1996.01.23 / Kirk Shanahan /  PowerGen, Flow, and Pressure
     
Originally-From: shanahan@groupz.net (Kirk L. Shanahan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PowerGen, Flow, and Pressure
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:32:46 EST
Organization: SunBelt.Net INTERNET Access

I would like to commend Mitchell Jones for his work on the thesis of heat 
dissipation in the CETI PowerGen demo.  His work seems to suggest that the 
claimed heat loads could not be dissipated by the apparatus, which would have 
led to continued heating and eventually to boiling.  Mitchell then presumes 
the temperature measurements are incorrect.  However, I have an alternative 
explanation, which has already been posted by myself and others previously, 
but has been ignored or discounted.

The 1300W number appears to have been an abberation of an experiment that was 
malfunctioning anyway.  We knew the control cell had failed, and we have since 
found out the '1300W' period was 15 minutes long or less.  So it is more 
appropriate to consider the 500W numbers, as this seems to be an achievable 
steady state, both at PowerGen and in the CETI labs we are told.  Recapping
the '500W' run: 30 minutes, electrolysis power 0.1W, total input power 98W,
deltaT of 6.7 degrees, flowrate of 1000 ml/min, producing a calculated 469W
output power. 

The power out (Pout) equation is Pout = Flowrate * heat capacity * density *
temperature difference across the cell.  It seems unlikely to me that the heat 
capacity or density would vary significantly, maybe 10% in worst case, 
probably significantly less.  If we assume the temp difference is correct (for 
the moment) that leaves only the flowrate as the source of error.  In the case 
above the total input power is 98W, and the total electrolysis power is .1W.
To get a 6.7 degree temp rise from those two numbers requires a drop to 220 
ml/min in the first case, and 0.2 ml/min in the second.  Since not all the 
total input power can get into the electrolyte, we should consider the more 
extreme case for discussion, i.e. reducing the measured 1000 ml/min flow to 
close to zero (recall Jed Rothwell heard flow, so it can't be zero).

So, how does one drop a 1000 ml/min flow to almost zero?  By presenting the
flow with sufficient flow resistance to do so.  To evaluate that possibility
pressure measurements are needed (which were not done).  The "220" in "Magnum
220" is the gal/hr flowrate of the pump with no flow resistance. That
translates to about 14 l/min flow, and I note that between the flow control
valve and the bead bed, more than 90% of the flow has already been 'consumed' 
(down to roughly 1.4 l/min).  While a true pump characteristic curve is needed
to translate that to pressure drop, it might be assumed for discussion
purposes that about 90% of the pressure drop is experienced in that part of
the flow circuit as well. So, what is the pressure? 

I visited a pet store the other day, and examined a Magnum 350.  It had no 
numerics in its instructions, but it did indicate several things about 
installation requirements that led me to believe it was suceptible to major 
flow loss from minor problems like bends and kinks in the tubing and 
inlet-outlet point height differentials (these things were explicitly noted as 
'do not dos').  This implied to me a low head pressure pump.

Next to the Magnums was another line of aquarium pumps called by the brandname
'PowerHead', which has interesting implications.  The instructions did have
some numberics in them, most importantly numbers on head pressure.  My
memories are getting fuzzy now, and I'm not sure if the 200 gal/hr model had a
head pressure of 1.3 or 1.4 meters of water. The instructions listed all
models in one place and they have several.  The largest listed was 1.7 mH2O
for the 700 gal/hr pump. 

So, let's use the 1.4 mH2O as a talking point.  That translates to 55.1 inches 
of water.  Now if we drop 90% in the valve/bed part of the circut, that leaves 
about 5.5 "H2O to drive flow in the part of the circuit that was eliminated 
when the stopcock was turned.  In other words, any combination of vertical 
height rise and flow resistance due to pipe length or bends need only add up 
to 5" of water or so to produce close to zero flow in the noninal operating 
setup.

I spent some time trying to calculate pressure drops in the parts of the CETI 
device, with the result that I could get .6 to 1.2 mH2O deltaP across the 
valve depending on assumption as to the valve type and degree of closure, and
up to 2.8 mH2O across the bead bed depending on void fraction assumptions.  I 
also determined that the coil wasn't tight enough to show additional flow 
resistance and should be treated just as stright pipe for pressure drop 
calculations, and that it looked like there had to be at least one 180 degree 
bend, all of which added up to about 1"H2O (not much).  But I also noted that 
the coils supposedly emptied into a gas/liquid separator near the top of the 
reservoir/coil/fan stack, which was several (12?) inches above the liquid 
level in the reservoir.  Even if that is not true, there appears to be a 2-3" 
vertical height difference between the point where the flow drops into the 
reservoir and the top of the liquid level.  (A "Magnum 220" do not do!)

