1996.02.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Bose Condesate hypothesis for CF
Date: 5 Feb 1996 03:35:26 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) wrote:

> >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"

We've gotten right to the crux of the misunderstanding about 
"overlapping" wavefunctions.  

The answer is:

	Yes, all the 'overlapping thingons' have the same probability density
	function in space, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY OVERLAP!!

	Why?  Because they're not in the same place AT THE SAME TIME. 
	The ground state will find their positions anticorrelated: if particle
	A is "on the left" then particle B will be more likely to be "on 
	the right" if there is a repulsive interaction between them. 

	so rho(x) can be equal to rho(y) but still rho(x,y) can be
	ZERO for ||x - y|| < R. 


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


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
     
Originally-From: kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman wrong, there is a protocol
Date: 5 Feb 1996 03:47:48 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
>  
> >Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
> >others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
> >work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
> >area of physics.
>  
> That is incorrect. Before Marconi, nobody knew that radio signals could
> be sent around the curvature of the earth. The ionosphere had not been
> discovered.

Sure, but the *existence* of radio waves as electromagnetic
oscillation was not in doubt.  And there was thus already sufficient physics
already known to make the inference that there must be a conducting
layer in the atmosphere.

> - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkennel cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.04 / Robert Horst /  Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reconciling Magnum and PowerGen data
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 20:18:12 +0100
Organization: Tandem Computers

In reading about Mitchell Jones' Magnum experiments, it struck me that it
is not impossible for both his results and the CETI PowerGen measurements
to be correct.  Here is a possible explanation (maybe "farfetch" would be a
better term) of how the two results could be reconciled. 

The basic contradiction is that the CETI measurements suggest too much heat
across the active cell, and Mitchell's tests suggest too little heat in the
rest of the apparatus.  

Assume that the CETI cell produces a phase change in a portion of the water
in the output flow.  The water in this phase would be at a *lower* energy
level than standard water.  Something like this has been proposed by MIT
Prof. Keith Johnson.  The Mills "hydrino" theory might also fit the
hypothesis.

So the outflow water would consist of some percentage of standard water at
a higher temperature, plus some water in the lower energy phase.  The
thermocouples at the output of the cell would indicate a higher
temperature.  

Here is a simple analogy for the effect.  Imagine a device that could
convert room temperature water into hot water with tiny ice cubes floating
in it.  If the temperature of this flow was measured, it would be above
room temperature for a short period of time, but once the ice cubes melted,
it would be back at about room temperature.  

For this process to explain both sets of experiments, the time constant for
recombining would have to be greater than the time for the water to flow
from the cell to the output thermocouple, but less than the average time
spent in the reservoir.  With a flow of 1 liter/minute from a reservoir of
2.5 liters, a time constant between a few seconds and a few minutes could
cause the effect.  The time constant could even be somewhat longer than
that, which would make the net energy gain appear to decrease over time
towards an equilibrium value.  (The PowerGen demo showed delta T of 16 deg
C the first day, but only 6.7 deg C the second day, albeit at reduced
electrolysis current.)  The time constant could also be a very nonlinear
function of temperature.

If we suspend disbelief a little longer, think of what we would see as a
result.  The cell would appear to generate excess heat and the reservoir
would appear to cool more quickly than it should.  There would be no part
of the apparatus operating below room temperature.  Also, the control cell
would see nothing unusual -- its output temperature would still be equal to
its input.  (By the way, even though there would be in a sense no net
energy production, it does not mean that the temperature gain across the
cell could not be used to do useful work.)

Next, we need to consider whether the whole apparatus is producing a net
energy output.  The only measurements of energy output from the entire
experiment came from Jed and others feeling a stream of warm air from the
fan.  Could that heat have come from the 84 W input to the pump?  It is
hard for me to guess with no actual measurements.  But even if the answer
is no, it is possible that there are two effects in the CETI cell -- one
producing the phase change and another producing the net excess heat. 
Johnson's theory seems to suggest that this is a possibility.  The two
effects might also explain some other results better.  For instance, Griggs
might be seeing just the phase change, while the gas loading experiments
might see just the excess heat.  

