1996.02.01 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 23:16:48 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <ant011511d07KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>,
   John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
->In article <310fd433.100605440@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, Kevin Quitt
-><mailto:kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
->> 
->> 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".
->> 
->
->Now how can someone working for NASA be such a twit!
->
->All I can say is that I know where your energy is comming from, do you know
->where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
->
->---------------------------
->Regards,  John.
->P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790
->


The only energy in any way related to cold fusion radiates from the back of 
Jed's neck when he get perturbed.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / 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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 01:54:06 GMT
Organization: customer of Internet America

In message <ant011520b49KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4emmu1$k2i@news-f.iadfw.net>, Bill Snyder
><mailto:bsnyder@iadfw.net> wrote:
>> 
>> In message <medved.822991021@access5>, 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...
>> 
>>   -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

>Now what the *"%$!&*"! has Velikovsky to do with CF!

>And just because someone beleives something that you don't, doesn't make 
>them liers!  You could consider them misguided, if you like.

FYI, Mr. Holden is a well-known net.kook and
Velikovskyite-creationist.  You are of course correct in saying that
Holden and his "sources" (read:  fellow crackpots) are not liars
merely because they contradict my opinions.  They are proven liars in
the causational sense because they choose to be dishonest. and in the
evidential one because they're so clumsy at it, and thus have been
publicly caught out so many times., 

>The whole tone of your response is childish, and illogical. After all, I
>could make the same remarks about you, because you DON'T beleive in CF.
>"Those who convinced you that CF doesn't work, are the same bunch of liers..."

>Lets all grow up, and stop insulting each other, PLEASE!!!

Sounds good to me.  You go first.

--
  -- Bill Snyder       [ This space unintentionally left blank. ]

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbsnyder cudfnBill cudlnSnyder cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 /  Dan /  how do you do it?
     
Originally-From: Dan O'Hara <danohara@postoffice.ptd.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: how do you do it?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 21:04:37 -0500
Organization: ProLog - PenTeleData, Inc.

How does one put power into the beads?  I have seen diagrams of the 
Fleishman (sp?) Pons reactors.  How does the current flow into a 
spherical beed.  What is the diffusion current when the bead is in a 
linear field?  Does this cause auto optimization?  I'd like to find out 
what is actually thought to be going on.
	Where are the beads located in the cell?  Anode, cathode?
	Where did my posting from yesterday go to?
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudendanohara cudlnDan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 21:02:54 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4elcln$bib@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vcockeram@aol.com
(VCockeram) wrote:

[Snip}
> 
> 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

***{Well, I guess I will have to demote your idea from "brilliant" to
"very good," since it didn't work. I tried it, and found no discernible
effect. (I added a small fan blowing directly on the filter cannister,
just in case one was needed.) Anyway, welcome to the club: since I have
been doing these experiments a lot of my brilliant ideas have been demoted
by the facts! --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.30 / John Elston /  Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
     
Originally-From: elston@prairienet.org (John M. Elston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion: Wall Street Journal Article Reprinted
Date: 30 Jan 1996 16:50:12 GMT
Organization: Prairienet, the East-Central Illinois Free-Net

Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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,
: ...

Evidently you missed the quote at the end of the article:

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."

At least Dr. Birnbaum hasn't written Patterson off at this point.
Like most of the rest of us, he just wants more substantial experimental
evidence.

: 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.

Ever hear of non-disclosure agreements, or things like that.

:     --bks


--
John M. Elston                   (217) 352-6908
Elston Computer Consulting       elston@prairienet.org 
2708 Santa Ana Rd
Champaign, IL   61821-2339       Coins & Computers & Cards, Oh My! 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenelston cudfnJohn cudlnElston cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 2 Feb 1996 05:10:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
> Anyway, welcome to the club: since I have
>been doing these experiments a lot of my brilliant ideas have been demoted
>by the facts! --Mitchell Jones}***
>

Welcome to the real world of physics.

No chance this could apply to your etheron theory of matter,
though, I suppose. That is, of course manifestly correct, even
though you don't seem to have much of an intuitive feel for the thermal
properties of plastic....

(Oh, I couldn't resist. I should get a life....:-)




-- 
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Dave Oldridge /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: doldridg@ra.isisnet.com (Dave Oldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 12:33:42 -0400
Organization: Coastal Watch Information Services Ltd., Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.960131174319.259A-100000@banting.candu.aecl.ca>,
Eric Carruthers <carruthe@candu.aecl.ca> wrote:

>> :   in some way with the metals, with an effect akin to cold fusion.
><snip>
>
>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?

If the reported energy values for input and output are anywhere within
an order of magnitude of their real values, then it's hard to see where
a purely chemical phenomenon could produce them without also producing a
LOT of chemical ash.  It's possible of course that some chemical
reaction is happening and causing the heat measurements to behave
anomalously (which is the first place I'd look really), but if the
phenomenon keeps persisting as reported and can be reproduced in other
labs (as also seems the case) and nobody can explain it with
conventional chemistry, then I'd say it's time to start looking for
nuclear explanations, conventional or otherwise.

>Just what fusion reaction do you suppose could be happening?
>Some sort of (p,n) reaction?

My guess would be some sort of p, Li-> He4 reaction with SOMETHING
suppressing any gammas or forcing all the energy into thermal He4.
Nobody has really done much work on detecting nuclear ash in these
experiments as of yet.  There are other possible paths, too, such as
p,Ni or p,Pa, although it's hard to justify them with current quantum
theory.  That, however, is not necessarily a drawback to the whole idea
as there are some other things in life that don't quite work with
current quantum theory either....

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@ra.isisnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudendoldridg cudfnDave cudlnOldridge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 05:19:28 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> 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?

At CWRU, there are a variety of courses that teach logic, not only 
philosophical, but also in the realms of physics and engineering. While 
you may have been taught by armpit-scratching monkeys (though we realize 
that this is an optimistic view), you can rest assured that your version 
of logic, which is better known as idiocy, has no place in a modern 
curriculum. However, if there is ever a need for your "logic" in higher 
education (though it more appropiately belongs to lower education), I am 
sure that you will be informed by the drooling remnants of our society. 
Since at that point, anyone with existing brain cells would have been 
killed as a threat to the process of de-evolution.

	As for the reason why I had used an analogy earlier, it was to 
jest at your inane theories. Though by simple logic, I can see that you 
can not even grasp this simple concept. Your chimpanzee master would be 
ashamed of you....
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:10:33 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> 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?

At CWRU, there are a variety of courses that teach logic, not only 
philosophical, but also in the realms of physics and engineering. While 
you may have been taught by armpit-scratching monkeys (though we realize 
that this is an optimistic view), you can rest assured that your version 
of logic, which is better known as idiocy, has no place in a modern 
curriculum. However, if there is ever a need for your "logic" in higher 
education (though it more appropiately belongs to lower education), I am 
sure that you will be informed by the drooling remnants of our society. 
Since at that point, anyone with existing brain cells would have been 
killed as a threat to the process of de-evolution.