All of the calculations/observations show that it is possible to drop *all* of 
the pump pressure in the full circuit given the right set of conditions/
geometries.   But in essence, my calculations showed that calulations won't
answer this question, only actual in-line flow measurements will.  It is 
interesting to note that the figures on John Logajan's webpage from Dr. 
Cravens ICCF5 presentation show a fully-instrumented apparatus, but as we 
progess from there to PowerGen, the instrumentation gets less and less.

With regards to the actual flow measurements, I also noted what I thought 
might be a stopcock handle in the photo of the CETI device on John Logajan's 
webpage.  I think it is right above the left-most HR-22 temp measurement 
device in the photo.  That location is essentially on the table-top, a few 
inches _below_ the reservoir level, and leads me to wonder if there wasn't 
some kind of pump-assisted siphon effect operating during the measurements.
Jed Rothwell has said they moved the tube around during some of the 
measurements and noted no difference, but it wasn't clear to me if the 
business end of the tube (the outlet where the liquid flowed into the beaker)
or the middle of the tube was what was moved.  It makes a difference of
course.  Do we have any clarification on that? 

Also, there are thermal implications of a zero-to-1000 ml/min flow transition, 
but they are not as straightforward as one would hope.  However, I find the 
statement that the cross-check temperature 'closely agreed' with the cell
temperatures misleading.  What is 'closely'?  Recall the whole flow
measurement only took 15 seconds.  I would think a few degree (1-3?) change
could be significant, especially if the time constant of the thermocouple is
large.  At SOFE, Jed Rothwell reported a one degree difference between the
measured outlet temp and the temp in the flow sample, which was 20% of the
observed effect.  Can we also get the actual numbers from the PowerGen demo? 

In the final analysis, the PowerGen demo was a sales gimmick.  One person I 
know said "So they built the whole thing for under $500." which is the point I 
guess.  And based on reports, it would seem it served its purpose.  However, 
it certainly left a lot to be desired when it comes to understanding.  I hope 
the University and corporate labs studying this device instrument it 
properly...

----

Kirk Shanahan

{{email to kirk.shanahan@srs.gov please}}

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenshanahan cudfnKirk cudlnShanahan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 23:04:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry> writes:
 
>I would like to get a copy of this paper, but as near as I can
>tell it never appeared anywhere in its entirity. Do you have handy
>either a reference or Storms mail/email address?
 
I can mail you a copy, if I have any left. I don't have Storms's address
on this computer.
 
>Well, that would be part of the problem I alluded to---if a protocol
>is extremely difficult, it does not provide an effective way to
>demonstrate the reality of the phenomena. Of course, maybe thats just the
>way the world is. But real/or not, such a situation does greatly
 
Yes, that is the way the world is. You cannot make a CF device by blindly
stumbling around and mixing in dead flies with your electrolyte. You cannot
make a silicon chip by frying some sand in your kitchen either. In fact,
you cannot make *any* machine or device unless you make a big effort to
learn how, first. Things you cannot make include: a lump of iron; a light
bulb; a fax machine; an asprin tablet; a piece of paper. If, as it happens,
you have been making things very similar to CF devices for many years, then
you will have no trouble replicating the original Pons-Fleischmann device.
I know a couple dozen electrochemists like McKubre, Bockris and Mizuno who
got theirs to work a few months after the annoucement in 1989. They each
have decades of experience in electrochemistry. It is like showing a new
recipie for a complex Chinese dish to an experienced Chinese cook: he can
do it, you can't. You can show a papermaker a new type of hand made art
paper and he will figure out how to make that, too, but you can't.
 
