1996.01.31 / 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: 31 Jan 1996 00:23:50 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu> John Chunko writes: > Just because everything is made up of atoms does not mean or even > imply in the slightest that the whole of everything must be ==> One <== > gigantic universal atom. As you said in your post the argument you used > was indeed very simple, as for the "logic" used, you are as far away from > logical as the number one is to infinity. Now consider this, following > simple logical reasoning, if the whole world is made up of people and > dirt and little forrest critters then the whole world must be one giant > zookeeper who hasn't taken a shower in a while. Do they teach Logic there at Case Western? You must have stumbled into the Analogy course instead of Logic, eh? You know, I can keep your above and remind you in the future what you had said, as sort of a warmup joke to an audience at a convention. But before you run off to play, I need you to make a Curie Plot of beta decay where it predicts the neutrino restmass of 17 eV. Post that to this newsgroup and title it Curie Plot. Show us that you have some worthwhile brains,eh? cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Randy Freeze / Re: Physics teachers are physicists Originally-From: Randy Freeze Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro,uk.education.teachers Subject: Re: Physics teachers are physicists Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:52:34 -0400 Organization: NBNet On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Mark Burbidge wrote: > Additionally posted to uk.education.teachers, followups redirected to > uk.education.teachers and sci.physics > > In a message posted on 14 Jan 1996 23:15:01 GMT to the newsgroup > sci.physics, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >> : >On 30 Oct 1995, Herve Le Cornec wrote: > >> : >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 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > a teacher of physics but not a physicist > > I resent this, Ar.Pl. A teacher of Physics has to THINK Physics all > day, and has to think of novel ways to try and provide some insight > for the next generation. A teacher has to be qualified in the main > subject they teach, and has generally undergone years of study in that > subject. Many teachers have also worked "in the field". I grant you > that teachers are not (usually) at the cutting edge of their subject - > however they are active participants within their subjects. If daily > participation in physics does not make you a physicist, then what > does? > > Mark Burbidge > > ________________________________________________________________ > > "If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can > possibly imagine" > "METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, I SUPPOSE. DO YOU LIKE CATS?" > ________________________________________________________________ > > I was realy surprised that there were more people that felt the same as my physics teacher does. I thought he was the only one that thought that way except he puts it in more of a general way. He says that anyone that teaches science and applies the scientific method must be a scientist. Randy Freeze cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenrandy cudfnRandy cudlnFreeze cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / A Plutonium / Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) 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 23:46:42 GMT Organization: Plutonium College In article <4ele0a$och@news.acns.nwu.edu> "Todd K. Pedlar" writes: > 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. > > 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. I missed much of the history of the neutrino rest mass, Todd. Everything before the Canadians thought they had a 17 eV neutrino rest mass. Obviously that would make my 2neutrinos=1photon possess rest mass of 34 eV and the ionization energy of hydrogen is 13 eV. And I believe this 17 eV prediction comes out of the Curie plot for beta decay. Straight line intersects the axis indicates the neutrino rest mass. I don't know about any of you guys but that to me would discount the 17 eV right then and there, because we would have a funny world if the ionization energy of hydrogen is 13 eV and the rest mass of the neutrino was 17 eV. Thus, I want another decay mode to theoretically predict the rest mass of the neutrino and photon. The best I have so far is the neutron decay. My plan of attack which involves experimentation is to turn the neutron and its decay byproducts of proton, electron, and neutrino into 100% of one of two conjugate duals, say for instance particle and wave, or energy and time, or energy and rest-mass. So, set-up the experiments to convert them into pure particle, but this is where there cannot be measured 100% pure raw particle. Instead, something like 99.9999999999 will be converted to particle but that tiny tip cannot. It is this tiny tip which is the wave aspect of the neutrino and twice it is the rest mass of the photon. So, the experimental set-up is to convert all of the system into say particle or energy and what cannot be converted is the wave or rest mass, respectively. In a sense, it is like photons or electrons when wanting them into 100% particle, such as the photoelectric effect, yet there is that smidgeon of measurable wave aspect. Here, the smidgeon is the rest mass. And to this extent the very existence of the neutrino is to carry away in a hydrogen atom system the complimentary aspect. That is to say, why does the neutrino exist at all in the world. And my answer is that the neutrino is the part of the hydrogen atom which when attempted to force the hydrogen atom into all particle or all wave, is the stubborn piece