	As for the reason why I had used an analogy earlier, it was to 
jest at your inane theories. Though by simple logic, I can see that you 
can not even grasp this simple concept. Your chimpanzee master would be 
ashamed of you....
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:44:29 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> 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?

At CWRU, there are a variety of courses that teach logic, not only 
philosophical, but also in the realms of physics and engineering. While 
you may have been taught by armpit-scratching monkeys (though we realize 
that this is an optimistic view), you can rest assured that your version 
of logic, which is better known as idiocy, has no place in a modern 
curriculum. However, if there is ever a need for your "logic" in higher 
education (though it more appropiately belongs to lower education), I am 
sure that you will be informed by the drooling remnants of our society. 
Since at that point, anyone with existing brain cells would have been 
killed as a threat to the process of de-evolution.

	As for the reason why I had used an analogy earlier, it was to 
jest at your inane theories. Though by simple logic, I can see that you 
can not even grasp this simple concept. Your chimpanzee master would be 
ashamed of you....
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:13:27 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> 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?

At CWRU, there are a variety of courses that teach logic, not only 
philosophical, but also in the realms of physics and engineering. While 
you may have been taught by armpit-scratching monkeys (though we realize 
that this is an optimistic view), you can rest assured that your version 
of logic, which is better known as idiocy, has no place in a modern 
curriculum. However, if there is ever a need for your "logic" in higher 
education (though it more appropiately belongs to lower education), I am 
sure that you will be informed by the drooling remnants of our society. 
Since at that point, anyone with existing brain cells would have been 
killed as a threat to the process of de-evolution.

	As for the reason why I had used an analogy earlier, it was to 
jest at your inane theories. Though by simple logic, I can see that you 
can not even grasp this simple concept. Your chimpanzee master would be 
ashamed of you....
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / J Mainwaring /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 2 Feb 1996 10:25:02 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <ant011922b49KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
<john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> 
|> As far as radiation is concerned, I'm not convinced that there MUST be some,
|> since we do not know how it is happening, even if it IS fusion. Can you tell
|> me how much radiation there 'should' be for a measly 1KW of energy release, 
|> assuming a 'conventional' reaction?  Would this amount be detectable?.
|> Would it do any harm?  Would it be noticable if you weren't looking for it?
|> These are serious questions, asked assuming you know something about HF.
|> 
	Answer, it would depend upon the form of the radiation, which
would depend upon what reaction is actually taking place.  If it
is an Alpha, beta, or gamma radiation, then we should be able to
eventually detect it, assuming that we repeat the experiment often
enough in a shielded chamber.  OTOH, if this is some unknown type
of reaction, it could potentially be emitting something far harder
to detect, such as muons.  In that case, we would need to do a
series of cloud chamber tests to find it.  But if fusion is occuring,
we should be able to find the radiation.  NO, the amount of radiation
coming from a 1 KW reaction should not be harmful.  If it is a
"conventional" chemical reaction, then there should be no radiation
above background coming from the power cell.  

-- 
Jonah Mainwaring

A .sig by anyother name is still a .sig
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmainwarj cudfnJonah cudlnMainwaring cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / M Loughlin /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk (Michael Loughlin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 10:34:30 GMT
Organization: JET

John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Do I take it from your support for Bill Snyder that you agree with him?

If you were familiar with Ted Holden's track record you would be aware
that people have tried a number of ways to deal with him. In Ted's case
rational argument is only minimally effective.

>It's typical of the detractors to 'CF' that they always pick on some peripheral point
>to argue with, and ignore the central point being discussed.

Really? Look again at the initial responses. There were questions regarding
the detection of radiation, this is central to a claim for fusion. Kevin Quitt's
question about the amount of energy required to make the beads is also
a central point. You called him a twit but I think you missed the point of
his question.

Anyway, we're in danger of being distracted. Let's return to the question
at hand.
[...]
> I'm (of course) using the tag 'CF' in the same light as everyone
>else. If I KNEW where it was comming from would I be asking the question?
>
>It MAY be fusion, it may not. Even the proponents admit that. I do get fed up
>with people po-pooing the whole thing because thay say it cannot be fusion.
>Does it matter?

Yes. There is an obervation of excess heat. That can be accepted as an
an empirical fact. There are many possible reasons for this but we need only
consider four of them. The observation of excess heat could be due to
a) fusion
b) incompetence
c) a chemical reaction
d) something new

If you propose fusion as the explanation this can be checked. This
hypothesis implies that nuclear radiation should be detected. It was not
detected. You can now either abandon this hypothesis or redefine the
word "fusion" so that it still encompasses all the observations. This
latter course has been adopted by the proponents of CF and is
unscientific.

>Something is happening that we do not understand, which needs
>investigating. The rewards are staggering, should we ignore it?

Maybe. The observation of excess heat may be due to an error.
Finding that error might prove rewarding but I wouldn't be staggered.

>As far as radiation is concerned, I'm not convinced that there MUST be some,
>since we do not know how it is happening, even if it IS fusion. Can you tell
>me how much radiation there 'should' be for a measly 1KW of energy release,
>assuming a 'conventional' reaction?

Yes, 1KW of fusion energy from d-d fusion would produce about 8.5e14
neutrons per second (assuming the neutron and proton producing branches
of the reaction are equally probable).

>Would this amount be detectable?.

Yes, quite easily.

>Would it do any harm?

Yes.

>Would it be noticable if you weren't looking for it?

Yes, from the radiation sickness of the experimentalists for one thing.

If you refine the calculation and say that the 1kW deposited in the cell
is due to charged particles and the 2.5MeV carried away by each neutron is
lost from the system there would be even more neutrons.

Try assuming that, for some reason, the alpha particle branch of the
reaction dominates then there should be copious amounts of gamma-rays
emitted. These aren't detected. Try assuming that all the energy goes
into a helium nucleus with no gamma-rays and you violate conservation of
momentum. Try assuming that the momentum is taken, via some unknown
mechanism, by the metallic lattice and tell me why this mechanism does
take momentum from the reacting particles and suppress the fusion. Try
abandoning conservation of momentum and then anything goes - you
needn't even invoke fusion to account for the excess energy.

>These are serious questions, [...]

I hope I've answered them.


Mike L
Abingdon, Oxfordshire. (E-mail: mjl@jet.uk)

===============================================================================
    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:
cuddy02 cudenLoughlin cudfnMichael cudlnLoughlin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / M Loughlin /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Michael.Loughlin@jet.uk (Michael Loughlin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 11:14:34 GMT
Organization: JET

mainwarj@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Jonah Paul Mainwaring) wrote:
>In article <ant011922b49KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>,
>John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> writes:
>|> since we do not know how it is happening, even if it IS fusion. Can you tell
>|> me how much radiation there 'should' be for a measly 1KW of energy release,
>|> assuming a 'conventional' reaction?  Would this amount be detectable?.
>|> Would it do any harm? [...]
>|>
>[...]  NO, the amount of radiation coming from a 1 KW reaction should not be harmful.
<snip>

1KW of dd fusion produces 8.5e14 neutrons/sec. If you stood 2m
from the source, the dose due to 2.5MeV neutrons would be 2.5e5 rem/hr.