>way the world is. But real/or not, such a situation does greatly
>impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the
>possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for
>producing artifiacts. (Aside: Bose corp, in their recent letter, claims
 
That is completely wrong. You are mixing up two unrelated things:
fabricating the CF device, and measuring the excess heat. CF devices are
complex and difficult to fabricate. The calorimeters used to measure the
heat are simple, easy to use, and easy to understand. If the results were
due to an artifact it would be in the calorimeter, not the cell. There
are no artifacts or mistakes in the calorimetry. "Skeptics" have been looking
for a mistake in the major experiments for years, and they have not found
a single one yet. They never will. The artifact described by Bose is a
trivial, well known problem that can only occur below I*V, that is: below
the limits of recombination. As I have said dozens of times before, you
should never trust a result below I*V. CETI gets results 4000 times above
I*V. Pons and Fleischmann, Piantelli, McKubre, NTT and many others get
results infinitely far above I*V, because they put in zero power and get
heat out. The recombination bugabear -- so beloved by Steve Jones -- is
pure nonsense.
 
>Back to the point: there seems to be some contradiction here though:
>the storms protocol as you describe (thanks) does indeed sound formidable,
>and I could see how folks could screw it up. However, the
>CETI/Patterson/Cravens
>protocol is quite simple and robust in comparison (aside, perhaps, from
>the initial bead manufacturing step). Why?
 
We are talking about the manufacturing step. That is what Storms, SRI and
many others describe in the protocols. Once you get the cell clean,
fabricated, pre-tested and zipped up, essentially all you do is turn on the
power. Well, okay, there are some preloading techniques, but it is
fairly simple. With a Pd cathode you grind, polish, look at the thing
under a microscope, measure all dimensions at several points, load and
de-gas to look for uneven loading and so on and so forth. That's how you
fabricate the cathode. With the Patterson thin film cathodes, similar
skills are require to deposit the film evenly and make sure it sticks to
the substrate. I have shown his patent to thin film deposition experts and
they say it will be a challenge to replicate. I myself cannot judge the
difficulty of it, but people tell me that Patterson is a well known expert
and that some corporations in that field (catalysis) have patents that
expired years ago that *nobody* has ever successfully replicated. That makes
them effectively trade secrets, not patents.
 
The beads are robust compared to other cathodes, and much more robust than
any thin film cathode I know, but on the other hand I know a good
electrochemist who got a sample of the beads, used a simple technique to
clean them up a bit, and promptly destroyed them accidentally. They do
require some care and handling.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 16:58:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry> writes:
 
     "I think the major weakness is lack of independent replicability of a
     single protocol, not an absence of isolated positive results by
     credentialed scientists."
 
That is incorrect. There is a protocol and it has been independently
replicated by a number of labs, notably SRI, IMRA Japan, IMRA Europe, Ed
Storms in his basement and Dennis Cravens in his garage, years ago. It was
best described in the paper "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect" by
Edmund Storms. Here is the Abstract:
 
     "Conditions required for producing excess energy in PdD created in an
     electrolytic cell are described and the reasons for their importance is
     discussed. This difficult to accept effect can now be produced with a
     high probability for success using the described procedures."
 
The procedures include steps to remove impurities, produce a uniform surface,
creating a dislocation layer, measure volume by physical dimensions, mass to
the nearest 0.1 milligram, observe stress and distortion after beta phase
loading, etcetera. The thing is, the described procedures are very, very
difficult. They require a great deal of skill, knowledge and practice. I know
many people in Japan and in the U.S. who have attempted to do these
procedures, and who thought they did them, when in reality they made horrible
mistakes. Here are two examples of what can go wrong:
 
1.   The protocol calls for extensive pre-testing of the cathodes to
     determine if they swell up excessively from beta phase loading,
     distorting more than 2% in any direction or dimension. Unfortunately, it
     is extremely difficult to test metals that have undergone beta phase
     loading throughout the sample, so people have been known to test samples
     that were only partially loaded, which defeats the purpose of the test.
 
2.   The protocol calls for cleanliness, and rigorous exclusion of known
     contaminants, which can be found in solder, organic materials and
     elsewhere Unfortunately, many people have soldered on the cathode leads,
     many people have touched the surface of the cathodes while handling
     them, and one poor benighted fellow sent a cell to be analyzed by a
     friend of mine who found dead flies and other debris mixed in with the
     electrolyte. Those examples are from scientists who have loudly and
     repeatedly declared they replicated the experiment and found no excess.
     Obviously, they have not replicated any more than a primitive Cargo
     Cultist in the South Pacific has replicated a microphone when he tries
     to talk into a coconut. These people have not even *begun* to replicate;
     they do not have a clue as to what replication means in this context.
 
