1996.01.29 / Bill Rowe /  Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:46:36 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <horst_bob-270196201934@horst_bob.mis.tandem.com>,
horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst) wrote:

>Last Sunday, Jan 20 1996, I attended the Cold Fusion/New Energy Symposium
>put on by Infinite Energy magazine in Cambridge, Mass.  I have been reading
>s.p.f since 1989, but have not posted frequently.  This was my first chance
>to meet face-to-face with some of the people involved with cold fusion.

[skipped]

>excess heat.  There are at least five separate groups who have seen excess
>-- Patterson, Cravens, Miley (U of Illinois), U of Missouri, and at least
>one corporation.  There have also been two successful public demonstrations
>(SOFE and PowerGen).  The large number of groups eliminates fraud as a
>possibility, and the large amount of excess eliminates instrument error
>(400 or more watts excess is hard to misplace, even with Radio Shack
>voltmeters).  There were interesting rumors about new higher-temperature
>beads (ceramic substrate?) and possible future demos (such as a CF-powered
>dunebuggy).

Have any of the others i.e., not those involved in either the SOFE or
PowerGen demo, published any results yet? Hopefully in a peer reviewed
journal, or is that too much to ask? If this hasn't happened yet it seems
the only data comes from the PowerrGen and SOFE demos. 

Given the unresolved questions that have been raised about the PowerGen
demo, specifically the capability to dissipate heat, it seems to early to
say much about it. Also if there is a significant protocol error regarding
the PowerGen demo it seems to me it would also cast doubt on the SOFE demo
since these seem to be rather similar except for claimed power output.

The point is a large number of groups getting confirmed postive results
eliminates fraud. Until that happens (has it happened?) the jury is still
out.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.29 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Rothwell protocols
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell protocols
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:07:14 -0800
Organization: none apparent

In article <JjCq4Nr.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
>>In response to my suggesting that his use of the term "protocol"
>>is highly questionable, Jed Rothwell informs us that Cravens has
>>used D2O as well as his usual H2O.  That fact does not address my
>>point, Jed.  If experiment A uses electrolyte X and experiment B
>>uses electrolyte Y they are not using the same protocol, are they?
> 
>Cravens used the same electrolyte as Pons and Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre,
>Storms and the others who replicated the 1989 work. What is your point?
>Wait -- don't tell us. Your point is that every time you open you mouth
>and try to say something about CF, you reveal that you have not read anything
>and you don't any idea what the hell you are talking about. You enjoy
>making stupid, ignorant, lazy mistakes in public. Right?

And you still haven't addressed Dick's point about protocols. Cravens used
beads. P&F did not. Doesn't this make it obvious the same protocols are
not being used? Or perhaps your intent is to provide additional examples
of Dick's point about questional uses of the term "protocol".
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report
Date: 30 Jan 1996 03:29:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Robert Horst <horst_bob@tandem.com> writes:
:  
: >-  There were strong rumors that CETI may soon be acquired by a large
: >corporation for around $1M.  The name of the company was mentioned, but I
: >will not pass it along until there is some confirmation.
:  
: Not acquired. They may be investing in CETI, but there are no plans for
: selling a controlling interest in the company. The people at CETI told me
: that in no uncertain terms at Power-Gen. Certainly, nobody could buy the
: company for only $1 million! They have a lot more than that already.

I suppose this explains why they must resort to the use of 'Radio
Shack' instrumentation and aquarium pumps rather than professional 
quality research apparatus. (Yes, I know that you've previously explained 
that they intentionally understated their research expertise -- but not 
why.

What are they using the $1-million+ for, promotional hype?

Strange priorities!

                                  Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.29 / Craig Haynie /  Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Jed seeks the truth.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:37:59 -0600
Organization: Netcom

Harry H Conover wrote:
 
> p.s.  I give Jed a lot of credit, for he is persistent...he should,
>       and likely does, do well in the sales field.  He is also a
>       reasonably gifted writer, and has a unique ability to twist
>       facts to always suit his agruments and purposes. [...]

Mr. Conover,

Jed hasn't twisted any facts; he reports what he sees. Perhaps
you don't believe his reports, but 
that's no reason to try to distort the things he does say.