Testing this hypothesis would be very simple.  Just adjust the heater in
the control cell to make the output temperature the same  as the active
cell.  Then simultaneously  draw samples of both streams into identical
containers.  If they cool at the same rate, forget this idea.  If the water
from the active cell cools faster, bingo.  Griggs could do a similar test
by heating water in a conventional way and measuring its cooling rate
against the cooling rate of water output from his pump.

Does anyone know if this type of test has been done before, or if any other
data from experiments rules out this idea?  Its probably a long shot, but
might be worth considering.  For a change it is interesting  to try to make
the theory fit the experimental data instead of the other way around.

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / H Anvin /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: hpa@freya.yggdrasil.com (H. Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: 5 Feb 1996 04:00:57 GMT
Organization: linux.* maintainer

Followup to:  <ant021414fc4KksR@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
By author:    John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
In newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
> 
> Jonah Mainwaring says -
> 
>   NO, the amount of radiation coming from a 1 KW reaction should 
>   not be harmful.
> 
> Mike Loughlin says -
> 
>   1KW of of 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.
> 
> Implying that it would be very harmful.
> 
> Any more offers?
> 

Let's put it this way.  2.5e+5 rem/h =~ 0.7 S/s (Sieverts per second).
LD50 dose for short-time whole-body (or abdominal) exposure in humans
is approximately 3 S.  Imagine the Star Trek computer saying "lethal
exposure in four point four seconds."

	-hpa

-- 
PGP public key available - finger hpa@terminus.storm.net
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Bahá'u'lláh
I don't work for Yggdrasil, but they sponsor the linux.* hierarchy.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhpa cudfnH cudlnAnvin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Brooke Hill /  Cold fusion - not a chance
     
Originally-From: Brooke Hill <hill@mfp.com.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sdi.skeptic
Subject: Cold fusion - not a chance
Date: 5 Feb 1996 04:49:19 GMT
Organization: MFP Australia

If cold fusion were possible - it would have been 
revealed in the book of 
Genesis - like all other great discoveries, including 
heterosexuality and 
fruit.

The fact it isn't mentioned there, it can only be an 
exothermic chemical 
reaction between hydrogen and oxygen which doesn't have 
to be explosive 
when carried out electolytically.   Just because the 
Japanese are 
investing millions in cold fusion doesn't mean it will 
be an automatic 
success - they simply haven't read Genesis yet !  This 
is 
incontravertible - supported by that old saying - God 
invented Honda's so 
(category of persons) couldn't ride Harley Davidsons !

B D Hill

>>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".
>


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhill cudfnBrooke cudlnHill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Charles Bragg /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: 71634.50@compuserve.com (Charles Bragg)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 06:03:37 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated

publius@gate.net (Publius) writes:

>  With about 0.1 to 1.5  watts of power going into the device, 
>  the output is a net 450 to1500 watts.

	Publius is a lesson to us all. There will always be people who buy
gold mines over the phone. There will always be people who see blue
helmets and black helicopters. There isn't much one can do for them.
	
but Teddy adds:

>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.....

	Right. What drool. "Liar" is too kind a term.

	You're a pimp for ignorance. 

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cuden50 cudfnCharles cudlnBragg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 /  singtech@telep /  Re: Plasma
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasma
Date: 5 Feb 1996 06:03:35 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

In article <310EB7B5.506C@gwhs.denver.k12.co.us>, "Michael A. Schulman"
<mschulma@gwhs.denver.k12.co.us> wrote:

> Hi, I am trying to find out what plasma is, I am a student at George 
> Washingto High School and none of the teachers know and It is not even 
> mentioned in the science books.  Is there any way some one can mail to me 
> a breif descripton of plasma and mabey a picture of some?
>                                         Thanks
> -- 
> ***************************************
> *           Michael Schulman          *
> *                                     *
> *    George Washington High School    *
> *                                     *
> *    mschulma@gwhs.denver.k12.co.us   *
> *                                     *
> * http://usa.net/~mschul/michael.html *
> ***************************************

Dear Michael,

Now this really grieves me.  You do have chemistry and physics teachers in
Denver at your school, don't you?  It can't be true that they don't know. 
But pick up a dictionary and look for yourself. (see below).

plasma      n.
      1. the fluid part of blood or lymph, as distinguished from the 
      cellular components. 
      2.  PROTOPLASM. 
      3. a green, faintly translucent chalcedony. 
      4. a highly ionized gas containing an approximately equal 
      number of positive ions and electrons. Also, plasm  (plazÇÉm)  
      (for defs. 1-3) .
      [1705-15; < LL < Gk pl·sma something molded or formed, 
      akin to pl·ssein to form, mold. Cf. PLASTIC]
   

Definition number four would relate to nuclear fusion. It is also called
the 4th state of matter.  It is also called an excited gas state.

