Applied Optics Semiconductor Science & Technology Superconductor Science & Technology Giles Colborne custserv@ioppublishing.co.uk Institute of Physics Publishing is a not-for-profit learned society publisher -- Giles Colborne Electronic Products Analyst colborne@ioppublishing.co.uk cudkeys: cuddy16 cudencustserv cudfnGiles cudlnColborne cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Ray Randon / microscope "ME 2E" Originally-From: rrandon@news.bol.net (Ray A. Randon) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: microscope "ME 2E" Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 12:09:33 -0800 Organization: Online Internet Services For sale A Universal camera microscope "ME F2" optical bench-table (wired) This is an unusual set of equipment purchased from an technical Institution. It is an older model, but in perfect working condition, with all eye pieces and other attachments in wooden cases. This equipment is of the highest quality and workmanship. The unit consists of a small multi-voltage (electrically) wired table that also functions as an optical bench and a complete and operating "ME F2" Universal Camera Microscope. There are also easy to read and follow instruction manuals and operating instructions. The equipment for microscopy and photomicrography is capable of up to 2000 X magnification. The microscope portion of the unit can be easily removed and the unit changed over from a functioning unit for microscopy to one for photography, the so called "photomicrography". HISTORY: The Universal Camera Microscope was used by world renown workers/ authorities in the field of practical metallography ( ie. metallography laboratories) in America and Europe (specifically Germany & France). INSTRUCTION MANUALS: -Practical microscopical metallography -The principles of Metallographic laboratory specimens -Methods of preparation of metallographic specimens -photomicrography -Symposium on metallography in color. -Metallographers handbook on etching FEATURES: Certain components of this unusual set of equipment and accessories deserve special mention. -Regulating transformers for alternating power sources - currents. -Resistance regulator -Low voltage quartz iodine lamp. -Multi voltage (110, 125, 150, 220, 250 v) function. -Camera with focussing telescope -Binocular viewing eye piece -Micrometer for making measurements -Projection of image to a screen -Focusing magnifier -determining exposure time -photomicrographic magnification -Magnetic specimen holder -Polarizers and other equipment for polarizing light. -Lenses- polar and non-polar lenses -Filters-(color, polar, and non polar filters and other filtering eqip. -Condensers -(polarizing condensers and multi-lens condensers) -Magnifiers (from 5X to 2000X magnifications) -Deflecting prism -Other attachments This unit could be used for gem appraisals / evaluations, forensic investigations, specimen photography for museums, publications, and art displays in lobbies of metal mining company head offices, metal fabricators, mineralogical firms metallurgy and petroleum firms and many more applications. This fine piece of equipment can be purchased for approximately 10 % of its initial value. For more information call Ray Randon at 446-0518 cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenrrandon cudfnRay cudlnRandon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Internet / cmsg cancel <-1390328173.ensmtp@news.bol.net> Originally-From: Internet@news.bol.net (Internet) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <-1390328173.ensmtp@news.bol.net> Date: 16 Jan 1996 21:12:27 GMT Cancelled by jem@xpat.postech.ac.kr. 821826746 SPEWbol cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenInternet cudlnInternet cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / I Johnston / Re: Cold Fusion Times Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Date: 16 Jan 1996 21:35:49 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote: : Please, not too hard on this guy. Remember, the Brits love a good : hoax which, which if combined with a conspiracy theory, will provide many : hours of cost-effective entertainment. Given that CF is starting to : look more and more like Crop Circles, it's perfect! Please don't be too hard on us. There was an excellent debunking of F&P on Horizon a couple of years before some technically airheaded producer thought that Meyer's steam car was photogenic. Why does everyone keep going on about conspiracy theories? Ian cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.15 / Bill Snyder / Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 23:39:23 GMT Organization: customer of Internet America In message , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > If he installs a heat exchanger and >opens the top to the reservoir, he will see performance similar to what >Dennis reports: at 500 watts the terminal temperature will be 15 to 30 >watts hotter than ambient, depending on how much hose there is in the >radiator, how big the fan is, and other factors. That would be a good trick. You claim a cell *output* temp of 35 degrees C, with a cell delta-T of 8 degrees. Now I dunno what 35 - 8 is in RothwellMath, but last time I looked, the skeptics were calling it 27 degrees. If the room were 15 to 30 degrees cooler than that, it would be in the range of 12 to -3 degrees C. To put it mildly, that doesn't exactly square with your statement that the room was uncomfortably warm. A temperature between 26.6 Fahrenheit and 53.6 F is unlikely to produce the stampede to crank up the air conditioning such as you described, unless perhaps the occupants of the room were Aleuts. Bad Believer. No cookie until you do a little more work on keeping your stories straight. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Bill Snyder / Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 03:28:40 GMT Organization: customer of Internet America In message <4deq7g$bgo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram) wrote: >In article <4da68d$k8b@news-f.iadfw.net>, bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) >writes: >> >>If you or the original poster can find a 3.5W muffin fan which >>delivers 42 CFM, let me know. Cf. the 6 CFM noted by John Logajan for >>his 9W fan. >> >> >Bill, the Mouser Electronics catalog #584 Jan 1996 lists many fans >of the capacity you distrust. Here is just one: >Mouser Stock #5912-4312. 