Craig Haynie (Houston)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Ted Holden /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 30 Jan 1996 03:45:09 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:

>Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
>: Summary:                   
>: Keywords: 
>:  
>:      The latest flurry of excitement about the possibility of "cold
>:   fusion" involves the Patterson Power Cell that uses microscopic
>:   plastic beads coated with palladium sandwiched between two
>:   layers of nickel, immersed in plain water.  With about 0.1 to 1.5
>:   watts of power going into the device, the output is a net 450 to
>:   1500 watts.  Whatever happens, it does involve the breakdown of
>:   the water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen interacting
>:   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
>:      This process is being taken seriously since the apparatus can be
>:   turned on and off and copies have been made available to various
>:   research labs.
>:      I imagine the hoard of scientists who have found a happy home 
>:   in the multi-billion dollar government financed "hot fusion" pro-
>:   ject are in a cold sweat about this since their sledge-hammer
>:   approach (trying to created a stable 50-million degree environ-
>:   ment necessary for hot fusion) cannot be an economic success.

Oh but it is;  for them of course...  Anything which can only be done in 
100 years with vast infusions of federal dollars amounts to a welfare 
program for the peopleinvolved.  You may expect all of the same sorts of 
inbreeding, the same seige mentality and attitudes which arise from every 
other sort of welfare program both for the rich and for the poor (the 
real "class struggle" in the US features the rich and poor allied against 
the middle class, but that's another story...).  

You can believe that the people involved in standard fusion research are 
sweating at this point;  they are facing a prospect of a fate worse than 
death, i.e. having to find honest jobs.

The heaviest hitters I keep up with in these areas are all telling me 
that cold fusion is for real, and that there is no reason why we should 
not shortly be driving cars which you fill with water every other year or 
so.   Imagine the reaction from OPEC, MOBIL, EXXON.....

Ted Holden
medved@digex.com

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmedved cudfnTed cudlnHolden cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.29 / Akira Kawasaki /  Wall Street Journel's Bishop reports on CF and CETI
     
Originally-From: aki@ix.netcom.com(Akira Kawasaki )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wall Street Journel's Bishop reports on CF and CETI
Date: 29 Jan 1996 17:21:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom


On today's Wall Streret Journel (Monday Jan 29, 1996), on page A9A, Mr.
Jerry E. Bishop reports on the CETI Patterson Cell.

The column starts with the heading "A bottle rekindles scientific
debate about the possibility of cold fusion". Then he says its Deja Vu
all over again.

He quotes Quinton Bowles of University of Missouri as admitting that
"It  appears on the surface that it works, but no one knows why". Two
universities are studying the Cells.

Ceti, according to CETI's James W. Reding, 26, is negotiating with two
unnamed utilities and Motorola. Motorola is not saying anything.

To balance the reporting, Bishop quotes Dr. Birnbaum of University of
Illinois as still being highly sceptical of the cold fusion claims but
allows that the "Patterson-cell people" 'May have stumbled on something
else' and wishes them success of so.

Patterson has turned over his cells to CETI run by Reding. Reding has
now dropped the cold fusion claim and "believe it is something entirely
different" --- no eleaboration.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenaki cudfnAkira cudlnKawasaki cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Craig Haynie /  Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
     
Originally-From: Craig Haynie <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:55:05 -0600
Organization: Netcom

Here is the Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted:

 ---------------------------------------------------------

A BOTTLE REKINDLES SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF COLD FUSION -- Jerry E. Bishop (Wall Street Journal,
January 29, 1996, page A9B)

To anyone who remembers the 1989 uproar over cold fusion,
it's 'deja vu' all over again.

A bottle no bigger than a man's fist is creating an unusual
stir among power-generation engineers. The bottle is filled
with ordinary water and microscopic palladium-coated beads.
When a little electric current trickles through the bottle,
several hundred times as much power starts coming out in
the form of heat -- that is, if one cares to believe the
instruments attached to the bottle.

The instrument readings are enough, however, to draw the
interest of engineers at a handful of major companies and
to prompt at least two university laboratories to attempt
to figure out what's going on inside the bottle. "It
appears on the surface that it works, but no one knows
why," say Quinton Bowles, professor of mechanical
engineering at the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

The little bottle is know as a Patterson Power Cell, named
for its inventor, James A. Patterson, a 74-year-old chemist
who lives in Sarasota, Fla. Dr. Patterson has turned his
power cell over to a start-up Clean Energy Technologies,
Inc. in Dallas, headed by his grandson, James W. Reding,
26. Mr. Reding is reticent, except to say that CETI is
negotiating to license rights to two utilities that he
declines to name and to Motorola, Inc. A Motorola
spokeswoman says, "We wouldn't confirm such a report, even
if it were true."

And so it goes in the tumultuous realm of cold fusion. In
1989, two University of Utah electrochemists, Martin
Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, triggered the whole
cold-fusion uproar by saying they had managed to produce
nuclear fusion at ordinary room temperatures, using water
as a fuel. 

The notion of a cheap and inexhaustible new source of
energy sparked an avalanche of headlines and accolades --
only to fall into disrepute when others found the work to
be irreproducible. Shunned by their colleagues in Utah,
Messrs. Fleishmann and Pons retreated to a new cold-fusion
lab in southern France.