 But definition number one runs cold in my veins to think that 'none' of
the teachers at a high school in the United States know definition four.

Best Regards,

C. Cagle

-- 


"He who finishes physics, finishes religion and philosophy at the same time"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensingtech cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: how do you do it?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: how do you do it?
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 01:59:07 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <31117135.253F@postoffice.ptd.net>, Dan O'Hara
<danohara@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:

> 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?

***{One good way to understand the layout of the Patterson cell is to
subscribe to *Infinite Energy*, read the articles, and study the diagrams.
Subscriptions are $29.95, which gets you 1 year (6 issues). The address is
P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302. Ask them to send you a copy of vol. 1,
no. 2. --Mitchell Jones}***

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Brooke Hill /  Cold fusion - not a chance
     
Originally-From: Brooke Hill <hill@mfp.com.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sdi.skeptic
Subject: Cold fusion - not a chance
Date: 5 Feb 1996 04:50:04 GMT
Organization: MFP Australia

If cold fusion were possible - it would have been 
revealed in the book of 
Genesis - like all other great discoveries, including 
heterosexuality and 
fruit.

The fact it isn't mentioned there, it can only be an 
exothermic chemical 
reaction between hydrogen and oxygen which doesn't have 
to be explosive 
when carried out electolytically.   Just because the 
Japanese are 
investing millions in cold fusion doesn't mean it will 
be an automatic 
success - they simply haven't read Genesis yet !  This 
is 
incontravertible - supported by that old saying - God 
invented Honda's so 
(category of persons) couldn't ride Harley Davidsons !

B D Hill

>>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".
>


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhill cudfnBrooke cudlnHill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Brooke Hill /  Cold fusion - not a chance
     
Originally-From: Brooke Hill <hill@mfp.com.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sdi.skeptic
Subject: Cold fusion - not a chance
Date: 5 Feb 1996 04:54:40 GMT
Organization: MFP Australia

If cold fusion were possible - it would have been 
revealed in the book of 
Genesis - like all other great discoveries, 
including 
heterosexuality and 
fruit.

The fact it isn't mentioned there, it can only be an 
exothermic chemical 
reaction between hydrogen and oxygen which doesn't 
have 
to be explosive 
when carried out electolytically.   Just because the 
Japanese are 
investing millions in cold fusion doesn't mean it 
will 
be an automatic 
success - they simply haven't read Genesis yet !  
This 
is 
incontravertible - supported by that old saying - 
God 
invented Honda's so 
(category of persons) couldn't ride Harley Davidsons 
!

B D Hill

>>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".
>


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhill cudfnBrooke cudlnHill cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / 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: Mon, 05 Feb 96 09:30:31 GMT
Organization: JET

John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonah Mainwaring says -
>
>  NO, the amount of radiation coming from a 1 KW reaction should
>  not be harmful.
>
>Mike Loughlin says -
>
>  1KW of of 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.
>
>Implying that it would be very harmful.
>
>Any more offers?

What do you want to do - vote on whether or not it's harmless?

Figure it out for yourself. Look up the energy produced in a
fusion reaction. Work out how many reactions you need for 1KW.
Calculate how many neutrons are produced. Look up the flux
to dose conversion factor for 2.5MeV neutrons and calculate
the dose at a distance of 2m from the source.

The examination starts now.

Careless work and untidy work will be penalised.

The use of calculators is permitted.