Don't try this at home kids.

Mike L
Abingdon, Oxfordshire. (E-mail: mjl@jet.uk)

===============================================================================
    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:
cuddy02 cudenLoughlin cudfnMichael cudlnLoughlin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / Horace Heffner /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:15:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>Originally-From: Barry Merriman <barry>
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
>Date: 1 Feb 1996 07:09:53 GMT
>Organization: University of California, Los Angeles
>
>As was discussed sometime ago, you are mistaken in thinking
>that the atomic nuclei in a bose condensate ``overlap''. They
>do not, as this would be a far higher energy state
>and they are supposedly all dropped into the ground state.
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>merriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet)  (NeXTMail OK)
>


It is not I who initially made this implication.  You might want to look at
the Jan '96 issue of Discover, pp 58-59, where it is stated "each atom
spread out until it occupied the same region as all the others"


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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / David Gaskill /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: david@cgaski.u-net.com (David Gaskill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: 2 Feb 1996 12:45:15 GMT
Organization: U-NET limited

In message <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net> - 21cenlogic@i-l
ink.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:

 ******************
 Magnum 350 Run #11

<large snip to save bandwidth>

>--perhaps the buildup of lithium sulfate (or some reaction product therefrom) acted
>as a conductivity modifier, thereby leading to the Power Gen result.
>However far-fetched this possibility my seem to those who are eager to
>dismiss the Power Gen result, I find it plausible enough to investigate.
>This is far too important a matter to cavalierly toss aside. 

I admire your tenacity  and look forward to reading  the results with 
lithium sulphate. Maybe you would agree that if this causes the necessary 
dramatic modification of the thermal conductivity of the Tygon it would 
be nearly as difficult  to explain as CF itself.   
  
As I posted earlier there is another possible explanation of the original 
results.

  I do not know to this day how the magician  made the girl 
  disappear from the cabinet after I had, at his invitation, 
  carefully inspected the whole setup. I would simply comment 
  that this would seem to be a great deal more difficult to 
  achieve than causing a quantity of water to appear 
  warmer than conventional physics might lead you to believe it 
  should be. 
 
   
  
In the light of your work it might be thought that this is looking 
increasingly worthy of consideration. 

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnGaskill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / Horace Heffner /  Cross posting, Mitchell Jones, etc.
     
Originally-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cross posting, Mitchell Jones, etc.
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 18:47:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I've been away from s.p.f for a while and just caught up on my reading.  I
can't resist making the following comments:

First, Bravo! Applause to Mitchell Jones for going experimentalist!  Thanks
for tenaciously digging for the facts.  I think your efforts might also
help in designing better experiments in the future.  I personally believe
the CETI people and Jed are honest deligent researchers, but anybody can
mess up an experiemnt, much less a hastily put together demo.  Maybe you
will find the clues to what happened or motivate CETI to open up the
apparatus to indepenent testing.

I want to say goodbye and thanks to Tom Drouge (hope the spelling is right)
and Scott Hazen Mueller for their contributions to s.p.f.  Scott's digested
news list access to s.p.f (i.e. fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG and downstream
servers) and the archive of it at NODAK, has really been a benefit to me.
Maybe they and other significant contributers would return if the posting
content were more about fusion or CF.

It amazes me that readers of this group still do not see what a benefit
automatic suppresssion of cross posted articles would bring in terms of
cutting down noise.  This goes tripple for the newslist servers, where
every subscriber gets a copy of every post, and every post is archived.


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


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhheffner cudfnHorace cudlnHeffner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / Tom Potter /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, they are Protestants.
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter )
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, they are Protestants.
Date: 2 Feb 1996 18:33:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <31120F60.47A3@po.cwru.edu> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> writes: 
>
>Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> 
>> In article <310C5530.8A6@po.cwru.edu>
>> John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu> 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?
>
>At CWRU, there are a variety of courses that teach logic, not only 
>philosophical, but also in the realms of physics and engineering.
While 
>you may have been taught by armpit-scratching monkeys (though we
realize 
>that this is an optimistic view), you can rest assured that your
version 
>of logic, which is better known as idiocy, has no place in a modern 
>curriculum. However, if there is ever a need for your "logic" in
higher 
>education (though it more appropiately belongs to lower education), I
am 
>sure that you will be informed by the drooling remnants of our
society. 
>Since at that point, anyone with existing brain cells would have been 
>killed as a threat to the process of de-evolution.
>
>	As for the reason why I had used an analogy earlier, it was to 
>jest at your inane theories. Though by simple logic, I can see that
you 
>can not even grasp this simple concept. Your chimpanzee master would
be 
>ashamed of you....

Although this is one of the best flames I have ever read,
I didn't think it was so good as to merit posting three times.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Skingley /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 11:38:00 +0000 (GMT)

In article <21cenlogic-0102961420120001@austin-2-8.i-link.net>, Mitchell Jones
<mailto:21cenlogic@i-link.net> wrote:
> 
>  ******************
>  Magnum 350 Run #11
> 
> The question is: should I now call an end to this, and declare the Power
> Gen demo a washout, or not? The answer depends on whether I can think of
> any other reasonable things to try. In other words, of the various
> differences that admittedly still remain between my experimental setup and
> that at Power Gen, are there any that are likely to be significant? Well,
> I could get rid of my 60 watt box fan, and replace it with a 3.5 watt
> muffin fan like that used by Cravens at Power Gen. However, that seems
> silly, because what I am looking for here is a change that will
> simultaneously make my system more like Craven's *and* increase the heat
> dissipation capacity of my system. Going to a smaller fan, obviously, will
> *decrease* the heat dissipation capacity of my system. 

Surely this is wrong. The heat from your fan, 60 watts worth, is being blown
at your tubing. i.e. the fan is warming the air which is doing the cooling.
A 3.5 watt fan is heating the air much less.  Try it!

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

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / 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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 12:06:57 +0000 (GMT)

In article <browe-0102962042550001@10.0.2.15>, Bill Rowe
<mailto:browe@netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <ant011549345KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>, John Skingley
> <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >I would submit that making large scale integrated circuits does not have
> >a 'fairly straight forward receipe' and does indeed 'require great skill'.
> >The people who make them are highly trained, the exactitude of the task
> >is almost mind-blowing. But they ARE 'produced on a commercial scale'.
> 
> One of the things I am involved in is the design of LSI ASICs. And yes
> this is a complex undertaking from the standpoint there are many steps
> involved. But it is a fairly straight forward process. If it were not so,
> we would be unable to automate large portions of it.

I think we are arguing semantics here. What is 'fairly straight forward'?
And what is 'great skill'?