The Patterson Power Cell differs in some key ways from the
Utah approach, but in some quarters, it raises the same
level of skepticism. "It's been a long time since anybody
tried to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge," says materials
scientist Howard K. Birnbaum, who saw the cell demonstrated
last October. "I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it
now." Dr. Birnbaum, director of the Materials Research
Laboratory at the University of Illinois's Urbana campus,
adds that "as far as I can see, there's nothing new going
on that would justify [claims] that more energy is coming
out than is going in."

Yet, some supporters say SOMETHING is going on inside the
little heat-producing bottle. As with the Utah apparatus,
it's claimed that the bottle produces an excess of power as
it electrolyzes, or breaks down, water molecules into
hydrogen and oxygen atoms. But unlike the controversial and
unpredictable Utah experiments, the Patterson cell can be
turned on and off seemingly at will. Several working
devices built by Dr. Patterson have been made available to
two teams.

"This is the first time that we have a system that seems to
work every time," says a nuclear chemist who consults to
utilities. The cell's reliability, which would allow
scientists to manipulate it, "gives us our first chance to
see if this [phenomenon] involves a nuclear reaction," he
explains. 

Moreover, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which has
flatly said that cold fusion, like perpetual motion, is
impossible and unpatentable, has issued a patent on the
gadget. 

Although both the original Utah devices and the Patterson
cell involve the electrolysis of water, there are marked
differences. The electrodes in the originial devices were
small rods of palladium surrounded by coils of platinum
wire, and these were hung in a bath of "heavy" water in
which the hydrogen is a heavy form called deuterium.

The Patterson cell, instead of using palladium rods, is
filled with microscopic plastic beads coated with a thin
layer of palladium sandwiched between two layers of nickel.
And most significantly, it's filled with ordinary water
made of "light" hydrogen atoms.

In both cases, the hydrogen atoms released by the
electrolysis are soaked up by the palladium and/or nickel.
It's inside the metal that some kind of energy-releasing
phenomenon is claimed to take place. A year ago, shortly
after CETI was formed, Mr. Reding was touting the Patterson
cell as a "cold-fusion" system. He has since dropped that
claim and now says that "we believe it is something
entirely different." He declines to elaborate.

A cold-fusion claim implies that the hydrogen atoms are
being forced to fuse, a nuclear reaction that usually
occurs at 50 million degrees. Physicists say that if the
claims were true, the cold-fusion researchers would die
from the intense nuclear radiation that would result.

The Patterson cell might have been dismissed as easily as
other reputed "cold-fusion" apparatus. But Mr. Reding and
his colleagues have been bold enough to demonstrate it at
three technical conferences in the last nine months. Most
cold-fusionists are reluctant to show off their devices,
because they are never sure whether or when they will work.

Last month, CETI's Mr. Reding showed off a new Patterson
cell at an annual gathering of generating-equipment
manufacturers in Anaheim, Calif. It stood about four inches
high and one inch in diameter and held about three
tablespoons of the tiny beads. People who watched
demonstrations that lasted from 30 minutes to two hours say
the instruments indicated that, after subtracting the
electricty needed to run pumps and fans, about 0.1 to 1.5
watts of power went into the cell itself, while the heat
output was 450 to 1300 watts.

The dubious Dr. Birnbaum at the University of Illinois says
that though the cold-fusion claims are "atrocious" science,
the Patterson-cell people "may have stumbled on something
else. If so, I hope they are successful and make a lot of
money. If not, this ought to be exposed as flimflam."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenccHaynie cudfnCraig cudlnHaynie cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Matt Kennedy /  Help needed for school project
     
Originally-From: Matt Kennedy <103326.1400@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help needed for school project
Date: 30 Jan 1996 01:28:40 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)

Hi,
My name is Matt, and I'm a 13 year old in the San Francisco Bay 
Area. 
I want to put together a school science project on cold fusion, 
possibly a model of the original experiment, or preferably an 
experiment that at least has some chance of showing something 
happening. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I could 
put together and where I might get the equipment?

Thanks

Matt Kennedy

e-mail: 103326.1400@COMPUSERVE.COM
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1400 cudfnMatt cudlnKennedy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
     
Originally-From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:58:20 GMT
Organization: Remote Fusion Reactor Reverse Entropy Associates

In article <310DCED9.7DBD@ix.netcom.com>,
Craig Haynie  <ccHaynie@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Here is the Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted:
...
>scientist Howard K. Birnbaum, who saw the cell demonstrated
>last October. "I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it
>now." Dr. Birnbaum, director of the Materials Research
>Laboratory at the University of Illinois's Urbana campus,
...

i.e. from the same campus as Miley (unmentioned in the report).
Miley and his students don't seem very enthusiastic about the
prospects of this line of inquiry.  It was totally unmentioned
on their homepages last time I checked:
    http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/fsl/p-menu.html

However I suppose that producing energy from the vacuum is not
of much interest to physics graduate students these days.