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:
cuddy05 cudenLoughlin cudfnMichael cudlnLoughlin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Allan Kiik /  Re: Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
     
Originally-From: Allan Kiik <allan@online.ee>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Article in The WSJ
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 10:08:00 -0800

John C wrote:
> 
> The Wall Street Journel had an article about cold fusion on Page
> A7A, Monday, January 27th, 1996.  The article was about Clean

January 27th was saturday...(at least 1996).

> 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:
cuddy05 cudenallan cudfnAllan cudlnKiik cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 /  Tstolper@aol.c /  Horst Report on CF Day '96
     
Originally-From: Tstolper@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Horst Report on CF Day '96
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 18:27:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob,

Thanks for your report on Cold Fusion Day 1996.  

I attended the 1995 event, which was well worth the trip from Connecticut to
Cambridge, Mass., and am sorry to have missed the 1996 event, which sounds
even more interesting.  I was looking forward to reading reports from those
who did attend.  

Last year, several people posted reports within a week of the event.  So far
this year, you are the only one to post a report on the 1996 event.  Do you
know of anyone else who would be willing to post a report, or send it by
email?

Was Cold Fusion Day 1996 held at the Marriott on Kendall Square, or was the
venue changed?

The list of speakers was excellent, every one knowledgeable about the field,
or their part of it, as in the case of Griggs.  Do you know why the list of
speakers wasn't posted beforehand on sci.physics.fusion?

Mitchell Swartz, one of the speakers, is a leading independent
experimentalist in the field.  What did he have to say?

Christopher Tinsley is one of the leading reporters in the field.  Did he
report any conclusions about the Potapov device, which he has investigated.

Did Jed Rothwell add to his postings here about the Patterson cell?

Did Shkedi or any of the other skeptics at Bose attend?

Did Keith Johnson say anything about experimental work by the people he
knows?

Did anyone associated with CETI attend?  (Last year, Jim Reding himself was
there.)

Thanks for the information.

Tom Stolper

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenTstolper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / John Skingley /  Re: COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: John Skingley <john@circlesw.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.publius,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 14:54:57 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4f34hq$14l@sundog.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
<mailto:conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
> 
> John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <4f0pe5$ru6@sundog.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
> : <mailto:conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
> : > 
> : > John Skingley (john@circlesw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : > 
> : > :All I can say is that I know where your energy is coming from, do you know
> : > :where CF energy comes from. If you do, please speak up!
> : > 
> : > Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
> : > devices -- man's imagination!
> : > 
> : > If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, your question
> : > will become valid. This has not yet occurred and, in spite of a rash 
> : > of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, crackpots and others, 
> : > it appears increasingly less likely with each passing month.
> : > 
> : >                                    Harry C.
> 
> : I am sorry to have to say it, but the above is just more of the same, 
> : irrational twaddle I have been reading here for months. Let's examine it.
> 
> If you consider a requirement for verifiable evidence to be twaddle, 
> this says far more about you than me.

No, of course I don't. But when did I say I did?  Again you miss the point and 
put words into my mouth so that you can argue with them. The point is your 
definition of 'verifiable evidence'.  You define this as evidence coming from 
someone who isn't a crackpot. Problem is that you define a crackpot as someone 
who claims to have evidence.

> : > Possibly from the same source that propels other perpetual motion
> : > devices -- man's imagination!
> 
> : You say 'OTHER perpetual motion devices'. Who said anything about a perpetual 
> : motion device. Nobody has claimed to have invented one, unless I've missed
> : something.  
> 
> Then you must have missed something.  A perpetual motion machine is a
> device that extracts sufficient energy from nothing to perpetuate 
> its functioning.  

Exactly!  Quite agree. 

> Isn't this exactly what CF claims purport to do --

NO! I thought one of the main arguments was with the claim that it's fusion,
while the skeptics say it cannot be.

> excess heat is produced from nothing (at least this is what is reported
> by Jed and others on this newsgroup).  When you produce energy output
> without any requirement for energy (potential energy, kinetic energy,
> chemical energy, nuclear energy, or whatever) you are claiming to have
> a 'perpetual motion' type device.  This, to borrow your elegant terminology
> is twaddle, not science.

Quite possibly this IS twaddle!  But just when did 'Jed and others' say there
was no requirement for energy input?  You've done it again. Claim that others
have said something they havn't, and then criticise them for saying it!