4.7"x4.7"x1.3", 5.0 watts, > _100_ CFM, price 28.25 on catalog page 204 Ten bucks says the figure you're quoting is operating into 0 back pressure. Now, are there some other delivery figures for various back-pressures, and maybe a cut-off spec? -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / meron@cars3.uc / Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Originally-From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Hints that the photon has a finite rest mass Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:03:57 GMT Organization: CARS, U. of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637 In article <30fb4106.1940939@nntp.interaccess.com>, rooster@interaccess.com (TS) writes: >Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: > > >>c. Nothing in the universe travels at c, not even photons. Thus, c like >>0 Kelvin are limits or barriers or impossibilities. > >Most advanced graduate level texts in quantum statistical >thermodynamics or kinetic theory explain how negative absolute >temperatures can (and are commonly) obtained. So I certainly wouldn't >call it an 'impossible barrier'. Well, yes and no. Negative absolute temperature is hotter than any positive absolute temperature. It can be obtained only in a system with a finite number of degrees of freedom, else infinite energies are involved. Now, strictly speaking, totally isolated systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom don't exist. What you can have, though, are systems where few degrees of freedom are sufficiently decoupled from the rest so that for a finite (rather short, usually) span of time they can be considered in isolation. Lasers are such systems and the concept of "negative temperature" is useful over there. One should be aware, though, that it is really just a "quasi-temperature" Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmeron cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / james dolan / Re: Cold Fusion Times Originally-From: james dolan Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Date: 17 Jan 1996 04:05:52 GMT Organization: fair play for neptune committee mitchell swartz writes: -throwing such a rock from your glass house of cards. classic. did anyone ever figure out what swartz's native language is? cudkeys: cuddy17 cudfnjames cudlndolan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / jonesse@plasma / Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Bose Corp.: NO real excess heat; H2O and D2O both tried Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 16 Jan 96 16:15:09 -0700 Date: 16 Jan 96 16:13:13 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University Organization: Brigham Young University Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Message-ID: <1996Jan16.161313@plasma.byu.edu> Date: 16 Jan 96 16:13:13 -0700 Distribution: world Organization: Brigham Young University Lines: 65 Letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corp. in Massachussetts, who led an exhaustive search for excess heat from both light water and heavy water electrolytic cells. Dr. Shkedi was dissatisfied with the review of his and colleagues' paper in Fusion Facts (Nov. '95), so he sent this letter -- which was published in Fusion Facts in December 1995 issue. The thorough Bose Corp. paper was published in Fusion Technology, Nov. 1995 issue. Quoting now from Dr. Shkedi's letter: . . . The difference between this work and all other published research in the field is that once excess heat was found, the researchers did not pause to celebrate but continued the research to identify the source of the excess heat. To everybody's surprise, including the authors' ... the common assumption that underlies almost every "successful" light water experiment, i.e. that the Faraday efficiency is unity, was proven to be wrong. When the "excess heat" data were analyzed, taking into account the actual Faraday efficiency, all "excess heat" disappeared and the energy balance turned out to be exactly zero. The data, the methodology, and the analysis, are all presented in the Shkedi et al. paper. By contrast, it is interesting to note that in the Mills and Good paper published in the same issue of _Fusion Technology_, the excess heat claimed to be found by Mills and Good is predicated on the assumption stated following equation (7): "The net Faraday efficiency of gas evolution is ASSUMED to be unity." Famous cold fusion scientists have served as consultants to Bose Corp. throughout the research. Many more, from around the globe, have either visited the Bose cold fusion laboratory or were visited by one of the Bose team members. The authors have included in the list of experiments every advice given them by the most famous and successful cold fusion researchers. In addition, manuscripts of the publication were sent out for comments and suggestions to many researchers with whom the authors kept close contacts. All the recommendations have been implemented, yet, the end result was no real excess heat. For the heavy-water experiments the authors have tried all known sources of "hot" palladium; spent unlimited resources to have custom lots of palladium and palladium/silver manufactured for them according to successful researchers specifications; had single- crystal palladium cathodes custom grown; palladium grain size ranged from a few microns to single crystal; D/Pd loading ratios were consistently in the range of 0.85 - 0.95; yet, again, no excess heat. The authors have offered to some of the most famous scientists in the field to try their cathodes, cells, and loading protocols in the Bose calorimeters, at Bose expense. All offers have been declined despite the fact that the Bose calorimeters were the most accurate and stable calorimeters reported in the field. Since the Bose cold fusion laboratory has been disassembled this opportunely is no longer available. With all due respect, the conclusion is unavoidable... the end result was no excess heat. ... Very Truly Yours, Zvi Shkedi Bose Corporation Framingham, Massachussetts cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / jonesse@plasma / Hello again; solar cooker works well Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hello again; solar cooker works well Subject: Hello again; solar cooker works well Date: 16 Jan 96 15:52:22 -0700 Date: 16 Jan 96 15:46:41 -0700 --originally posted 12 Jan Organization: Brigham Young University Organization: Brigham Young University Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Hello again; solar cooker works well Message-ID: <1996Jan16.154641@plasma.byu.edu> Date: 16 Jan 96 15:46:41 -0700 --originally posted 12 Jan Distribution: world Organization: Brigham Young University Lines: 61 Dear Colleagues: Our disk crashed so that I have not had access to spf for some time, in or out. I have used the time for research, which is better I must say. Let me report that our sonoluminescence experiments (over many months) using D2O and D2, (also mercury and D2) multi-bubble, single-bubble (yes!, we successfully got it) , and E-quest (George & Stringham)-type experiments have all given null results: no neutrons above a very low background (0.7 events per *hour*). I have invited anyone to come to our lab, which is the best available I believe for low-level neutron detection-- and visitors have come, but *none* of them have been able to produce neutrons either. A Pu source shows that our detector works fine, however. So I am tiring of "cold fusion" (outside of muon-catalyzed fusion.) I have also been working for months on a cheap, reliable and safe solar collector for use primarily by third-world peoples. Nearly half the world's population cooks by burning biomass, and over 1 billion now find fuelwood in short supply. In some areas, such as the Altiplano in Bolivia, wood is gone and dung is burnt for cooking. Today (1/12/96), the air temp in Provo was about 46 F, (7 C) yet I was able with my little (0.5 m across) homemade solar collector to bring water in a jam jar to 109.2 C, about 230 F. (Pressure built up in the jar. Boiling occurred when I opened the jar.) Inner, black jar was nested inside another clear jar. Temps. measured using a Pt-resistance probe. I am very enthusiastic about the prospects for solar cooking -- a real and viable alternative energy source -- indeed, one which uses the fusion energy of the sun. Sun-rich countries along the tropics are the ones most in need of such cookers I believe. Our little cooker along with the Solar CooKit and Solar Box Cooker from Solar Cookers Int'l (Sacramento, CA -- non-profit org.) will be sent to testing on the Altiplano later this month. So I have been working hard to get ours optimized, and indeed it compares favorably with these other solar cookers. I could use suggestions: 1. Cheap, shiny, flexible plastic or metal, self-supporting. (I built my prototypes from cardboard and Al foil, cheaply -- works fine, actually, but looking for something better -- smoother, still cheap.) 2. Cheap, reliable pressure valve, operating a little above 1 atm. (Cooking rate approx. doubles for each 10 C above 90 C.) --Note added 1/16: today I used an ordinary canning jar, which relieves pressure inside the jar through the lid per design -- a very nice solution to this problem. Perhaps I will send a Dec. 1995 letter from Shkedi of the Bose corp. who did extensive CF experiments using light water -- and found NO excess heat. I am quickly getting tired of CF claims with inconsistent or no identified products and insufficient details to permit in-depth scientific scrutiny. --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Jon LeVitre / Re: Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass & neutrino rest mass Originally-From: jonl@cs.pdx.edu (Jon P LeVitre) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Outlines for the experiments to prove photon rest mass & neutrino rest mass Date: 16 Jan 1996 11:58:50 -0800 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: >In 1995 I was working on the correct definition of dimension. It is >linked to the number of operators of a space which are necessary and >sufficient >For Eucl 2-dim Space 4 operators necess and suff. and they are >add,subtr,mult,divid >For Eucl 3 Space 8 operators are necess and suff and they are >add,subtr,mult,divid,diff,integrate,exp funct, ln funct How can addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division be sufficient for Euclidian 2-D space? You also need exponentiation to get sqrt(2), which is in 1-D space. Similarly, why are differentiation and integration necessary in 3-D space, but not 2-D space? If you ever looked into a Calculus book, you might notice that most of the differentiation and integration problems are in 2 dimensions. jonl cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenjonl cudfnJon cudlnLeVitre cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Peter Hullah / Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium Originally-From: Peter Hullah Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:33:04 GMT Organization: EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation WILL YOU PLEASE REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION FROM SOC.CULTURE.BRITISH AND ALT.COMEDY.BRITISH. WE COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PARTICLE PHYSICS ETC. Thank you! -- Peter H.C. Hullah B3.3 General Computing Facilities e-mail: Peter.Hullah@eurocontrol.fr EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Phone: +33 1 69 88 75 49 BP 15, Rue des Bordes, Fax: +33 1 60 85 15 04 91222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEX France cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenHullah cudfnPeter cudlnHullah cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / Arnie Frisch / Re: CETI should set cooperation bit Originally-From: arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CETI should set cooperation bit Subject: Response to I Johnston Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Date: 17 Jan 1996 16:27:54 GMT Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 16:19:55 -0500 Date: 10 Jan 1996 10:03:50 GMT Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:17:07 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Organization: Edinburgh University Organization: Edinburgh University In article mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes: >-> Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote: >-> : You are the one who needs to go back and look at what Jed said. In fact, >-> : there was an ongoing thread that villified your hero for his REPEATED >-> : reports of a power gain in excess of 700 in the SHORTED control device. >-> >-> : Go look before you bullshit me anymore. > >Fine, I cannot find any evidence that Jed said such a thing in the archives. >Please repost the relevent message. I don't think it exists, but since we do >miss postings sometimes here, I cannot be certain. The ball is in your court. > >Marshall > I don't have it locally, so I'll search for the original. However, feast your eyes on the following three articles that refer to what Jed posted. From news.cse.tek.com!news.tek.com!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news feed.mci.newscorp.com!news.delphi.com!usenet Wed Jan 17 08:07:38 PST 1996 Article: 20900 of sci.physics.fusion Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Response to I Johnston Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 16:19:55 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 17 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) asks: "Why - did - the - CETI - instrumentation - show - excess - power - in - the - control - cell?" It did not show excess power. It showed a close balance with input. "They - decided - the control - cell - was - faulty - because - it - showed - excess - heat. How - do - they - know - the - test - cell - isn't - faulty - too?" This is incorrect. The control cell was faulty because the flow was blocked. When they multiplied the reduced flow per second * Delta T temperature * 4.2, they found that it equalled input power in watts. - Jed Article: 20903 of sci.physics.fusion Path: news.cse.tek.com!news.tek.com!uw-beaver!