    --bks

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Todd K /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: 30 Jan 1996 15:37:46 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
> The photon is known to decay into a electron. So, I can replace into
>that neutron decay the electron with a photon. 

How is it that "the photon is known to decay into an electron"?  While it
is true that a photon of sufficient energy passing near a nucleus can 
produce an electron-positron pair, a single photon alone can hardly decay
into a single electron - by positing such a decay you break all manner of
conservation laws.  As such, you cannot simply replace the electron in 
neutron decay with a photon.

>
>  Thereby my speculated rest mass, greatest lower bound for, is this:
>
>    neutrino MEV 10^-7 MEV
>    electron MEV .5 MEV
>    proton MEV   930 MEV
>
>    rest mass of neutrino  10^-7 MEV
>                           _________ X .5 MEV (rest mass of electron)
>                            10^3 MEV
>
>  Hence, my speculated rest mass for the neutrino, greatest lower
>bound, is 
>
>    5 x10^-11 MEV
>
>  And my speculated rest mass for the photon is roughly twice that of
>the neutrino because 2 neutrinoes = 1 photon = 10^-10 MEV
>
>  Todd, do you know of any experiment supporting my above speculations?

The only experiment which agrees with your speculated neutrino rest mass
is the recent Los Alamos experiment which put a finite lower 
limit on the mass of the electron neutrino, though I forget the value.
Aside from that I can't follow your reasoning above in arriving at your
speculated rest mass.

There is certainly no experiment that I know of which supports your 
2 neutrinos = 1 photon idea.


__________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                	    !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
Grad Student, High Energy Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
Northwestern University	            !  Email:  todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu
Fermilab Experiment E835            !          toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
		 WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------		 
If you're an archaeologist, I bet it's real embarrassing to put together a
skull from a bunch of ancient bone fragments, but then it turns out it's 
not a skull but just an old dried-out potato.
   
 				- from Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
__________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 /  VCockeram /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: vcockeram@aol.com (VCockeram)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 30 Jan 1996 10:15:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <21cenlogic-2801961754590001@austin-1-7.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

>. To avoid
>that outcome, I would appreciate any ideas that any of you may have,
>regarding how the apparently high heat dissipation capacity of Craven's
>system at Power Gen can be reconciled with the low capacity of my
>facsimilie system. What, if anything, am I missing?  
>
>--Mitchell Jones

Mitch, how about trying to duplicate as closely as possible the PowerGen
setup? 
                                                        (cell)
 |-->RES--->PUMP--->THROTTLE--->HEATER----,
 ^<------------------------RADIATOR<------------------------|

See what happens at various heater input powers.
Measure at what point thermal runaway starts.
And....
Good job you are doing here to try to figure out just
what is going on. Thanks.

Regards, Vince

PS  Oops just thought of something. There was a micron
filter in the flow loop of the demo. Possible additional source
of radiator area, yes?

Vin


Vince, Lost Wages, Nevada
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvcockeram cudlnVCockeram cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / New Academy /  Nuclear Reactor Workshop
     
Originally-From: New York Film Academy <nyfa@panix.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Reactor Workshop
Date: 30 Jan 1996 17:22:35 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

Nuclear Reactor Science Workshop
A unique opportunity to gain 4-weeks of hands-on experience with a 250kW 
TRIGA research  nuclear reactor.  This intensive workshop will allow 
students to work with the reactor on proposed experiments or student 
designed projects.  Course to be offered in July of 1996. Tuition 
$3,500.