IF there is 'excess heat' then it is clearly comming from somewhere. Some say
'fusion', some say 'unknown', but I've NEVER heared anyone say 'nowhere'.
If you know different, please advise.

> : What you are clearly doing is calling the claims 'perpetual motion' so that
> : you can then justify attacking them. You can also justify an attack on the 
> : claimant, implying that he must be stupid if he believes in perpetual motion.
> 
> Nonsense.  When someone claims that they are producing energy from 
> nothing yet fail to produce solid evidence to support such a fantastic
> claim, they quality themselves as something other than scientists.

I've covered this point above. I repeat: *YOU* are calling the claims 
'perpetual motion' so that you can justlfy attacking them. Nobody has claimed 
to have created energy out of nothing.

> : This is nothing but a cheap trick, and hardly worthy of a scientist.
> 
> Yes, I realize demands for substantial evidence and experimental 
> reproducibility are somewhat draconic, but this is how science functions.
> What, if I may ask, is your criteria for separating real scientific
> breakthroughs from pure fantasy and crackpot nonsense?  Again, when
> you attack a scientist for demanding evidence, you say more about
> yourself than...oh, forget it!

Quite! I am beginning to wonder if you have understood a single word I've
said. Again, the same old tactic. You imply that I hold some belief which I 
don't, then you attack it. I've never in my life 'attack(ed) a scientist for 
demanding evidence'. Are we living on the same planet?  Where are you 
getting all this from?  It seems to me that you are simply attacking for the 
sake of it; problem is you are 'tilting at windmills'. Can't you find 
something I *did* say, and comment on that inteligently.

You ask what is my criteria for 'separating real scientific breakthroughs 
from pure fantasy and crackpot nonsense'. Well for a start, in my world, 
anything is possible. And before you attack me for that, I said POSSIBLE! 'Real 
scientific breakthroughs' are things which we understand sufficiently to be able
to reproduce reasonably often to be useful. The rest remains possible. You 
cannot prove a negative. I, unlike you, would not dream of calling anyone a 
crackpot for suggesting something new, or claiming to have discovered something 
new, just because it may seem impossible.

And nobody has claimed a 'breakthrough'. I do not think I have seen the word
used here.

> : And since this message is in direct reply to my posting, I take it the insult
> : is also aimed at me.  Well Mr Conover, while I shall not loose any sleep over
> : it, my estimation of you, and therefore the things you say, continues to fall.
> 
> What can I say other than: believe whatever turns you on. 
 
> : > If and when CF research is shown to produce *any* energy, ...
> 
> : Your reaction, and that of all the other detractors who post here, to a
> : a claim that CF has been demonstrated, seems to be something like - "This
> : cannot be!  You cannot have fusion at room temperature.  It throws over too
> : much established science.  It's impossible!"
> 
> : The conclusion is that it hasn't been demonstrated, no matter what anyone
> : says to the contrary.  You simply don't believe it.
> 
> You're missing the point entirely.  What someone says establishes neither 
> science nor fact.  It is the evidence they produce in support of 
> their observations and its experimental replication that is significant.  

Now we are going to argue semantics, are we?  i.e. What the word 'says' means.
If when someone 'says' they have replicated CF, you are not going to beleive
them, then the only way you are ever going to beleive anything is when you have
proved it to yourself.  Someone writing a report, and giving details of results
etc, etc, is just another way of 'saying' what they did and what happened.

> Sadly, CF has produced nothing significant in the way of hard evidence and
> therefore, has been pretty much dismissed by the scientific community.  
> insufficient content to be of significant interest.

Once again, on who's say so?  Presumably the 'scientific community' consists
of those who agree with you, the rest are 'crackpots'.

[snip] 
> We're left with claims from a group now largely populated with crackpots, 

Right, I thought so!

> charlatans and incompetents in experimental physics.  Please note that 
> *none* of the excess energy claims originate from experienced experimental 
> physicists -- those whose training and experience makes them the most 
> competent conduct experiments in the field to correctly analyze and 
> interpret experimental results.