When you read papers from Storms and others, it becomes abundantly clear why
it costs so much money and it takes so much time to replicate a CF experiment.
It is roughly as expensive and difficult as fabricating a silicon computer
chip of an experimental design with relatively few transistors. Many of the
procedures, tools and pitfalls are similar. A person like Ed Storms could
produce a silicon chip in his basement if he put his mind to it, but Ed is a
materials scientist with decades of experience at Los Alamos. He has a
workbench full of expensive high tech scales, meters, and other gadgets.
Patterson has been a leading expert on surface chemistry and catalysis since
1947. Mizuno and other Japanese researchers get expert help from large
corporate laboratories and experimental fabrication facilities. Ordinary,
non-expert scientists who have never done anything like this cannot hope to
learn by themselves. Especially those who refuse to read the literature, read
the patents, and learn from other experienced and successful researchers. They
try to do it by intuition, and they make one stupid blunder after another.
They do about as well as I would do if I was foolish enough to try cooking a
Chinese meal. To get a sense of how difficult that task is, watch the movie
"Eat Drink Man Woman" (highly recommended, 4 stars -- no violence or bad
words, in English anyway).
 
There are, of course, many other protocols for different types of experiments
besides the original Pons-Fleischmann PdD methods. These other experiments are
far more promising from a technological standpoint. Some of them are also
easier to do, but none are so easy that anyone could do them without practice,
strict attention to the literature, and proper tools. It takes years to learn,
and you have to have the knack for it. That is true of most other adult jobs
like programming, farming, and, as I mentioned, gourmet Chinese cooking.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Tom Droege's Mysterious Paper
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom Droege's Mysterious Paper
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:36:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom,

In a post dated 30 Nov 1995 19:00:54 GMT, you said:

"Recently I spent more time than I wanted to reading another paper that did
the Unclear=Nuclear one better."

That was an intriguing allusion, but there wasn't any followup, so on Dec. 3,
1995, I posted some questions about it on sci.physics.fusion.  There still
hasn't been any followup, hence this repost of the questions:

Would you tell us what paper?  
Was it a new paper?  
Has it been published?
How did it go Unclear = Nuclear one better?"

If there was a response from you to my original post, I missed it.  Since you
have announced your departure from SPF, I guess this is the last chance to
post the questions and see a posted response.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenTstolper cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.24 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Bose Corp.:  No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bose Corp.:  No real excess heat in H2O or D2O cold fusion cells
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1996 17:23 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> While at it, you may also want to investigate the enigma
-> of the voltage offset associated with an electrolysis
-> cell, something Glasstone covers quit extensively, yet
-> fundamental knowledge that I have yet to see one CF buff
-> even mention.  (This is like postualting a new concept for
-> explaining the behaviour of an Ohmic device, while ignoring
-> the existence of Ohms Law.
 
This has been discussed here quite a bit, by Jed, John Logan, and myself.  In
fact I posted a reply to a posting by, I believe, Richard Blue, when he asked
why the current seems to vary in a non-linear fashion to applied voltage.  You
may want to check the archives if you missed these discussions.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Lance Ryan /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
     
Originally-From: Lance Ryan <cs013@cq-pan.cqu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
Date: 25 Jan 1996 11:51:39 GMT
Organization: Central Queensland University

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 
wrote:
>In article <4dtbun$t81@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> the electron component of the photon.
>
> The neutron and proton are about    930 MEV
>
> The electron                           .5 MEV
>
> The neutrino energy is approx.      1.7 X 10^-5 MEV
>the photon
>has either a positron plus a -neutrino or the photon is a electron plus
>a +neutrino wherein the rest mass of the photon will correspond with
>the ratio of approx  10^-5 MEV. The second view is of the wave
natu>-neutrino but as it becomes more energetic or picks up energy
from its
>surroundings then the photon, one of the neutrinos builds up into
>either a positron or electron.
>   These views are supported by known experiments, where in the fact
>energetic photons revert into electrons. Once a photon, now an electron.