For more information and detailed curriculum please Email nyfa@panix.com


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennyfa cudfnNew cudlnAcademy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / John Chunko /  Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 11:49:21 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <4eblqq$s5r@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
> 
> > Can you explain briefly why this ratio definition makes any sense whatsoever?
> > Why *should* the photon have a mass defined as above?  What physics is
> > there which would dictate it?
> 
> > "Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, the photon charge has been measured to be less than 2 x 10^( 32).
> > >
> > > See Cocconi, Physics Lett. B 206, 705 (1988).
> >
> > I wonder if that is in absolute units, electro-static units esu it is
> > about 10^-20
> 
>   I didn't buy that 10^-20 at all because it assumed so much for
> pulsars yet noone knows what pulsars are. So I wanted to do better. If
> the photon has a  rest mass, and I am confident it does, then there
> must be somewhere to look for a "greatest lower bound" as Cocconi
> tried. Only my greatest lower bound is purely theoretical.
>   My vision is that Quantum Duality, of particle-wave is transformable
> to rest mass-energy. To me, with the Atom Whole theory, dualities are
> simply the recognition that Whole-Parts exist simultaneously.  Anything
> which exists has both a particle component and a wave component. As
> much as we try to see convert something to all wave or all particle, it
> will not be done for some of the other will remain. What we think is
> 100% energy is not, for a percentage of the rest mass remains, and vice
> versa.
>   So, for me to look for what the photon rest mass could possibly be,
> is to look at the hydrogen atom system, a neutron. There are three
> particles, the electron, proton, and antineutrino. Measuring that
> hydrogen atom system of the decayed neutron would give either a wave or
> particle experiment, or in my insistence, either a energy or rest mass.
> And in view of my insistence that the neutron can not be 100% energy
> but must have rest mass. Thereby I conclude that the proton and
> electron can be converted to energy but the neutrino cannot and will
> not, it will be the stubborn tiny fraction that will not dissolve
> itself into energy and hence it is the portion out of the neutron which
> must retain its tiny rest mass for the proton and electron to turn into
> 100% energy.
> 
> In article <4ec7fg$dd5@mark.ucdavis.edu>
> ez049941@boris.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten) writes:
> 
> >
> > It looks to me that taking a ratio like that won't even result in a mass:
> > you'll have a dimensionless number.  Am I missing something?
> 
>  The photon is known to decay into a electron. So, I can replace into
> that neutron decay the electron with a photon.
> 
>   Thereby my speculated rest mass, greatest lower bound for, is this:
> 
>     neutrino MEV 10^-7 MEV
>     electron MEV .5 MEV
>     proton MEV   930 MEV
> 
>     rest mass of neutrino  10^-7 MEV
>                            _________ X .5 MEV (rest mass of electron)
>                             10^3 MEV
> 
>   Hence, my speculated rest mass for the neutrino, greatest lower
> bound, is
> 
>     5 x10^-11 MEV
> 
>   And my speculated rest mass for the photon is roughly twice that of
> the neutrino because 2 neutrinoes = 1 photon = 10^-10 MEV
> 
>   Todd, do you know of any experiment supporting my above speculations?

     If the photon's rest mass were as enormously high as 10^-4 eV then 
many possibilities would result, none of which are observed in nature. 
First of all the photon would now have an effective force range on the 
order of R = hbar/(2*mass of particle*c) = 9.118 * 10^19 meters after 
taking the reciprocal. This translates to an effective range of 
approximately 9640 light years. The photon has a much larger range than 
this - on the order of 10 billion light years. Also, if the photon had a 
rest mass Maxwell's equations would have to be modified resulting in the 
exponential decay over distance of electromagnetic disturbances. One of 
the results of this is that synapses in the brain would have a 
devilishly hard time firing - -this is a bad thing (tm) and not seen in 
nature. Scientific results of a theory should agree with observed 
quantities and if they don't then the theory must be discarded no matter 
how elegant or personally favorable it is.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:47:26 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Samuel Potter /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
     
Originally-From: potter@brainiac.com (Samuel and Jennifer Potter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio.misc,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive charge
Date: 30 Jan 1996 21:08:26 GMT
Organization: brainiac Services

In article <4ec60v$kl0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> This helps in biology. We consider the DNA as the endpoint of biology.
> But that boundary is artificial. For it is the Atoms which are alive.
> Biology will never be solved unless it reaches down into the atom. The
> gap between the first DNA and organic compounds is far far far too much
> of a gap. Thus, I am confident that the neutrino and the photon are
> "perfected strands of DNA". Hence the first life came from photons or
> neutrinos or electricity. New life is created all the time when a
> photon rest mass comes to rest and the perfect DNA, provided there is
> enough energy can turn this 'stopped' photon into a living organism. A
> cosmic ray was measured at 10^16 MEV which is enough energy to create a
> whole entire virus, bacteria, even a small plant from scratch. This is
> how AIDS virus came to Earth. When we get into outerspace, we will be
> able to inspect lifeless containers which all of a sudden contain life
> due to a cosmic ray of a energetic proton or electron stopped and its
> photon DNA turned into a 'new life form'.

Could you explain to me how a single photon or neutrino could contain the
information for a life form such as a small plant?  Do I misunderstand you?
(quite probable)  Do you refer to a sequence of photons or just one?

I don't have a problem with the first life from electricity; Oparin's
Hypothesis was proven to work in 1953 by Stanley Miller, after all.  My problem 
is that that is an awful lot of information to be crediting to a photon or
neutrino.