that is remaining to carry the other aspect through. So, I propose to discover the rest mass of the neutrino and thereby the photon is to squeeze a neutron into all energy and where the squeezing is no longer possible is the rest mass of the neutrino. The experiments should be able to try to convert all of the neutron or its byproducts of proton and electron of a decayed neutron into pure energy, or pure particle thereby discovering the tiny bit that will no longer convert. This is the rest-mass of the neutrino. I wrote: > rest mass of neutrino = 10^-7 MEV > _________ X .5 MEV (rest mass of electron) > 10^3 MEV It is this ratio of 10^-10, it is this ratio which I contend is the limit of conversion to one of the other conjugate pairs such as particle-wave, energy-time, momentum-position, angular momentum- angular position, charge-restmass, energy-restmass. Call this new ratio, this dimensionless number of somewhere approx 10^-10 or 10^-11 the Limit of Conversion cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Bill Snyder / Re: COLD FUSION Originally-From: bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: COLD FUSION Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 03:04:56 GMT Organization: customer of Internet America In message , medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote: >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..... Those "heavy hitters" being the same bunch of professional liars and lunatics who sold you on Velikovsky? Ahhh, I though so... And, indeed, there *is* no reason why you can't drive, right now, a car "which you fill with water every other year or so." Provided you're prepared to sit at the wheel and wait for the next Velikovskian super-flood or earthquake to move it somewhere. -- -- Bill Snyder [ This space unintentionally left blank. ] cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Erik Francis / Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV Originally-From: Erik Max Francis 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 15:44:09 -0800 Organization: &tSftDotIotE Holger Franz wrote: > Re: F=m*a. The correct formula is F=dp/dt (p:impulse, t:time) > So if F=0 p=const. F=m*a is only correct when p=m*v *and* > m=const. Minor correction: p here is momentum, not impulse. Impulse is a change in momentum; i.e., integral p dt. -- Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE. && max@alcyone.darkside.com || max@alcyone.com San Jose, California, U.S.A. && 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W && the 4th R is respect H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- && 1love && folasade Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. && GIGO Omega Psi && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ "Out from his breast/his soul went to seek/the doom of the just." -- _Beowulf_ cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Bill Rowe / Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:25:01 -0800 Organization: none apparent In article , John Skingley wrote: >In article <3109E6A0.7A1C@well.com>, Matt Austern > wrote: >> >> 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. I think souffles are good examples of something requiring a high degree of skill. I submit that because of this, souffles are not produced on a large comerciall scale. In short, seems to me this is a good example of the point Matt was making. We can argue about the wording of Matt's post. Certainly, what one person considers trivial another might not. There are also countless examples of things such as semiconductors that I personally do not have the resources to replicate and would not find trivial to replicate. None of this detracts from the basic point. Things that can't be reduced to a fairly straight forward receipe and require great skill by individuals are almost invariably not produced on a commercial scale. If this is indeed the requirement to reproduce CF effects, I very much doubt I will see much benefit from CF or that it will be produced on a commercial scale. -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Barry Merriman / Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Originally-From: Barry Merriman Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol Date: 31 Jan 1996 05:50:06 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles I generally have faith that no matter how complex a process is, if its of great importance it will be refined to the point where a suitable yield can be established. Thats basically a man-hours thing. All I was saying is that a complex process will certainly impede acceptance of a phenomena by the scientific community. This can even be seen in the Hi Tc superconductivity world; I went to a talk by (nodel laureate) Phillip Anderson last week, who seems to have put together a fairly convincing theory for Hi Tc, and he noted at the end that the limits of Hi Tc are about 160 degrees K in known compounds, both in experiment and his theoretical extrapolations, and that while much higher Tc's have occasionally been reported (200 + K), they have never been widely replicated and are so ignored/rejected by most of the community. Maybe the 200+ Tc materials are real, but are just very difficult to prepare. But either way, they can't be accepted by the community until the _are_ readily reproducible, and the burden of proof really falls on those who initiate such claims...they will have to do the work to improve the reproducibility. The same is true of CF---if the process is extremely sensitive, then the principals will need to work harder to refine it before others will accept their results. I see no problem with that. However, once they have a robust protocol, it would be quite unfair if that were not given a thorough scientific review. Since the CETI cell presents as much, I think it certainly deserves