I'm sure, if CF is finally proven, that one day it will it will get pinned
down enough to automate. These things never are when first invented. The
first transisters were hard to duplicate, after all.
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / 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: 2 Feb 1996 11:02:17 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes:

>FYI, Mr. Holden is a well-known net.kook and
>Velikovskyite-creationist.  You are of course correct in saying that
>Holden and his "sources" (read:  fellow crackpots) are not liars
>merely because they contradict my opinions.  They are proven liars in
>the causational sense because they choose to be dishonest. and in the
>evidential one because they're so clumsy at it, and thus have been
>publicly caught out so many times., 

Bill Snyder and his pals, the so-called talk.origins howler-monkeys, or
bandar-log, specialize in calling others liars.

The term "liar" itself, in the context of talk.origins, means 
essentially "One who is unconvinced of evolutionism".

The alt.fan.splifford FAQ, published periodically on alt.fan.splifford, 
notes that:

The official charter of talk.origins is to take heat off of
sci.bio.evolution, i.e. to allow sci.bio.evolution a free, 
highly-censored ride into America academia, that freshmen and sophomores
there might think evolution to be in a sort of a rosy, happy state, 
defended by all people of virtue and wisdom, attacked only by the most 
vile and bigoted of blackguards, scoundrels whose comments should not and
in fact are not even seen in an institute of "higher learning".

The unofficial and defacto charter of talk.origins is to prove
and to put upon permanent and perpetual display the natural dichotomy and
division of the human race, not into male and female, white and non-white,
democrat and republican, capitalist and communist or any such with which
we are familiar, but into those who believe in the theory of evolution,
and liars.

That may sound astonishing at first blush, but you may convince yourself
of it in the following manner.  Any large service provider such as
Netcom or Digex will typically keep a month and a half to two months
worth of t.o postings on hand at any one time.  Simply use the ordinary
UNIX grep (get repitition) utility for the word "liar" on the directory
in which t.o. articles are stored, e.g.:

grep -i " liar" /usr/spool/news/talk/origins/*

or some such.  On Digex, that produces:

136569:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
136569:world are all liars...
136589:>world are all liars.
136589:    Oh, there's a difference between a liar and someone who has simply
136597:>world are all liars.
136610:can one be?!  They are proven, repeated liars, as is amply documented in the
136642:Liar, liar, Pete's on fire: they are _also_ pathetic.
grep: 137*: No such file or directory
grep: 138*: No such file or directory
139815:explaination for that is fairly simple:  You are an idiot and a liar.
139843:>explaination for that is fairly simple:  You are an idiot and a liar.
139868:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
139868:world are all liars...
139894:*You* are the liar.
139942:of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139946:>>>Duh, like do we care, retard, duh, duh, duh, liar, liar, liar, retard, duh
139953:>and (what's new) to call me a liar.
139953:>world are all liars...
139955:> of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139975:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139975:people on this group liars.
139975:Flash poll:  How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
139975:How many were called idiots and liars?
139975:I can answer first:  Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
139981:of their close friends are blatant liars?
139982:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
139988:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140031:>>>>Duh, like do we care, retard, duh, duh, duh, liar, liar, liar, retard, duh
140034:>>and (what's new) to call me a liar.
140034:>>world are all liars...
140081:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140081:Paul is just calling them as he seems them.   Some who lies is a liar.
140086:>people on this group liars.
140101:> >people on this group liars.
140101:> liars too.
140148:>to before calling someone a liar.
140151:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140161:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140175:>explaination for that is fairly simple:  You are an idiot and a liar.
140204:>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
140205:>>>> liar
140205:>>>> liar
140205:>>>> liar
140205:On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140229:intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140260:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140261:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140272:: of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140290:does not make you a liar (or vice versa), but rather just a difference of
140290:does not make you or me a liar, unless you activly engage in decpetive
140301:: of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:>>>>> liar
140312:> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140323:On a related note, are you stupid, or a liar, or a stupid liar?
140355:>intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140372:God is a liar!  And funny how our DNA is nearly identical: just as
140379:>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140413:>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
140415:>intermediate fossil "FAQ" of theirs and then call other people liars all
140436:>>    "It's wrong to characterize all creationists as cheats and liars who
140464:: Liar.  You seem obsessed with it.
140484:and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
140497:Ted, I have never called you a liar.  I have attempted to correct you on
140497:that nothing in my post was factual, it was an opinion, calling me a liar
140505:>>>You never did so. Liar.
140505:>Mark just prefers to call people liars.
140505:No, Mark just calls you a liar, which you are.  Whether you
140522:: >> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140553:>>people on this group liars.
140559:You're either a liar or an ignoramus, or both. There was no "Nebraska
140586:>>>people on this group liars.
140642:>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as defined*
140742:> and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from
140742:    I emphatically am not calling you a liar, and I am emphatically
140783:> : >> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140799:proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a smear
140845:>and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
140869:>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
140907:>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
140911:you replied to.  That you leave it out is proof that you are a liar.
140943:> and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
141029:>>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141030:>>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141076:>and call Walter ReMine and me liars to try to destract attention from the
141076:ReMine is liar trying to sell his book to a gullable scientific
141094:>*You* are the liar.
141232:> explaination for that is fairly simple:  You are an idiot and a liar.
141242:: you replied to.  That you leave it out is proof that you are a liar.
141383:> >people on this group liars.
141383:> liars too.
141383:You see, you're on t.o. too. So you're either in the half that are liars
141383:or the other half who are also liars. This leads to the 'I am a liar'
141403:>>*You* are the liar.
141417:Subject: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141417:Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141429:> of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
141439:: >*You* are the liar.
141470:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141470:>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141537:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141537:>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141559:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141559:say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
141559:Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
141578:>*You* are the liar.
141578:Of course, perhaps you are *not* a liar.  Perhaps you are just mildly
141580:>>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
141588:Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141601:>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141601:have just proven you yourself are a liar.
141605:>>>*You* are the liar.
141611:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
141611:> say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
141611:> Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
141643:> Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141643:    I did not call you a liar here.  I did not call you a liar on that
141643:page.  I have not called you a liar in any public forum.  I do not
141643:or see "fifty howler-monkeys calling you a liar".  They can read what you
141678:>Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141678:context, I think that people would not have called you a liar (about this
141703:}Again, having fifty howler-monkeys calling me a liar over that should
141710:>>>>people on this group liars.
141738:>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141754:That you have made such misrepresentation demonstrates you to be a liar.  That
141872:>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
141873:>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
141873:>On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141954:>>*You* are the liar.
141956:>>>>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141956:common liar who *is* aware of his lies.
141958:>>>>*You* are the liar.
141959:>>>>> On talk.origins, we have a long record of a special breed of liars.
141960:>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
141962:>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
141962:> have just proven you yourself are a liar.
142027:been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142061:> >proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a
142087:: >>>>*You* are the liar.
142096:>>>>What does a proven liar like you know about honesty?
142104:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142104:>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
142123:I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142123:and (what's new) to call me a liar.
142123:world are all liars...
142166:>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
142166:>people on this group liars.
142166:>Flash poll:  How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
142166:>How many were called idiots and liars?
142166:>I can answer first:  Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
142168:> >a liar and attempting to substitute nitpicking for science, which
142183:>proving, before all the world, that you are a "hate-filled liar on a smear
142226:  fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
142288:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142289:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142292:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142362:> I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142362:or the posting will fail.  5) I have never called you a liar.  The
142400:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
142415:doesn't make you a liar, just ReMine. It only makes you gullible as
142417:>>>*You* are the liar.
142423:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142423:>say "the _argument_ is retarded"), but that doesn't him a liar make. So,
142423:>Until you do, calling him a liar is, well, a lie.
142519:>>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
142519:>>people on this group liars.
142519:ReMine's writing style, but I know liars and scoundrels and nit-pickers
142519:>people on this group liars.
142519:explaination for that is fairly simple:  You are an idiot and a liar.
142533:> : Liar.  You've only been ducking it repeatedly.
142584:Of course, Ted doesn't do this.  His variation is to quote other liars.
142597:>>>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
142599:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142599:>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
142638:>I.e. Gambono wants to call others liars all over the net and not have
142638:> re-affirms gradualism, and (what's new) to call me a liar.
142638:> world are all liars.
142638:>world are all liars...
142691:there are no transitional fossils are either liars or idiots.  Which
142789:   liars on their side.
142793:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
142794:>>>Ergo Wiener *is* a liar.
142794:>> have just proven you yourself are a liar.
142842:>been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
143080:ridicule and not objectivity. I do object to being called a liar but then
143113:> >ridicule and not objectivity. I do object to being called a liar but the=
143160:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143160:>>his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143160:And his words are a lie, unless he calls himself a liar.
143189:Hah!  Either you're a brazen liar or you are seriously into denial as
143193:>>>>>*You* are the liar.
143206:not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143217:Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
143246:: been reduced to the pitiful spectacle of calling a serious scholar a liar
143276:>not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143352:> >not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143375:balance.  I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143378:: Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
143395:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143395:|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143396:The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143485:>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
143486:>>>>>> duh>>>>> duh>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> liar>>>>> retard
143501:I'm glad to see you calling Tim Thompson a liar.
143642:> balance.  I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143642:   If Holden has no time for fricking liars, then he should shut up
143646:>balance.  I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143701:>>not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
143751:>>>of his own ideological clique as liars, every honest difference of opinion
143751:>>people on this group liars.
143751:nearly everyone on this newsgroup that disagrees with him a liar.  He
143751:has called Thompson a liar a number of times, amoung others.
143751:>>Flash poll:  How many people out there have been called liars by Holden?
143751:>>How many were called idiots and liars?
143751:a liar.  I can tell you that I posted a note saying that I felt that he
143751:a liar.  To date, Ted has not informed me of exactly what untruth I told,
143751:>>I can answer first:  Ted called me an idiot and a liar after I critisized
143753:>> balance.  I've got no use for fricking liars nor any reason to wish to
143753:makes calling me a liar as part of the statement is insufferable.
143758:Uh no.  I'm flaming retards and liars.
143758:I confess.  I hate stupid liars.
143863:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
143863:>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
143887:>Nyikos is a habitual liar who chooses to ignore any rebuttals to his
143887:You are the liar, Ray.  I did NOT ignore your lies about you
143887:>Hah!  Either you're a brazen liar or you are seriously into denial as
143902:>Several of the HMs have called me a liar over this claim
that no beneficial mutations
143965:No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
143968:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144035:call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144051:>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144076:: >No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144121:: Uh no.  I'm flaming retards and liars.
144136:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144142:> Uh no.  I'm flaming retards and liars.
144142:> I confess.  I hate stupid liars.
144252:believe C.H. Hurst was a liar and deceiver of the worst sort, to
144281:>: >No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144340:>> I confess.  I hate stupid liars.
144418:>call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144440:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144440:|> >|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144440:that MPW calls everyone that disagrees with him a liar.
144440:he disagrees with a liar (a retard, maybe ;-).
144538:> >call him an intentional liar. As it stands, he appears to be an
144643:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144646:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144646:>>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144648:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144661:>>>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
144663:>: Liar, liar, pants on fire.....
144666:>>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144703:>: Uh no.  I'm flaming retards and liars.
144705:> believe C.H. Hurst was a liar and deceiver of the worst sort, to
144749:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144752:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144756:I don't do followup tricks, liar.
144773:>> >not falsifiable? If not, are you an idiot or a liar. We're dying to
144823:>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
144915:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
144915:|> >>|> >his words he "calls retards, retards and liars, liars".
144921: lmd@netcom.com | Liar, lunatic, or absolutely reliable first-hand eyewitness
145002:that Ted is a curmudgeon and not a plain old bald faced liar while
145141:for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145154:>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145189:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145189:I have seen that he begins to holler retard and liar in hopes that you
145189:>that MPW calls everyone that disagrees with him a liar.
145189:>he disagrees with a liar (a retard, maybe ;-).
145203:> for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
145310:by calling them liars?  I haven't.
145310:thereby branding others as liars, and those suspicions are taken
145410:: Liar.
145414:: I don't do followup tricks, liar.
145414:: Liar.
145431:>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145448:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145453:Subject: Re: Why Is Wiener A Liar?
145467:>>No, this is how we handle frauds and liars.
145507:He did not give his life.  Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145582:>>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145596:=> He did not give his life.  Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145704:as "deletia".  (Assuming he doesn't want to be a Liar, natch).
145739:>>>for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars)..
145760:>He did not give his life.  Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145760:decides that he doesn't believe any more, he might be called a liar in
145789:I'd like to think I'm born again, but I also feel creationists are liars...
145822:LB: Rostaman, a man's a liar because you think and say he's a liar in
145928:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145940:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
145941:what liars they are, and I am not saying anything behind their
145979:> He did not give his life.  Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
145979:that which belonged to you all along.  You are not a liar; you are not
146024:and it remains that IMHO to deny science is to make a liar of God.
146024:If God's a liar, I have no desire to continue existing.
146039:like ignorant liars and fools. The vast majority of Christians
146109:> He did not give his life.  Anyone who turns away from the faith, is a liar
146115:> >: a couple of bozos calling ME a liar on the issue for disputing
146120::If God's a liar, I have no desire to continue existing
146120:You are saying that if god is a liar then you don't want to exist? Do you
146125:And I agree with Mr. Nyikos that Lapin is a toady and a liar (and an idiot to
146149:Subject: Re: The "Is Wiener A Liar" Challenge
146199:>>>>>> No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as
146225:> >for what it is (a pack of thieves and liars).. I find BOTH Limbaugh and
146225:while he may claim that government is a bunch of thieves and liars, he


That's pretty amazing when you think about it and, again, that's just
about a month and a half's worth and just the word 'liar'.  You could do the
same with 'lies', 'lying', 'dishonest'.  Even when there are no creationists
around, you'll find them calling eachother liars to keep in practice.


Ted Holden
medved@digex.com

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmedved cudfnTed cudlnHolden cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John Chunko /  Re: Neutrinos do not have mass, Dr. Hill is the wiser, Dr.
     