Are you taking a quantum attitude that observation for life will cause that
life to appear?  Then why no simple life on the moon after to landings?
The surface of the moon gets plenty of photons and the oxygen in the rocks
might support a rudimentry cell.

After all, I'ld hate to be teaching falsehoods to all those high-schoolers.

Pothole
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpotter cudfnSamuel cudlnPotter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Martin Sevior /  Re: Rothwell protocols
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior@kosal0.triumf.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell protocols
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:50:49 -0800
Organization: TRIUMF

Bill Rowe wrote:
> 
> And you still haven't addressed Dick's point about protocols. Cravens used
> beads. P&F did not. Doesn't this make it obvious the same protocols are
> not being used? Or perhaps your intent is to provide additional examples
> of Dick's point about questional uses of the term "protocol".
> --
> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."

Before Cravens went to work for CETI he reported considerable success in
"conventional" deuterium in Palladium systems. Jed is quoting work Cravens
did prior to focussing on CETI beads.

Martin Sevior
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmsevior cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 /  Zerge /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: zerge@aol.com (Zerge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 30 Jan 1996 15:39:00 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

"Western" man?
'WESTERN" man?
Humankind.
Sergio Castro Reynoso
Zerge@aol.com
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenzerge cudlnZerge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Jeff Candy /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Jeff.Candy@jet.uk (Jeff Candy)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 20:40:48 GMT
Organization: JET Joint Undertaking

medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:

>You can believe that the people involved in standard fusion research are
>sweating at this point;  they are facing a prospect of a fate worse than
>death, i.e. having to find honest jobs.

Actually, the mid-morning card games and afternoon pub crawls are starting
to get awfully boring.  However, as most of us never finished high school,
we may have to switch from "fusion welfare" to the traditional system.



Jeff Candy                    ... man -- every man -- is an end
Analytic Theory Group         in himself, not the means to the
JET Joint Undertaking         ends of others ...
                                                   --- Ayn Rand


===============================================================================
    The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
       considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenCandy cudfnJeff cudlnCandy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Ted Craven /  Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
     
Originally-From: Ted Craven <ted>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
Date: 30 Jan 1996 21:05:07 GMT
Organization: Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
 
> Okay, this next item looks legit. Ted Craven <ted> writes:
> 
>     "Mr. Rothwell says in his report that in order to verify the demo cell
>     input temperature, it was necessary to turn off the control cell (or
>     later the heater which replaced it) and measure the temperature at the
>     control cell output."
> 
> Well, not too necessary. The control added such a small amount that it hardly
> raised the temperature, but I figured it would be better to leave it off.
> However, do not forget that we can also measure inlet temperature in the
> reservoir. The water goes from the reservoir to the cell inlet, cooling down a
> little along the way (1.1 to 1.4 deg C). I confirmed the thermocouple reading
> in the reservoir with my thermistors and thermometer.
 
Assuming that the total flow is 2 liters/min (i.e. 1 liter/min per cell) 
then that would mean that 150 to 190 watts of heat was being dissipated
from the tubing between the reservoir and the cell inlets. This seems very
high to me. To put the number in perspective, note that the 35 C reservoir
temperature which you have estimated corresponds to 95 F, which is slighly
less than normal human body temperature. And according to Linus Pauling,
an average-sized man who does a moderate amount of physical work needs
to consume about 3000 Kcal per day, which works out to a power of about 
145 watts. So according to your measurements, what appears to be about a 
meter or two of skinny half inch OD tubing containing fluid at slightly 
under normal body temperature is giving off at least as much heat as a 
typical average-sized man. This would be rather remarkable if true, 
considering the much larger surface area of the man.
 
>     "Bubbles or other obstacles could easily lodge and dislodge around the
>     thermocouples in a matter of seconds, so verifying a thermocouple one
>     minute doesn't guarantee that it will read correctly the next minute."
> 
> That's not too likely in my opinion. The cell design prevents it. The filters
> and in-line mixers would not allow it. Anyway, it is a moot point because I
> confirmed the temperature in a cup of water on the other side of the room.
> I did not depend on the thermocouples being right, I checked them.

When I look at the photograph of the thermocouple tee on John Logajan's
home page, I can't really come to any firm conclusions. The thermocouple
is next to a right-angle bend and wrapped in plastic, so it's difficult 
to say what the flow pattern around it would be like. My seat-of-the-pants
judgement is that I don't fully trust it. But any readers with web access
can look for themselves and form their own opinions. 
 
As noted above, the independent measurements which which were used to
confirm the thermocouple readings seem to have some problems of their 
own.
 