to be carefully studied. Of course, this process never really ends---if the CETI cell were seen to not work as claimed, the CF researchers should by all means keep looking for a better protocol...but of course, it naturally requires more and more spectacular results to attract scientific scrutiny, as should be the case (the ``cry wolf effect''). -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy31 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / JEChampion / Heat,or no heat --who cares? Originally-From: jechampion@aol.com (JEChampion) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Heat,or no heat --who cares? Date: 31 Jan 1996 01:03:53 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Heat, or no heat, who cares? The questions are -- Can a nuclear event occur under low energy conditions? If so, what benefit does it have other than academic? Are the searchers, looking in the wrong test tubes? Being a supporter of Merlin, I lack the answers to such questions. However, today and during the past weeks, I continue to supply the precious metal industry with kilograms of platinum. Yes, it has a signature, for my Pt only has isotopes 194, 195 and 196. The real question is -- does one qualify a science from observation, or his checking account? Joe E. Champion cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenjechampion cudlnJEChampion cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Barry Merriman / Re: COLD FUSION Originally-From: Barry Merriman Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: COLD FUSION Date: 30 Jan 1996 23:12:43 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles 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. They are sweating a bit---nothing to do with cold fusion though; its the budget cuts, which were made for reasons with little to do with science. (Basically, US fusion research was supposed to grow rapidly over the next 10 years. The budget cutters didn;t want any big growth items in the budget, so they simply cut it off at the roots to prevetn that growth. Primarily an economic move, the content of the program had little to do with it). > >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..... Then tell me why Japan, supposedly the Mecca of CF research, is building their hot fusion research program (presently 2 x the size of the US program, at ~ $500 M/yr), _with the blessing_ of many large corporations (See the fusion article in last weeks Science). Seems both the government and corporate leaders are acting as if their CF research is not going to have any near term payoff.... > >Ted Holden >medved@digex.com > -- Barry Merriman UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center UCLA Dept. of Math merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet) (NeXTMail OK) cudkeys: cuddy30 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Holger Franz / Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV Originally-From: hfranz@acds02.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Holger Franz ) 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 13:18:17 GMT Organization: RWTH -Aachen / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> In article <310C9C4F.79CC@mgl.ca>, David Harris writes: David> Hmm... At any rate, arn't we talking about something that can't David> happen? Last time I checked, a photon cannot rest... Unless David> that's changed? Tell me if it has! ;) Hmm... And just David> wondering, if F=MA, and we know force = 0, so one of the two David> (or both) have to be zero, right? There is no in between? Just David> a thought... Hmm... Someone should do an experiment... Anyone David> have a black hole handy? David> off the workstation, out the port, through the router, under David> the nameserver, past the gateway, into the domain, . . . David> nothin' but net. David> David Harris, ignore the idiocity in the message above, it was David> written by an idiot! If a photon has no rest mass it cannot rest according to special relativity. This implies that a photon with zero rest mass *must* travel at c. If the photon had a nonvanishing rest mass it could not travel at c. Re: F=m*a. The correct formula is F=dp/dt (p:impulse, t:time) So if F=0 p=const. F=m*a is only correct when p=m*v *and* m=const. Idiocity ignored. Holger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAgUBMQ4ai/0SfNQJJ0UdAQF11QP+Pd3A/5g+AVSKUTJDt0yUczX4OXstdF6B ZsFNYU6FjGdxJOxhxujpTyc95uBQadc6EacxiwjbEiI7286a7jk4Yr7ppCKrwLuu nT+qHW2DT3q9kzAOlqLeLCfu09a2hmmuXFogh0JTKPnNiWznbI79h9Yf0JxNcKjM 22j1H3UEYow= =eWPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- <| Holger Franz |> cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenhfranz cudfnHolger cudlnFranz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Holger Franz / Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV Originally-From: hfranz@acds02.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Holger Franz ) 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: 31 Jan 1996 13:58:48 GMT Organization: RWTH -Aachen / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> In article <310EAD49.643970EC@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis writes: Erik> Holger Franz wrote: >> Re: F=m*a. The correct formula is F=dp/dt (p:impulse, t:time) So if >> F=0 p=const. F=m*a is only correct when p=m*v *and* m=const. Erik> Minor correction: p here is momentum, not impulse. Impulse is a Erik> change in momentum; i.e., integral p dt. I stand corrected. This is what you get when you think in a different language than that in which you are writing: German Impuls is English momentum, which I meant to write. Sorry for the confusion. Holger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMQ91hP0SfNQJJ0UdAQHhJQQA2tCwjDtQgyn4kJQ0+r2EuWA9nrsCCslC OmthNjsN8wEe/Z/cVl/yOzDnU0TwWcJxhf3rmTeudupmQc2N1OEdphuxGIaamzYI