Originally-From: John Chunko <jdc14@po.cwru.edu>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 15:28:27 -0800
Organization: Case Western Reserve University

Sorry for the multiple postings, Netscape got a bit stupid on me...

                                    John.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjdc14 cudfnJohn cudlnChunko cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / 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: 2 Feb 1996 21:49:34 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <4eo0a3$qso@news.acns.nwu.edu>
"Todd K. Pedlar" <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:

> A rest mass of 34 eV for the photon is absolutely categorically impossible.
> A simple test of Ampere's law reported in 1992 (PRL 68, 3383) puts an 
> upper limit on the rest mass of the photon at 4.73 x 10^(-12) eV.  Since 
> you've said before (I think) that you don't believe the extragalactic
> tests which have put limits on the mass down to 3 x 10^(-27) eV, maybe
> you'll believe this more down-to-earth test.

So far I have three experimental tests for either the photon restmass
or neutrino restmass. (We should make restmass one word so that we do
not hyphenate nor confused with other mass.)  I do not like these three
and am still looking for the grandiose experiment, the one which
arrives at the rest mass the easiest and is conceptually
straightforward. I am almost positive at this point that the restmass
exists for both neutrino and photon. And I feel that the difficulty in
measuring the rest mass is due to the fact that the restmass switches,
like the neutrino switching, switching from restmass to some other
parameter (characteristic) or particle.

Experiment 1 : Experiment 1 relies on the fact that I am confident it
will be shown that 1photon = 2neutrinos. And with this some-day to be
discovered fact that the neutrino or photon has a restmass will
automatically entail the other has a restmass. To setup experiments
along this line is to look for experiments which embody the concept
that a photon is composed of 2 neutrinos. And it would entail another
concept as basic--that a composite particle cannot exist unless it has
a restmass, and that its constituents also must have a restmass. As an
analogy, a hydrogen atom has restmass, and it is builtup from
2constituent particles of proton and electron both having restmass.
Restmass is a quantity which is a canonical conjugate dual pair to say
energy. Can there exist something which has 0 energy? Energy can be
neutralized such as potential energy. So, am thinking of experiments or
observations such as what Todd mentions about the Ampere Law which puts
the upper limit of the photon restmass at  4.73 x 10^(-12) eV. Likewise
I should be able to discover some observations which put the upper
limit of the neutrino restmass. And let me say I find such an
observation and it comes in at   9.46 x 10^-12 eV. And so, many oldies
will say that is just a fluke a mere coincidence. And I will laugh into
their face, for I will know that it is proof that the photon is
composed of 2 neutrinos.

Experiment 2 : Relies on the idea that charge cannot exist unless a
particle has a rest mass. Before these teachings, it was grotesquely
thought that particles have 'no' charge, such as the neutron and all
the nought particles. Oh yes, physicists knew that the neutron had a
slight surface charge, but they took this news like a tribe of zombies
and committed themselves back to their same old routine as if nothing
happened, a sort of unconscious-physics- apathy. 
  Can the experimental setup which measured the surface charge of the
neutron be readapted to measure the surface charge of the photon? That
is a very important question to ask. For it it can be readapted then I
am sure a slight tiny surface charge will be measured on the photon.
   Here is the better idea. There is no 0 charge. You can come awfully
close to a 0 charge but 0 charge is impossible to attain just as a 0 K
temperature is impossible. Thus, a neutron may be -.00001 charge or
+.0000003 charge depending on whether the measuring of the neutron
elicited the electronic charge or elicited the protonic charge inside
the neutron. In this better conception, we realize that all 0 charge or
naught particles are only "Charged Particles Neutralized". And the
better concept is not 0 charge but Neutral charge. There exists no 0
charged particle, rather the particle has been rendered neutral by the
positive and negative constituent particles residing inside the neutral
particle just waiting to bust out. Are there in the world any neutral
particles stable against decay? No. Why? Because all neutral particles
are composite unstable particles.
   The photon is ascribed as a 0 charge particle, but more accurately
it is a neutralized particle and unstable as is. It will decay into its
constituent innards of 2neutrinos. Thus, to setup experiments to
measure the surface charge of the photon, just as the surface charge of
the neutron was measured. Then to perform experiments to elicit the
surface charge of the photon. I posted one such setup wherein a
balancing beam, one side having an ionized plasma (like the Sun) and
the other side just a raw mass to balance. Then, depending on whether
the ionization mass is either positive or negative, the photons coming
through in the middle of the beam will be deflected both attracted and
repelled by the ionized mass. This repulsion is totally against the
current wisdom of the physics community to date because they are blind
sheep of General Relativity.

Experiment 3 : Is based on the Complimentary Principle of Quantum
Mechanics. CP is one of the least used QM principles which is a shame
for it is one of the most important in all of physics. The idea of CP
is quite easy. Light is both particle and wave simultaneously and
neither one of those 2 properties is destroyable 100%. Thus using CP, I
need only show that restmass is a dual, a conjugate pair to another QM
property. Let me take the dual of restmass with energy. It could be to
charge as in the charge experiment. Hence experiments can be setup
wherein a multiparticle system such as the neutron decay into a
proton,electron,neutrino, the observed state of converting the proton
and electron into pure energy yet the tiny portion unable to be
converted into energy is the neutrino. In other words, the whole
purpose or reason of existence of the neutrino, is that it is the
particle which takes away the restmass whereas the proton and electron
are converted into pure energy. This experiment is to setup measuring
devices which record one of two CP properties, one property being the
restmass. You can destroy the restmass of the proton and electron into
a property which leaves behind the measurable recording of what the
neutrino restmass is. One can think of a related experiment, the double
slit where one wants all wave property yet the particle property is
observable, likewise one can setup the photoelectric effect and hope to
cull 100% the particle aspect yet the wave aspect is still measureable
in its very tiny extent. Same to with restmass, setup an experiment to
convert all to one measure, that tiny measure which is not convertable
is the restmass of the neutrino.

In article <310F9197.470D@physics.carleton.ca>
Mike Doncheski <mad@physics.carleton.ca> writes:

> 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.


Thanks for this information above. I do not like it when physics is
cluttered up with these thousands of Greek symbols or abbreviations. It
is much better to stick to one thing such as MEV and then use the 10
power.  And as I dream up more experiments, hopefully I will come to
the most straightforward. Perhaps there is still something to be
gleaned from the Curie Plot, maybe not of tritium beta decay but
something else. Perhaps the Curie Plot of something else will lead to
the neutrino restmass.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / A Plutonium /  Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
     
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.bio.misc,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = 
Date: 2 Feb 1996 22:02:51 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <potter-3001961618240001@pdial11.brainiac.com>
potter@brainiac.com (Samuel and Jennifer Potter) writes:

> 
> 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.