>    "Note what Zoltan's report says:
> 
>    >The CETI people told me that the cells were turned off, only the pump
>    >was running. The temperature gage was constantly blinking, Jed said this
>    >was because it was on some funny scanning mode. I saw temperature
>    >readings from about 0.5 to 4.5, constantly changing."
> 
> That's a stupid comment from Zoltan. There is nothing "funny" about it. As I
> noted in my report, that is an Omega Model HH22 Microprocessor Thermometer.
> You can tell by looking at the photograph how it works. Note the button on the
> top left: "T1  T2  T1-T2" and the one in the middle: "SENSOR SELECT." You tell
> the gadget to display the temperature for thermocouple #1, thermocouple #2, or
> #1 minus #2. You can have it cycle through every few seconds, or you can
> SELECT and hold it in one mode. The LCD symbols on the left (those itty-bitty
> boxes) tells you which mode you are looking at. It is real simple. If Zoltan
> did not understand how it works, why didn't he ask? Heck I would have
> explained the whole thing, including that  funny' button with: "(little
> circle) F / (little circle) C" on it. That switches between Fahrenheit and
> Christmas Melody Mode. You tell the gadget to play Jingle Bells. You can even
> play it like a piano: that's what the "REC" (RECORD) button is for.
 
First let me say that, from his postings, I never got the impression that
Zoltan is in any way unintelligent. On the contrary, he seems quite 
intelligent to me. Of course, I realize that there are many people out 
there who might be willing to fervently argue that this is no strong 
recommendation. So maybe it would be best for me to just make a quick 
exit to another topic...
 
What may have been puzzling to Zoltan (and what is still puzzling to me) 
is the question of why the meters seemed to be showing a temperature 
difference when both cells were supposedly turned off. The numbers he 
reported (from 0.5 to 4.5) seem much too low to be absolute temperatures. 
But if the cells were turned off, the temperature differences should have 
been zero.
 
To the question of: "If Zoltan did not understand how it works, why didn't 
he ask?", I can only quote from his report:
 
> When I asked questions I was met with distrust, the CETI people did not
> seem to take to me.
 
You know, I kind of bet they didn't. Of course, it's perfectly possible
that the CETI people were just deeply involved in setting up for the 
afternoon's demonstration and didn't feel much like talking. But a 
pathological skeptic might just briefly harbor a fleeting suspicion 
that Zoltan was asking them some questions for which they had no ready 
answers.
 
Ted Craven
 
(All opinions stated are my own personal opinions and are not necessarily
shared by any other individuals or institutions.)

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnTed cudlnCraven cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / Ted Craven /  Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
     
Originally-From: Ted Craven <ted>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to T. Craven, M. Jones
Date: 30 Jan 1996 21:07:23 GMT
Organization: Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.

Jed Rothwell <jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
 
> Okay, this next item looks legit. Ted Craven <ted> writes:
> 
>     "Mr. Rothwell says in his report that in order to verify the demo cell
>     input temperature, it was necessary to turn off the control cell (or
>     later the heater which replaced it) and measure the temperature at the
>     control cell output."
> 
> Well, not too necessary. The control added such a small amount that it hardly
> raised the temperature, but I figured it would be better to leave it off.
> However, do not forget that we can also measure inlet temperature in the
> reservoir. The water goes from the reservoir to the cell inlet, cooling down a
> little along the way (1.1 to 1.4 deg C). I confirmed the thermocouple reading
> in the reservoir with my thermistors and thermometer.
 
Assuming that the total flow is 2 liters/min (i.e. 1 liter/min per cell) 
then that would mean that 150 to 190 watts of heat was being dissipated
from the tubing between the reservoir and the cell inlets. This seems very
high to me. To put the number in perspective, note that the 35 C reservoir
temperature which you have estimated corresponds to 95 F, which is slighly
less than normal human body temperature. And according to Linus Pauling,
an average-sized man who does a moderate amount of physical work needs
to consume about 3000 Kcal per day, which works out to a power of about 
145 watts. So according to your measurements, what appears to be about a 
meter or two of skinny half inch OD tubing containing fluid at slightly 
under normal body temperature is giving off at least as much heat as a 
typical average-sized man. This would be rather remarkable if true, 
considering the much larger surface area of the man.
 
>     "Bubbles or other obstacles could easily lodge and dislodge around the
>     thermocouples in a matter of seconds, so verifying a thermocouple one
>     minute doesn't guarantee that it will read correctly the next minute."
> 
> That's not too likely in my opinion. The cell design prevents it. The filters
> and in-line mixers would not allow it. Anyway, it is a moot point because I
> confirmed the temperature in a cup of water on the other side of the room.
> I did not depend on the thermocouples being right, I checked them.