pXdTb1paWZCkSFuxBDYbu4KCiWyqzcTLkVWXDofoVXLqeCGcDU4398Iu2txwTd90 ADE8MtieGJQ= =B9af -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- <| Holger Franz |> cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenhfranz cudfnHolger cudlnFranz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.30 / Robert Horst / Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: CF/New Energy Symp. trip report Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:31:12 +0100 Organization: Tandem Computers In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > > 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. > -- Yes, I think it is too much to ask to see results in a peer reviewed journal. The lead time for a journal would guarantee that no results of PowerGen could be published for 6 months to a year from now. Also, I think that CETI is now probably doing more engineering than science. Engineers do not usually write papers for journals before producing products. The only "unresolved questions" I know of are from Mitchell Jones blindly trying to replicate part of the experiment in his basement. It seems much more likely that he has not faithfully reproduced the experiment due to different materials or a different configuration. For instance, he clearly does not have either the same airflow or the same heat conduction paths as the demo. Also remember that his experiment questions only the amount of excess. Clearly the output must have been far above the couple of watts input. I do not have first hand information about the other replications, but there have been reports of the replication by Miley at U of Illinois. The CETI brochure given out at the symposium also gives brief testimonials from Dr. Quinton Bowles at U of Missouri, and Bruce Klein at Bechtel. Motorola's interest was also reported at the symposium and in the Wall Street Journal article. It does not seem reasonable that all of these groups, plus the people who examined the demos at SOFE and PowerGen, could have been fooled. -- Bob Horst cudkeys: cuddy30 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Richard Blue / Re: Science project for Matt Kennedy Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Science project for Matt Kennedy Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:51:12 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway Matt, The advocates for cold fusion are constantly telling us that the replication of cold fusion effects requires strict adherence to certain protocols known only to the inner circle of cold fusion experts so ordinary people will not have much success in this field. However, there are things that you can investigate to learn first hand why some of use do not trust the claims being made for cold fusion. I would recommend that you follow the lead of Mitchell Jones who has been reporting here a series of simple experiments to determine how heat must leave a cold fusion system that had been in the news lately. To get more information you could access the archives for this news group or perhaps you could contact Mitchell Jones directly. Basically you will need some form of electric water heater, a pump to circulate the heated water, lots of plastic tubing to make connections and to serve as the "radiator", a fan to cool the radiator, and two thermometers (electronic if possible, but not neccessarily). The problem that Mitchell Jones has uncovered is that the power levels claimed for heating in what is known as the CETI demo are too high for the cooling capacity of the equipment they describe. That would indicate that there is something bogus about their claims. You don't really have to attempt to do cold fusion to investigate cold fusion claims. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Richard Blue / Reding backs off from cold fusion Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Reding backs off from cold fusion Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:52:05 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I note with interest the Jerry Bishop piece from the Wall Street Journal concerning CETI. So we learn the main man is named Reding, and he no longer claims that the gadget he is peddling induces cold fusion. Got that, Jed? CETI does not confirm anything to do with cold fusion. It's something else! Now, the challange I put to all you true believers is for you to name that "something else". Tell us how it works, and specify a test for your hypothesis. It is just basic gradeschool science. Dick Blue cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.29 / 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: 29 Jan 1996 16:05:06 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote: : I Johnston writes: : : >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? : : I have answered that question several times. I did not observe the first : run closely. Dennis Cravens recently reported that it was running at the : normal rate of about 500 watts most of the time, and that it was only : boosed up to the 1300 watt level for about a quarter-hour. I did not : measure it myself, and I was only there for about an hour, so I cannot : verify that claim. What a pity you didn't present your original findings as hearsay, but rather as a matter of observed fact. Is there anything else you have sworn blind to be true on the basis of your own observations which was actually told to you by someone else with a financial interest in your gullibility? It will save a lot of time dragging the truth out of you if you own up now, and heaven knows it won't lower you in our estimation. Ian cudkeys: cuddy29 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Mike Doncheski / Re: Rest mass of photon = neutrino MEV/ neutron MEV Originally-From: Mike Doncheski 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: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 