Does this infer that photons are the primary link on the energy 
chain? ie photon -> electron -> proton _ext,ext. each increase 
in order is equivalent to increase in charge magnitude. So 
without light we would eventually break down the source of ZPE 
itself thus the universe would return to singularity?
Lance

An advocate of Archimedes Plutonium a man before time itself ;)
    

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencs013 cudfnLance cudlnRyan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / I Johnston /  Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
Date: 25 Jan 1996 13:19:52 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Nice to have you back Jed. Have you decided yet whether the 1300W CETI
run lasted for many hours - as you originally claimed - or for only a
few minutes, as CETI claim? 

Regards,

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Elliot Kennel /  Re: Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes
     
Originally-From: Elliot Kennel <71756.3025@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Significance of Lithium in Electrolytes
Date: 25 Jan 1996 14:14:05 GMT
Organization: Applied Sciences Inc

Concerning lithium:
	I am not aware of any claims of excess heat in 
electrochemical cells without the presence of lithium, nor are 
there any claims of excess heat in systems which do not contain 
glass.  Some silicon is leached by the lithium hydroxide and will 
wind up on the surface of the cathode.

Best regards,
Elliot Kennel
Yellow Springs Oh
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden3025 cudfnElliot cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / Paul Stowe /  Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
     
Originally-From: pstowe@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why has Jupiter Retained it heat
Date: 25 Jan 1996 21:23:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <4e67nn$q3s@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> geest3+@pitt.edu (Gregg E
Economou) writes: 
>>
>oh god... Think of the fact that the earth has 20 miles of ROCK and
>another 1000 miles of AIR between itself and the cold, and that this
>exceptional insulation has managed ot keep the heat in??? 
>Jupiter's diameter is far greater than that of Earth. IT is only
>logical to conclude that there is some degree of insulative ability in
>its thousands of miles of liquid surface.. Also as space is a vacuum,
>the space around the planets itself is an excellent insulation. 
>Heat can only escape via radiation, which is not generated in any
>large way.
>
>Common sense: Man's greatest tool, but often lost in the face of
>science
>
>-Lord Isildur
>

Have you ever heard of Convective heat transfer?  Now, take your same
argument, Namely a fluid medium, and try to figure out the convective
heat loss.  You will soon find that formative heat is lost with 1
billion years.  This then STILL begs the original question.

Paul Stowe

Nullius in Verba

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpstowe cudfnPaul cudlnStowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.25 / A Plutonium /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr. 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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. 
Date: 25 Jan 1996 19:56:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960124131616.16050A-100000@cms2>
Anthony Potts <potts@afsmail.cern.ch> writes:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Coulston wrote:
> 
> > Eric, you wrote:
> > > 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 ner
> 180 degrees.
> > 
> > Where did Euclid go wrong?
> > 
> > 
> In his assuming that the only possible mathematically consistent space 
> was a flat one.
> 
> Anthony Potts
> 
  And where did modern day physicists go wrong? Simple. In their
anthropomorphic dream whilst looking out into space, they refused to
ask or to even recognize a simple question. The question "Is the
universe itself a structure or is it really structureless?" Even a
"Cosmic Onion" of Leibniz is better of a scientist than modern day
physicists who automatically assume that the universe is structureless.


  Although the real truth is that the Universe-- Everything, is One
Atom of Plutonium. The Everything is an atom itself. And this idea
consistently and beautifully completes the Atomic Theory-- all things
are made up of atoms. Hence the Whole, the Universe itself, by logical
reasoning, by logical completeness means Everything is one atom.
Plutonium fits the numbers the best.

  We can go back 2000 years to Euclid and find fault with him, nit pick
him here and nit pick him there. None of which changes the fact that he
was a giant among "geniuses". But our modern day physicists are more
primitive and more stupid than ever was a nit pick. Mr. Potts points
out that Euclid thought only flat space was consistent. I doubt that
Euclid thought that because before Euclid, geometry and math had not
been synthesized as a subject. Euclid's main goal was to synthesize a
system of knowledge, to cull together the facts of geometry into a
unified system. Euclid excelled in this. Same as Maxwell would come to
achieve for EM. There is no faulting or faults to be found in either
Euclid or Maxwell. The fault to be found is in the modern day little
shrimps of physics who refuse to ask the simple question as relating to
consistency,  yes, consistency. IS the Universe structureless or
Nonstructureless and which of those two is consistent with the Atomic
Theory? You see, fools and idiots of science never ask questions and
when they do and the answers are not to their liking they ignore
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 26 04:37:05 EST 1996
------------------------------