When I look at the photograph of the thermocouple tee on John Logajan's
home page, I can't really come to any firm conclusions. The thermocouple
is next to a right-angle bend and wrapped in plastic, so it's difficult 
to say what the flow pattern around it would be like. My seat-of-the-pants
judgement is that I don't fully trust it. But any readers with web access
can look for themselves and form their own opinions. 
 
As noted above, the independent measurements which which were used to
confirm the thermocouple readings seem to have some problems of their 
own.
 
>    "Note what Zoltan's report says:
> 
>    >The CETI people told me that the cells were turned off, only the pump
>    >was running. The temperature gage was constantly blinking, Jed said this
>    >was because it was on some funny scanning mode. I saw temperature
>    >readings from about 0.5 to 4.5, constantly changing."
> 
> That's a stupid comment from Zoltan. There is nothing "funny" about it. As I
> noted in my report, that is an Omega Model HH22 Microprocessor Thermometer.
> You can tell by looking at the photograph how it works. Note the button on the
> top left: "T1  T2  T1-T2" and the one in the middle: "SENSOR SELECT." You tell
> the gadget to display the temperature for thermocouple #1, thermocouple #2, or
> #1 minus #2. You can have it cycle through every few seconds, or you can
> SELECT and hold it in one mode. The LCD symbols on the left (those itty-bitty
> boxes) tells you which mode you are looking at. It is real simple. If Zoltan
> did not understand how it works, why didn't he ask? Heck I would have
> explained the whole thing, including that  funny' button with: "(little
> circle) F / (little circle) C" on it. That switches between Fahrenheit and
> Christmas Melody Mode. You tell the gadget to play Jingle Bells. You can even
> play it like a piano: that's what the "REC" (RECORD) button is for.
 
First let me say that, from his postings, I never got the impression that
Zoltan is in any way unintelligent. On the contrary, he seems quite 
intelligent to me. Of course, I realize that there are many people out 
there who might be willing to fervently argue that this is no strong 
recommendation. So maybe it would be best for me to just make a quick 
exit to another topic...
 
What may have been puzzling to Zoltan (and what is still puzzling to me) 
is the question of why the meters seemed to be showing a temperature 
difference when both cells were supposedly turned off. The numbers he 
reported (from 0.5 to 4.5) seem much too low to be absolute temperatures. 
But if the cells were turned off, the temperature differences should have 
been zero.
 
To the question of: "If Zoltan did not understand how it works, why didn't 
he ask?", I can only quote from his report:
 
> When I asked questions I was met with distrust, the CETI people did not
> seem to take to me.
 
You know, I kind of bet they didn't. Of course, it's perfectly possible
that the CETI people were just deeply involved in setting up for the 
afternoon's demonstration and didn't feel much like talking. But a 
pathological skeptic might just briefly harbor a fleeting suspicion 
that Zoltan was asking them some questions for which they had no ready 
answers.
 
Ted Craven
 
(All opinions stated are my own personal opinions and are not necessarily
shared by any other individuals or institutions.)

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnTed cudlnCraven cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / John Skingley /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:50:41 +0000 (GMT)

In article <3109E6A0.7A1C@well.com>, Matt Austern
<mailto:austern@well.com> wrote:
> 
> Barry Merriman wrote: 
> > 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
> > impede acceptance and understanding, and certainly also creates the
> > possibility that the complex proposal is itself some sort of recipe for
> > producing artifiacts. 
> 
> Moreover, if the effect is so finicky that only a few experts in the world
> can possibly have a chance of achieving it, if the concerted effort of a 
> major lab are insufficient, then this means that even if the effect is
> actually real it's worthless for industrial purposes.  If anything's going to be 
> used on a large enough scale to be of any value commercially, then, more or less
> by definition, it has to be trivial to replicate.
> 
> The claim that this is all very complicated, and that ordinary skilled scientists
> can't get it right no matter how hard they try, is very much a double edged
> sword.

I don't mean to flame, but this is a load of B*LL-SH*T !

I wonder what sort of a mess you'd make of a plain sponge cake, given the average
recipe from a cook book as 'protocol'?  Better still, try a souffle!
I think that probably 'only a (relatively) few experts' can reproduce these.

And I wonder how reproducible Marconi's first 'wireless' experiments were?
No doubt the 'scientists' of the day said that couldn't work, as there was no
known way it could!

Is radio used reliably on a large scale today?

As I see it, we don't know WHAT is causing the observed effects, but that doesn't 
mean that they can't happen. We need to find the exact conditions required, which
in turn will lead to an understanding, which will lead to reproducibility, and,
in the longer term, to widespread use.

If some 'scientists' contributing here had been around in Marconi's day, radio
would have been still born.

 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 31 04:37:06 EST 1996
------------------------------