15:58:15 GMT Organization: Carleton University - Dept. of Physics Todd K. Pedlar wrote: > > I believe the 17 eV neutrino mass has been killed off, though I'm not > sure of what the arguments are. If the neutrino mass WAS 17 eV, I wouldn't > say there was anything weird going on in relation to the ionization energy > of hydrogen. > I hope I'm not being too rude by jumping into the middle of this discussion, but the neutrino mass in question was _not_ 17 eV, it was 17 keV. It was postulated in order to explain a kink in the Curie plot for tritium beta decay. The neutrino coming out was supposed to be primarily a light or massless neutrino with a few per cent admixture of 17 keV neutrino; the kink marked the transition point from where the 17 keV component was kinematically allowed to where it was not. This 17 keV neutrino is sometimes known as Simpson's neutrino, after it's first proponent Prof. Simpson at Guelph. After a lot of excitement, and conflicting experimental results, it was announced by a former graduate student of Simpson that the whole effect was due to the experimental apparatus. The apparatus had "baffles" of some sort to prevent stray electrons from being in the wrong place. In the experimental analysis of the data, single scatterings of signal electrons in the baffles were taken into account, but multiple scatterings were not. The re-analysis indicated that multiple scatterings could produce a kink quite similar to that expected from a massive neutrino. I was simply an interested party and I had nothing to do with the experiments, so the details above are quite possibly wrong, but the overall picture is probably OK. I did attend a conference where the re-analysis (and conclusion that there was indeed no 17 keV neutrino) was presented, and I can try to find the proceedings if anyone is interested. It's a real shame that it disappeared. No one anticipated it, and it would have been difficult to fit it in with our current picture. Mike +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= mad@garm.physics.carleton.ca is Michael A. Doncheski (on a good day) "If it's not worth overdoing, it's not worth doing!" this is my .sig file...live with it cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenmad cudfnMike cudlnDoncheski cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Kevin Quitt / Re: COLD FUSION Originally-From: kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin Quitt) Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: COLD FUSION Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:43:51 GMT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory So how long do these beads last, and how much energy went into making them? I have a box that puts out power with ZERO power in, and it hasn't given up yet. When I patent it, I'm going to call it "BATTERY". -- #include http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/ _ Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up cudkeys: cuddy31 cudenkdq cudfnKevin cudlnQuitt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.01.31 / Eric Carruthers / Re: COLD FUSION Originally-From: Eric Carruthers Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic Subject: Re: COLD FUSION Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:53:37 -0500 Organization: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. On 30 Jan 1996, Publius (copied his own post)wrote: > Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote: > : > : 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 sounds an awful lot like a chemical reaction. What makes you think there is any fusion going on? Seen any high energy neutrons flying around? Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening? Some sort of (p,n) reaction? Where should I send all of the money I wish to invest? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Carruthers' views. carruthe@candu.aecl.ca AECL-Candu, Sheridan Park, Ontario, Canada, Earth. What is man without the beasts?...All things are connected.Chief Seattle. cudkeys: cuddy31 cudencarruthe cudfnEric cudlnCarruthers cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 ------------------------------ 1996.02.01 / Horace Heffner / A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:36:34 GMT Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway I haven't been reading this newsgroup for a while. Last I checked it seemed like the s.p.f pot needed some stirring to keep interest up, so here is a little stir in case anybody is interrested: A BOSE CONDENSATE HYPOTHESIS FOR COLD FUSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS The recent creation of a .002 inch 3000 atom Bose condensate by Carl Weiman and Eric Cornell may provide a possible insight to some cold fusion phenomena. The rubidium atom condensate was created with much difficulty and ingenuity at the extreme temperature of 20 nanokelvins, which was created by applying an RF field to rubidium atoms in a magnetic trap. The RF field was tuned to resonate with higher energy atoms, and thus caused these rubidium atoms to flip and then be shot out of the trap, thus leaving only those atoms with no significant energy. Though this was a difficult and amazing feat, demonstrating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates to a true physical state of matter, not just experimental uncertainty, perhaps nature readily accomplishes it in a small way in metallic lattices. It is a much less difficult feat to create an overlap of two hydrogen nuclei in a 1 A condensate than it is to create an overlap of 3000 rubidium atoms in a 500,000 A condensate. The rubidium atom overlap was sustainable for more than 15 minutes. To be significant to CF, a condensate of two protons or deuterons in a lattice site need only be formed a very short time, if formed