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathwork .com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.e .ac.uk!ianj Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Date: 10 Jan 1996 10:03:50 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Lines: 30 Message-ID: <4d02u6$t6a@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> References: <4cotr1$hea@sundog.tiac.net <4ctv2i$b3t@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: castle.ed.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : I Johnston writes: : : >So, Jed, the measurements you took showed that the faulty control cell : >was not producing excess heat, did they? After all, CETI's : >instrumentation was completely fooled by it, so it would be nice to know : >that you weren't. : : I did not take any measurments of it, I went to bed. It was the middle of : the night Atlanta time. CETI's instrumentation was not fooled by it. : As soon as they looked they saw the flow was choked off. Nobody was : fooled by it, and nobody is fooled by the nonsensical claims in your : messages either. But they only looked at it, did they not, because a control cell cannot produce heat? And the best argument they can come up with to convince us that the flow through the test cell was not choked is that it looked ok. Because they "couldn't get a flowmeter in time." If their instrumentation was acceptable the control cell would have been shown to be under unity. If it showed over unity for the control there is absolutely no reason to belive in over unity in the test cell. Have you decided whether the 1300W run was eight hours (as you claimed to have observed) or 15 minutes (as CETI claim) yet? On the bright side Jed, it's CETI who look like crooks. For once, you're only coming across as stupid. Ian Article: 20906 of sci.physics.fusion Path: news.cse.tek.com!news.tek.com!psgrain!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!ne sfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!ianj Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Rothwell distances self from CETI Date: 12 Jan 1996 11:17:07 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4d5fvj$ki8@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> References: <4cotr1$hea@sundog.tiac.net <4ctv2i$b3t@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <4d02u6$t6a@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: castle.ed.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : I Johnston writes: : : >But they only looked at it, did they not, because a control cell cannot : >produce heat? And the best argument they can come up with to convince us : >that the flow through the test cell was not choked is that it looked ok. : : The argument is not "that it looked ok" -- the argument is that *it measured : ok*, repeatedly, in test after test, and furthermore that anyone can look : at a transparent plastic tube with electrolysis bubbles moving through : it and ascertain that the flow is continuing. You are arguing that a : person cannot measure flow with a cylinder and a stopwatch, yet this : method was used by Galileo and countless other scientists, and nobody : knows any reason why it should not work. Neither do you. I don't know why I bother trying, but here goes again...Jed, read this slowly with pause between the words. Why - did - the - CETI - instrumentation - show - excess - power - in - the - control - cell? They - decided - the control - cell - was - faulty - because - it - showed - excess - heat. How - do - they - know - the - test - cell - isn't - faulty - too? You - can - measure - flow - with - a - cylinder - and - stopwatch, - but you - are - likely - to - alter - the - flow - you - are - measuring. Ian PS And finally: Did - the - 1300W - run - last - for - many - hours - as - you - claimed - to - have - observered - or - for - 15 - minutes - as - CETI - claim? So I guess I didn't make it all up. Jed did! Arnold Frisch Tektronix Laboratories ------------------------------------------------------- Any ideas or opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------- cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Magnum 350 Run Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:19:38 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: > MARSHALL DUDLEY writes: > > >This statement is not in evidence. If we are talking about a centrifigul pump > >then the torque goes way down when you throttle it (like stopping up the hose > >on a vacuum cleaner). If we are talking about a positive displacement pump, > >then the torque goes way, way up when you try to trottle the output. I am > > Marshall, this is an odd question, but someone in a private e-mail > discussion of this said that the performance of a centrifigul pump would > be different if you throttle it by blocking the input (stopping up the > hose on the vacuum cleaner) versus blocking the output. I don't think that > is true. Maybe with air, which is compressible, you might see a difference > because the pressure would go up if you blocked the outlet, but with > water I would think it would be exactly the same no matter which end you > throttle. What do you think? > > - Jed Since I made the e-mail statement to which you refer, let me elaborate. In the case of a centrifugal air pump, when the output is blocked, the pressure rises in the outlet tube from the impeller housing all the way back to the inside of the cavity swept by the impeller blades. Result: the mass of the air being spun around in a circle by the blades of the impeller increases, and the load on the impeller increases. In addition, because the same air is being swung around in a circle over and over (with the outlet blocked, new air cannot be introduced) it rapidly heats up due to friction with the walls of the impeller housing, etc. This heating effect may damage some pumps, particularly those which are made of inexpensive materials such as plastic. I should emphasize, however, that this effect becomes dangerous only when the outflow from the impeller housing is completely blocked, or almost completely blocked. Partial blockage of the air outflow, within the normal range of operation of the pump, will not significantly affect its usable life or its performance. Within that normal