  You misunderstand me. Take all of the biology world into perspective,
and the simplest of life is many orders of magnitude of complexity
above that of the nonliving world. The nonliving world has complexity
of molecular bonds but nothing of order to that of DNA. Seeing this
huge gap and knowing that biology is ultimately physics, I cannot
believe that the gap was bridged, unless, unless,  something does exist
in physics which is as complex or more complex than DNA. Such a thing
would be the photon and neutrino, and the electron and proton since
they are the stuff of photons.

  Your talk of the moon is narrow. You fail to mention that meteors
come in all the time containing amino acids.

  Before 1995 people thought a photon was just some tiny dot, loaded
with energy, having no insides and no complexity. 

  In 1995, I said that a photon if dissected would be a Perfect DNA
'atomic molecule'. A photon is two strands of neutrinos. And that the
picture of a photon would be a perfect DNA of information. When a
photon is stopped and still possessing energy, it is a DNA. Cosmic rays
have been measured at 10^14 and 10^16 MEV. Those are either protons or
electrons and when stopped can create a whole entire life such as a
blue green algae, out of scratch.

  I bridge the gap from biology and physics by positing that the
photon, the proton and electron are the most complex entities around.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.02 / John C /  Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
     
Originally-From: John C <71531.1617@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
Date: 2 Feb 1996 22:27:03 GMT
Organization: Frontier Research Seminars

The Wall Street Journel had an article about cold fusion on Page 
A7A, Monday, January 27th, 1996.  The article was about Clean 
Energy Technology's cold fusion device and the fact that energy 
engineers are interested in it.  According to the article, 
Motorola is interested in licensing the technology.

For more info about cold fusion write:

Frontier Research Seminars
1510 B Hamilton Street
Somerset, NJ 08873
USA
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1617 cudfnJohn cudlnC cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.01 / Bernard Debreil /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: bdebreil@teaser.fr (Bernard Debreil)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 03:36:18 GMT
Organization: Guest of France-Teaser

bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

>In article <4eqoac$27ji@news.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
>...
>>  What do you call the "hot fusion" project - other than
>>  a boondoggle.  PUBLIUS
>...
>
>That it may be, but the H-bomb was demonstrated to be a
>replicable phenomenon.  A lot of credence was placed
>in the opinions of those who invented/discovered
>that device.  Perhaps too much credence, but the
>original demonstration was incontrovertible.
>
>Should CF'ers manage to blow up Anaheim, the opinions
>of the surviving proponents will be given equal credence.
>
>    --bks

I haven't had the time to go through the whole thing, so, indeed, I
shouldn't say my word. However, from the "flight" over some of the posts
in this thread, I wonder if what is called "cold fusion" is not just a
plain electrochemical reaction, combining Hydrogen and Oxygen into
water, via a process similar to that of Fuel Cells ?   Indeed, there are
fuel cells that do just that, and produce electricity... The name "cold
fusion" may be appropriate in that sense that, usually, combining
Hydrogen and Oxygen does produce heat, either through explosion, or
through a burning flame... while a slow combining through porous
electrodes in an electrolyte would not produce any large amount of heat,
especially if part of the energy is turned into electricity. The process
would then, despites its name, have nothing to do with a nuclear fusion
of Hydrogen into Helium...

I may be wrong, but this is what I suspect...

For, as far as real nuclear fusion, if it had been mastered in this way,
it would surely be known...
>

Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through PowWow (in writing only)
email: bdebreil@teaser.fr
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenbdebreil cudfnBernard cudlnDebreil cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / L McKnight /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mcknighl@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 01:33:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom

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

>bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) writes:
>
>>FYI, Mr. Holden is a well-known net.kook and
>>Velikovskyite-creationist.  You are of course correct in saying that
>>Holden and his "sources" (read:  fellow crackpots) are not liars
>>merely because they contradict my opinions.  They are proven liars in
>>the causational sense because they choose to be dishonest. and in the
>>evidential one because they're so clumsy at it, and thus have been
>>publicly caught out so many times., 
>
>Bill Snyder and his pals, the so-called talk.origins howler-monkeys, or
>bandar-log, specialize in calling others liars.

Sorry, Ted, but one of the individuals calling people 'liars' is the
originator of the bandar-log, and one of the few people willing to
defend you.

>
>The term "liar" itself, in the context of talk.origins, means 
>essentially "One who is unconvinced of evolutionism".

Except when used by the originator of the bandar-log, when it means 'one
who disagrees with him'.

>
>The alt.fan.splifford FAQ, published periodically on alt.fan.splifford, 
>notes that:
>
>The official charter of talk.origins is to take heat off of
>sci.bio.evolution, i.e. to allow sci.bio.evolution a free, 
>highly-censored ride into America academia, that freshmen and sophomores
>there might think evolution to be in a sort of a rosy, happy state, 
>defended by all people of virtue and wisdom, attacked only by the most 
>vile and bigoted of blackguards, scoundrels whose comments should not and
>in fact are not even seen in an institute of "higher learning".

And you do have a source for this 'official' statement, don't you?  Or
is this just your tortured interpretation of something else?
>
>The unofficial and defacto charter of talk.origins is to prove
>and to put upon permanent and perpetual display the natural dichotomy and
>division of the human race, not into male and female, white and non-white,
>democrat and republican, capitalist and communist or any such with which
>we are familiar, but into those who believe in the theory of evolution,
>and liars.
>
>That may sound astonishing at first blush, but you may convince yourself
>of it in the following manner.  Any large service provider such as
>Netcom or Digex will typically keep a month and a half to two months
>worth of t.o postings on hand at any one time.  Simply use the ordinary
>UNIX grep (get repitition) utility for the word "liar" on the directory
>in which t.o. articles are stored, e.g.:
>
>grep -i " liar" /usr/spool/news/talk/origins/*
>
>or some such.  On Digex, that produces:

The neutral observer might note that Ted doesn't tell us WHO wrote the
words.  Let me try to pick a few out...
[..
>136610:can one be?!  They are proven, repeated liars, as is amply documented in the

Hmm.  This one, from the wording, might be from the originator of the
bandar-log.  
 
>140869:>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as

Well, since this is an attack on Wiener, I will assume that is is from
the originator of the bandar-log.


>141029:>>No Wiener, you congenital liar. What I said was that evolution *as

Note that Ted's extracts don't filter out the quoted text, so the same
thing keeps showing up.