often enough. The Weiman-Cornell experiment, supported by the Pritchard slit experiments, clearly demonstrates the reality of the wave nature of matter. Perhaps it is the only form of matter. The particle nature of matter might be explained strictly by wave function collapse, which is not a characteristic of ordinary waves, but clearly is a characteristic of quantum waveforms. For example, looking at the photoelectric effect, suppose a huge photon waveform from a distant star impacts via it's own random selection process at a particular point on a metal surface, ejecting an electron, why do we have to say the photon is a particle at the point of the electron ejection? It could just as easily be considered (called) a collapsed photon waveform as it could be considered a particle. A waveform collapse consists of an instantaneous change in wave form center and distribution. Such a collapse also clearly accounts for tunneling effects as well. Where is the need for a particle model at all? If matter is totally wave like, it seems inescapable that charge must be therefore be distributed in the waveform, as there exists no point to carry it. This has the benefit, as Richard Feynman pointed out, of conservation of energy, because a point charge could generate an infinitely intense field, as you approach the point, requiring an infinite amount of energy to create the field. THE HYPOTHESIS Wavefurm collapse occurs probabilistically on the relative approach of two or more quantum waveforms. One quantum waveform can collapse to the location of the other. If two overlapped, i.e. relatively to each other slow, waveforms in a Bose condensate are penetrated by a high velocity waveform, a condensation can occur. Also,a kind of paradox occurs. All motion is relative. Assume the condensate is two protons, and the high velocity waveform is an electron. From the point of view of the proton condensate, the wavelength (size) of the electron is small. From the point of view of the electron, though, the condensate must be very small, and more importantly, since the waveforms of the proton condensate are phase locked and co-located, the condensate must appear located in a small volume. Thus, if there is an interaction, it would seem there would be a high probability that the interaction would be a 3 body interaction. That is to say the phase locking tendency of a condensate would greatly change waveform co-location probabilities. Given two protons jammed into a lattice site, the Schroedinger Equation predicts that they will tend to be instantaneously found in opposing locations within the site. However, should they form a Bose condensate, it is logical that their locations would appear to be the same to a fast moving particle. The hypothesis is that a Bose candensate, when stimulated by an incident particle, will tend to cause the simultaneous collapse of constituant waveforms at the same location. This hypothesis provides some explanation for various effects. One is the Kasagi experiment, where deuterated titanium is bombarded with deuterons. The reaction hypothesized by Kasagi to account for the observed results: D + D + D -> p + n + alpha (+ 21.62 MeV) requires a mechanism to make such a reaction likely in the matrix, i.e. to cause target deuteron pairs to tend to be located at nuclear distances from each other. The subject hypothesis provides such a mechanism. Similarly, the original experiments by Pons and Fleischmann, tended to produce neutrons in pairs, i.e. from single events. A deuteron condensate, stimulated by particles resulting from cosmic rays, could produce a variety of products, including neutron pairs, He4, He3, and T, as well as, depending on the type of impacting particle, transmutations such as Li and Be. Let [D + D] represent a two deuterium atom condensate. If a cosmic ray struck a deuterium nucleus, which then struck a deuterium condensate, we could have something like: D + [D + D] -> n + n + p + He3 (+ .584 MeV) Similarly, in various observed hydrogen systems a condensate could form, giving e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) or e + [p + Li(n)] -> Li(n+1) (+energy) or e + [p + D] -> T (+energy) where the possibility of such formations is a matter of considerable debate. The case of : e + [p + p] -> n + p (+ energy) is just a variation of: e + p -> n (+ energy) proposed by Elio Conte. The importance of Conte's theory in this regard is that it predicts the possibility of creating such a bound state with the release of energy (17 KeV) and without a neutrino. To a much smaller degree, it seems possible that a Bose condensate might momentarily be formed between adsorbed hydrogen and lattice atoms. Such cases, as well as cases of neutron formation noted above, could possibly account for various transmutations observed in CF experiments. This hypothesis also provides some explanation for observed positive effects of using particles to stimulate loaded cathodes. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS One way to test the hypothesis would involve colliding a particle beam with a Bose condensate and looking at the resulting products spectographically, e.g. bombard with protons and look for Strontium, Tungsten, or Osmium, etc., spectral lines in the results, and the presence of high energy neutrons or other particles. Additionally, high energy electron bombardment of the Bose condensate might create similar effects by catalyzing the condensate waveform collapse. PRACTICAL APPLICATION If true, the hypothesis indicates that spiking the cathodes of CF electrolysis cells with particle emitters should greatly increase the yield and reliability of the CF effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 cudkeys: cuddy1 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 1 04:37:03 EST 1996 ------------------------------