range, power consumption will be proportional to the rate of air flow. When a centrifugal air pump is blocked on the input side (e.g., as with a vacuum cleaner), what happens is that the air in the impeller housing is mostly hurled out through the outlet tube, with a corresponding drop in the air pressure within the housing (because the input is blocked). The impeller begins to cavitate--to turn in a vacuum or near vacuum--and the power consumption drops to whatever level is necessary to maintain rpm with the tiny frictional load that remains. Here there is no overheating danger, and no risk of damage to the pump (assuming that the impeller bearings do not depend on an air flow to prevent overheating, which they normally do not). In this case, there is essentially no danger to the pump due to complete shutoff of the flow, and power consumption is proportional to the flow rate throughout the range of pump performance. Bottom line: there is a significant difference in effect, depending on whether you block the outflow or the inflow, where centrifugal pumps are concerned. Blocking the outflow increases the fluid pressure in the pump housing, while blocking the inflow decreases it. The exception would be cases where the outflow is directly connected to the inflow via a closed loop. In those cases, when you block the inflow, you automatically block the outflow as well. These cases produce a pressure jump in the impeller housing, and must be treated as blocked outflow conditions. The above remarks apply only to air pumps. For water pumps, the considerations are similar, but not identical. If you block the outflow of an open loop centrifugal water pump, the following effects are possible: (1) With a high impeller rpm, rapid heating of the water trapped in the impeller housing is likely. If the mass of the trapped water in the housing is small relative to the power consumption of the pump motor, it may flash to steam, producing an explosion that destroys the impeller housing. (2) If the pump is designed to pull in millions of air bubbles with the water through the input tube, complete blockage of the outflow will prevent this effect, increasing the mass being spun around in the impeller housing and the load on the motor. (3) Though water is relatively incompressible, a stream of water with millions of air bubbles inside it is highly compressible, and so outflow blockage can often compress the fluid stream even when water is the fluid being pumped. (4) With outflow blockage, various exotic "water hammer" type effects can arise, in which resonant vibrational feedback from the blockage point can destroy an impeller. These effects do not arise when the inflow is blocked. Since these effects do not appear when the inflow to the pump is blocked, there is, again, a difference between blocking the pump outlet and blocking the inlet. Again, however, these effects appear only when complete blockage, or almost complete blockage, is accomplished. Over the normal operating range of a pump, power consumption is proportional to flow rate, and it makes no discernable difference whether the inlet or the outlet is blocked. To be safe, however, I would always install my flow control valve on the inlet side, unless there were very strong reasons for placing it on the outlet side, and I would avoid closed loop flow configurations where conveniently possible. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy17 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / RMCarrell / Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Originally-From: rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Date: 17 Jan 1996 06:16:14 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Regarding the source of the fan characteristics: I used the same Mouser catalog that Vince Cockeram cited in his response to Bill Snyder. Mike Carrell cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenrmcarrell cudlnRMCarrell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY / Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM. Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1996 23:45 -0500 (EST) schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) writes: -> Martin Sevior (msevior) wrote: -> -> : 1 mole of gas = 22.4 litres so... -> -> Actually, 1 mole of an *ideal* gas is 22.4 liters at 0 Celsius and 1 -> atmosphere pressure. At 30 C and 1 atmosphere, 1 mole of air (20% O2/ -> 80% N2) is closer to 25 liters (using the van der Waals equation and -> stopping at two figures). Wow, learn something new every day! I always thought that STP, standard temperature and pressure was 760 mm of mercury and 20 or 25 C. But there it is bigger than life in my CRC handbook, STP is 760 mm and 0 C. Darn, that means that the calculations I have been working on for a special project the last two days are wrong. :( Marshall cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / John Logajan / Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated! Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CETI's 1.3kW CF Reactor Demonstrated! Date: 17 Jan 1996 05:22:54 GMT Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Ted Craven (ted) wrote: : So at the time Mr. Bass made his measurements, the control cell was : not blocked. Mr. Bass says he twice measured the flow at 1.2 l/min, : the same as the power cell. The control cell voltage was 4.75 volts : and the current was an unremarkable .33 Amps, so the control cell was : not shorted then either. The total power into the control cell was : 1.6 watts, only slightly higher than the 1.4 watts being fed into : the power cell. I think there never was a possibility that the powersupply could alone deliver sufficient heat, shorted or otherwise. The only things capable of the required magnitude of error were flow rate or faulty temperature readings. As far as I know, Dr. Bass never responded to questions about his account, which is unfortunate. : Let's suppose that the input probe became decoupled in this way, but : that the output probe did not. And further suppose that the actual input : and output temperature of the cell was 17 degrees above ambient (no energy : production). Then the output probe would correctly register a temperature : of 17 degrees, but because of the assumed decoupling the input probe might : only report a temperature of (say) 1 degree above ambient. This would create : the appearance of a 16 degree C temperature rise through the cell when : there was actually no rise at all. The delta-T across the control cell was not that great. But apparently the operation of the control cell thermometers was never verified, at least during that failed run (as far as I know.) However, on later runs, Jed took 250 ml samples from input and output streams and verified their temperatures against the temperatures reported by the in-line thermometers. But he only did this on the experimental cell, and not on the control cell. So the control cell could have suffered the syndrome you suggest (there is no way to rule it out.) But the experimental cell seems to have had independent temperature verification which would rule out the syndrome you mention -- at least for the later lower power runs. But do note, that the control and experimental cells were fed from the same fluid stream, and therefore the actual inlet temperatures should have been pretty close. So if the absolute temperature was measured at both, and they agreed, this would either argue against a false reading, or require both inlet probes to mis-read in identical manners. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / Wayne Throop / Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Originally-From: throopw%sheol.uucp@dg-rtp.dg.com (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro Subject: Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. White washes Date: 17 Jan 1996 05:35:46 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems (Raleigh, NC) : From: vergon@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) : The paradox exists in SR Presumably, VV means the twin paradox. Yet VV has never demonstrated such a paradox without resorting to treating a noninertial frame as equivalent to an inertial frame. This is invalid in SR. Therefore, VV has never shown the paradox derivable in SR. Let us now focus our attention on those elements which this theory [special relativity] has taken over from classical mechanics. Here also, natural laws claim validity only when an inertial system is taken as the basis of space-time description. The principle of inertia and the principle of the constancy of the speed of light are valid only with respect to an *inertial* *system*. --- Einstein, Relativity, Crown, 1961, page 150 : They are willig to let the "explanation" of the universe be a : mathematical one -- when the truth of the matter is the job is half : done uless there is a derivation of the math that is *physical*. That's why Einstein carefully tied all his formalisms to physical events, and his description is therefore not a purely mathematical one. Special relativity is a physical theory. Formally it is essentialy analytic geometry, but the formalisms are carefully tied to physics. Einstein spends whole chapters discussing the relationship of formal rules to physical reality. Thus, as in classical mechanics, space is here [in special relativity] also an independent component in the representation of physical reality. --- Einstein, Relativity, Crown, 1961, page 150 The whole of the content of the special theory of relativity is included in the postulate: The Laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations. --- Einstein, Relativity, Crown, 1961, page 148 -- Wayne Throop throopw%sheol.uucp@dg-rtp.dg.com throop@aur.alcatel.com cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenuucp cudfnWayne cudlnThroop cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / mitchell swartz / Re: Cold Fusion Times Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 05:46:44 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <4dhsj0$2ne@galaxy.ucr.edu> Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times james dolan writes: "-throwing such a rock from your glass house of cards." =jd "classic. ..." Was that a slipped adjective? thanks. ;-)X cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / mitchell swartz / Re: Cold Fusion Times Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 05:50:43 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <4dgj59$hg0@tekadm1.cse.tek.com> Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Times arnief@wu.cse.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes: = Your posting is not worth responding to ..... = Arnold Frisch = Tektronix Laboratories Arnold. You elected your own sig. You have also elected to attack people in field about which you know relatively nothing based on the paucity of facts which support many of your comments. There is no response, because of the lack of facts (as ever). Good luck in your work and studies. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / John White / Maximum air flow through CETI "heat exchanger" is 10 cfm Originally-From: jnw@lys.vnet.net (John N. White) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Maximum air flow through CETI "heat exchanger" is 10 cfm Date: 17 Jan 1996 14:37:23 -0500 Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779 I found some information on a variety of muffin fans. These fans can develop a head of between 1.8 and 6.6 mmH2O. Now the little 3.5w fan used in the Power-Gen demo is probably near the lower end of this range, but by assuming the highest value we can calculate an upper limit to the air flow that a muffin fan can push through the eight .5 inch holes of the "heat exchanger". Converting 6.6 mmH2O to the velocity that air escaping from this pressure differential can achieve gives 23.86 feet/sec. This velocity must now be multiplied by the "factor of discharge" for an orifice in a thin plate at low pressure differentials (which is .65). 23.86*.65 gives 15.51 feet/sec. The area of the eight holes is 8*Pi*(.5/2)^2 which gives 1.57 in^2, or .010908 ft^2. Thus the air flow is 15.51 ft/s * .010908 ft^2 * 60 s/min which gives 10.15 cfm. Thus, 10 cfm is the maximum flow that any ordinary muffin fan could push through the Power-Gen demo's "heat exchanger". -- jnw@vnet.net cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.16 / Bill Rowe / Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:53:36 -0800 Organization: none apparent In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com wrote: >Another message indicated that temperatures of 60 C water are scalding. So I >put a pot of water on a burner and heated it up to 60 C. My interpretation of >what it felt like was, 40 C - lukewarm, 50 C, hot, but not uncomfortable so, 60 >C quite hot, uncomfortable but not scalding. I certainly would not want to >take a bath in it, but I left my hand in there for 10 seconds before it felt >like it might do some damage. Examining my hand 10 minutes later there is no >sign that any damage occurred. Thus Sullivan's statement that 60 C water is >scalding does not hold up to experimental evidence. I do not plan on determing >the point at which scalding actually occurs for obvious reasons. Perhaps you are less sensitive to hot water than others. 60C is 140F this is quite sufficient to scald skin. In fact with small children around one would definitely not want thier hot water heater set this high. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." cudkeys: cuddy16 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / mitchell swartz / Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 06:04:06 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA In Message-ID: <1996Jan16.161313@plasma.byu.edu> Subject: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Steve Jones of Brigham Young University writes: "Letter from Zvi Shkedi of the Bose Corp. in Massachussetts, who led an exhaustive search for excess heat from both light water and heavy water electrolytic cells. ..... [Mr. Jones types the letter, except for the first and last paragraph]. Steve's post got me to reread the letter in last months' Fusion Facts. The first paragraph of the letter was removed from said post. Given the explicit, wide-ranging, and apparently obvious and "closed" subject listed in the post, it is important to consider further what that paragraph said. It said: "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells." There were more excellent comments in the letter, and paper. It appears that once again, this is a more complicated subject than some TB-skeptics would like others to believe. -------- cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.15 / Craig Haynie / cmsg cancel <30FB25D0.50B6@ix.netcom.com> Originally-From: Craig Haynie Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <30FB25D0.50B6@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:14:36 -0600 Organization: Netcom This message was cancelled from within Mozilla. cudkeys: cuddy15 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / JEChampion / Re: Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96 Originally-From: jechampion@aol.com (JEChampion) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium - 1/20/96 Date: 17 Jan 1996 02:13:41 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Just read your note. I know it's late in the day but wondered if you would like to have a sample of nuclear synthesized platinum? If you check the isotopic ratios you will have to confirm its man made origin. cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenjechampion cudlnJEChampion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.18 / Bob Sullivan / Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 03:06:06 GMT Organization: SkyNET Online In article , mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote: [. . .] ->Another message indicated that temperatures of 60 C water are scalding. So I ->put a pot of water on a burner and heated it up to 60 C. My interpretation of ->what it felt like was, 40 C - lukewarm, 50 C, hot, but not uncomfortable so, 60 ->C quite hot, uncomfortable but not scalding. I certainly would not want to ->take a bath in it, but I left my hand in there for 10 seconds before it felt ->like it might do some damage. Examining my hand 10 minutes later there is no ->sign that any damage occurred. Thus Sullivan's statement that 60 C water is ->scalding does not hold up to experimental evidence. I do not plan on determing ->the point at which scalding actually occurs for obvious reasons. -> ->Marshall -> . . . I left my hand in there for 10 seconds before it felt like it might do some damage. That just exactly what I had in mind. Painful to the touch, likely to cause damage with extended exposure. cudkeys: cuddy18 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / I Johnston / Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Bose Corp. finds NO excess heat in CF cells -- H2O and D2O tried Date: 17 Jan 1996 09:46:06 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote: : "The conclusion of the work was NOT that excess heat has not : been found in the ligh-water cells. On the contrary, excess heat : WAS FOUND AND MEASURED in all the light-water cells." Yes, that was implicit and quite clear in Steve Jones' posting - which showed that the excess heat measured was an artifact of an incorrect assumption about the Faraday efficiency. So what? Ian cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.17 / Robert Heeter / Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview) Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc .answers,news.answers Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview) Date: 17 Jan 1996 04:19:33 GMT Organization: Princeton University Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995 Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!). ---------------------------------------------------------------- ### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research ---------------------------------------------------------------- # Written/Edited by: Robert F. Heeter Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory # Last Revised February 26, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------- *** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- * 1) Contents This file is intended to indicate (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, (B) what it discusses, (C) how to find it on the Internet, and (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project * 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ? The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and other resources for those interested in learning more. The Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing brief explanations of the language of the field. * 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ: Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion", sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive as possible, while still covering everything I felt was important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. * 4) How to Use the FAQ: This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it will not be too hard to use. Part (C) below describes how to find the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web. * 5) Claims and Disclaimers: This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such, it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects. This document should not be distributed for profit, especially without my permission. Individual sections may have additional restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date, or this paragraph be removed. - Robert F. Heeter ------------------------------------------------------------------- *** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** What This FAQ Discusses ***************************************************************** (Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion. Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly. Each listed part is posted as a separate file.) Section 0 - Introduction Part 1/3 - Title Page Table of Contents How to Find the FAQ Current Status of the FAQ project Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions Part 3/3 - Revision History Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.) Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices Section 6 - Recent Results Section 7 - Educational Opportunities Section 8 - Internet Resources Section 9 - Future Plans Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion: Part 0/26 - Intro Part 1/26 - A Part 2/26 - B [ ... ] Part 26/26 - Z -------------------------------------------------------------- *** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net: -------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** ### The FAQ about the FAQ: ### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ? ***************************************************************** * 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users) (A) World-Wide Web: http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html (B) FTP: rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq * 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid unnecessary consumption of bandwidth. All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by waiting long enough. * 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.): Several Web versions now exist. The "official" one is currently at We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server () soon. There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down yet, but I know a major one is at this address: Note that the "official" one will include a number of features which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions, and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast. (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling much of the WWW development.) * 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The address for this archive is: Please note that sections which are listed above as having multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference given above is the easiest to use. There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites, many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below. * 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list) There are other FAQ archive sites around the world which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended at the bottom of this file. * 5) Mail Server If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines in it (cut-and-paste if you like): send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline quit The mail server will send these two introductory files to you. You can then use the outline (part2) to determine which files you want. You can receive any or all of the remaining files by sending another message with the same general format, if you substitute the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above. * 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: Not all sections of the FAQ have been written yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted. Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away. Sections which are still being drafted are only posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know what's up with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * 1) Written FAQ Sections: Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9 remain to be completed. Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving. I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia. *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! *** * 2) Building a Web Version A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't especially aesthetic) exists now. Would like to add graphics and cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages). * 3) Nuts & Bolts - I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates. We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon. * 4) Status of the Glossary: # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc. # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy" published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information. # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.) # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ. # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages. # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those "trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. Students will also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon. --------------------------------------------------------------------- *** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide --------------------------------------------------------------------- (The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.) Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are: [ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be on some. - Bob Heeter ] Belgium ------- gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70 anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202 mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs Canada ------ gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70 Finland ------- anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm France ------ anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70 mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr Germany ------- anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only) gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70. gopher.uni-paderborn.de mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/ FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001 gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP Korea ----- anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers Mexico ------ anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers The Netherlands --------------- anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70 mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl Sweden ------ anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet Switzerland ----------- anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info" Taiwan ------ anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw United Kingdon -------------- anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/ FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21 gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70. mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/ United States ------------- anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html cudkeys: cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 20 04:37:03 EST 1996 ------------------------------