Of course, one should keep in mind that the originator of the bandar-log
claims to be an evolutionist, but is even-handed, and is just leveling
the playing field, or some such.  Eventually even he may come to the
conclusion that Ted is a net.loon.
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenmcknighl cudfnLawrence cudlnMcKnight cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.03 / A Plutonium /  FUSION ENGINEERED:RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: FUSION ENGINEERED:RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
Date: 3 Feb 1996 03:55:31 GMT
Organization: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION 08/304,118

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
2,983,834
May 9, 1961
NEUTRON DISCHARGE TUBE
Leonard Reiffel
--- quote in part ---
Instead of employing solid targets of the type shown in Figure 1, the
gaseous atmosphere itself may serve as a medium for the nuclear
reaction.
--- end of quote ---
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
3,300,345
Patented Jan. 24,1967
ELECTROLYTIC CELL FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE
CELL
Ernest H. Lyons, Jr.
---quoting in part ---
   Moreover, I have discoverted that when the cell current is
interrupted by opening the circuit for a finite time, not only does
concentration depolarization take place, but also there is a tendency
to restore the activity (activation depolarization) of the catalytic
electrode surface, particulary in alkaline electrolyte.
   These finding have led me to the conclusion that periodic
interruption of the current can be made to maintain the desired type of
active surface.
--- end quoting in part ---
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
4,184,931
Jan. 22, 1980
METHOD OF ELECTROLYTICALLY GENERATING HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN FOR USE IN A
TORCH OR THE LIKE
Inventor: Kiyoshi Inoue
Abstract: Hydrogen/oxygen mixtures for combustion in torches or the
like are produced by the pulsed electrolysis of an aqueous medium. The
pulse duration is 1 to 500 microseconds.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
US PATENT
4,615,861
Oct. 7, 1986
OSCILLATORY NONHMIC CURRENT DRIVE FOR MAINTAINING A PLASMA CURRENT
Inventor: Nathaniel J. Fisch, Princeton, N.J.

Abstract: Apparatus and method of the invention maintain a plasma
current with an oscillatory nonohmic current drive. Each cycle of
operation has a generation period in which current driving energy is
applied to the plasma, and a relaxation period in which current driving
energy is removed. Plasma parameters, such as plasma temperature or
plasma average ionic charge state, are modified during the generation
period so as to oscillate plasma resistivity in synchronism with the
application of current driving energy. The invention improves overall
current drive efficiencies.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURE Vol 340  17 August 1989
titled: Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in
palladium

N.S. Lewis, C.A. Barnes, M.J. Heben, A. Kumar, S.R. Lunt, G.E. McManis,
G.M. Miskelly, R.M. Penner, M.J. Sailor, P.G. Santangelo, G.A. Shreve,
B.J. Tufts, M.G. Youngquist, R.W. Kavanagh, S.E. Kellogg, R.B.
Vogelaar, T.R. Wang, R. Kondrat & R. New

A series of experiments has been performed to determine whether nuclear
fusion processes occur in palladium rods that  have been
electrochemically charged with deuterium. With a variety of
metallurgical pretreatment procedures and different electrolytes, no
evidence has been obtained for any excess enthalpy, neutron, gamma ray,
tritiium or helium production during electrolysis of D2O with palladium
cathodes.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURE Vol 342  23November 1989
titled: Upper bounds on 'cold fusion' in electrolytic cells

D.E. Williams, D.J.S. Findlay, D.H. Craston, M.R. Sene, M. Bailey, S.
Croft, B.W. Hooton, C.P. Jones, A.R.J. Kucernak, J.A. Mason & R.I.
Taylor

Experiments using three different calorimeter designs and
high-efficiency neutron and gamma-ray detection on a wide range of
materials fail to sustain the recent claims of cold fusion made by
Fleischmann et al. and Jones et al. Spurious effects which, undetected,
could have led to claims of cold fusion, include noise from neutron
counters, cosmic-ray background variations, calibration errors in
simple calorimeters and variable electrolytic enrichment of tritium.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

0 394 980
A2
90107807.1
G21B 1/00
25.04.90
Applicant: MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC
Inventor: Watanabe, Masanori
COLD NUCLEAR FUSION APPARATUS

A cold nuclear fusion apparatus comprises a metal or alloy which can
occlude deuterium at a high concentration. means for making the
concentration of deuterium of the metal or alloy high. and means for
enhancing harmonic oscillation energy of nuclei of deuterium of the
metal or alloy by adding external energy. such as discharge energy of
deuterium gas. optical irradiation or supersonic energy.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 27[7], pp663-666 July 1990
SHORT NOTE 
Emission of 2.45 MeV and Higher Energy Neutrons from D2O-Pd Cell under
Biased-Pulse Electrolysis

Akito Takahashi, Takayuki Takeuchi, Toshiyuki Uda, Dept. of Nuclear
Engin. Osaka Univ.
Masanori Watanabe, Central Research Lab. Matsushita Elec Ind. Co.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
0 392 325
A2
90106389.1
17.10.90
Applicant: SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LAB
Inventor: Shunpei Yamazaki
ELECTROCHEMICAL NUCLEAR FUSION METHOD

A method of producing an electrochemical nuclear fusion reaction
comprises the steps of introducing in a reaction vessel a solution
containing heavy water, so that  a pair of electrodes disposed in the
reaction vessel are immersed in the solution, and applying pulsed
electrical energy across the electrodes to produce an electrochemical
reaction for a nuclear fusion reaction.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
G21B1/00
WO 90/13124
01.11.90
Applicant: THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED
Inventor/Applicant Belton, Geoffrey
Title: COLD NUCLEAR FUSION METHOD AND APPARATUS

Abstract: A method and apparatus for generating thermal energy by cold
fusion by increasing the activity of monatomic deuterium species to a
level at which there is significant cold fusion. The method and the
apparatus comprise contacting palladium (12) or any other material
capable of taking up deuterium with a gaseous atmosphere comprising
deuterium and subjecting the gaseous atmosphere to an electrical field
(11) to generate a sufficiently high activity of monatomic deuterium
species to achieve nuclear fusion reactions in the palladium.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
UK Patent Application  GB  2 231 195 A
Date of A publication 07.11.1990
Application No 9003219.4
Date of filing 13.02.1990
Applicant: Harold Aspden
Inventor: Harold Aspden

Thermal power generation by electrically controlled fusion

The process by which dueterons adsorbed into a palladium cathode
combine to generate heat energy is enhanced under the control of an
electrical current flowing around an all-metal circuit including the
cathode. This current is an A.C. current very much greater than the
ionic anode-cathode current involved in deuteron adsorption. It causes
adsorbed deuterons to excite fusion-triggering vacuum energy
fluctiuations when traversing field boundaries inside the cathode in
the presence of a strong electron counterflow. Deuterium may be
adsorbed into the cathode by elctrolysis or by corona discharge.

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

G21B 1/00
WO 91/01036
24.01.91
PCT/EP90/01137
06.07.90
Applicant: SHELL INTERNATIONALE RESEARCH MAATSCHAPPIJ B.V.
Inventor: Dufour, Jacques
Title: ENERGY SOURCE SYSTEM

Abstract: 
An energy source system for carrying out a method for producing energy
comprising : filling a body with at least one hydrogen isotope, at
least a part of the body comprising at least one metal capable of
forming a metal hydride type lattice system; arranging the body filled
as at least a part of the one conductor element of a capacitor means
within an electrical circuit, the other conductor element of said
capacitor means being connected with an externally controllable voltage
supply means; operating said voltage supply means, and recovering
energy produced within said body by operating said voltage supply
means. The energy source system suitably includes a working machine as
a part of an integrated power cycle.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb  3 04:37:04 EST 1996
------------------------------