Again, this is opinion. It may be shared by others with whom you agree, but
opinion just the same. In your world, the only 'experienced experimental 
physicists' are those you define to be so, on your own criteria.

> : Well, you are of course welcome to that view, provided you don't go around
> : insulting those who have other views.  To do so is simply not acceptable
> : behaviour, even from non-scientists.
> 
> I find your notion of 'acceptable behavior' somewhat hypocritical in view of
> the wording of your post.  

All I have done is to engage in serious discussion about whether CF exists or
not. This may indeed be 'unacceptable behavoiur' in your world.

I say you have insulted me and others who post here. You do not apologise and
explain that it was not your intention to do so.  You simply repeat the insults.
Just where in the above posting have I insulted you?  The nearest to an
insult was my use of the word 'twaddle', which refered to a remark you had made,
not to you personally. I'm sure you are an honest man who beleives what he says.

> : All I can say to this is that it is hardly a good example of the scientific 
> : approach to life. If a fellow scientist claims a certain experimental result
> : then the reaction should be one of interest. When others start to make similar
> : claims it's time to take them seriously, not laugh and insult them! 
> 
> You voiced a question that was, in view of the speculative or questionable
> existence status of CF, quite premature.  

It's only 'speculative or questionable' in your view!

> I commented accordingly, with no insult intended or delivered.  

I would say that calling people 'charlatans', 'incompetents', 'crackpots',
'garage experimentors', etc, is insulting.  These insults are aimed at anyone who
shows any sign of thinking that CF exists. Your insults *may* not have been intended,
but they were surely delivered.

> If you find my comments out of line, I
> would hate to see your reaction when a journal moderator transmits peer
> comments to a paper you have submitted!  

Just because others do it, that doesn't mean it's right or acceptable.

> : > ...in spite of a rash of unsubstantiated claims by garage experimenters, 
> : > crackpots and others, ...
> 
> : Do you not see what you are doing here?  As soon as there are supporting claims
> : by others, you simply call them names as well. They are garage experimenters
> : and crackpots.  How Mr Conover, are the claims of CF ever going to be 
> : substantiated to your satisfaction, if those that claim to do so are immediately 
> : labelled crackpots, and therefore unreliable.  I suppose this 'catch 22' 
> : situation makes you feel nice and safe in your own world.
> 
> Substantiation of CF excess energy observations will be quite straight
> forward, once a valid observation is accomplished.  

[snip]  (explanation of the scientific method that we are all familier with).

But you call anyone who tries 'a crackpot', and declare their results invalid!

> : In the real world, most scientists are only too willing to admit that the 
> : more they learn, the more they realise how little they know.
> 
> I can't argue with this. Unfortunately CF has to date, unlike real
> research, provided painfully little new knowledge and far too many
> unsubstantiated claims.
> 
>                                         Harry C.

'unlike 'real' research...'  

You still don't see it do you?  You are judging the world on the basis of what
what you think is possible or not, and anyone who has other ideas is clearly
off their rocker.

May I suggest we both drop it right here, as there is clearly no common ground 
apon which to hold a rational discussion. We are both waisting our time.

Sorry Harry, it's been nice talking to you, but...
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / 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: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 15:17:00 +0000 (GMT)

In article <4f3ul4$d82@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>, Matt Kennel
<mailto:kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
> 
> jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
> > Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
> >  
> > >Evidently you're unfamiliar with the names Hertz, Maxwell and 
> > >others that fully documented electromagnetic waves prior to Marconi's
> > >work on the commercial exploitation of an already *well understood* 
> > >area of physics.
> >  
> > That is incorrect. Before Marconi, nobody knew that radio signals could
> > be sent around the curvature of the earth. The ionosphere had not been
> > discovered.
> 
> Sure, but the *existence* of radio waves as electromagnetic
> oscillation was not in doubt.  And there was thus already sufficient physics
> already known to make the inference that there must be a conducting
> layer in the atmosphere.
> 
> > - Jed

Right.  That wasn't quite the point I was making, but it will do. AT THE TIME
sending radio signals around the curvature of the earth was thought to be 
impossible.  Early experiments to repeat it MUST have been variable (they are
today!) The observed experimental results were subsequently explained by the
discovery of the ionosphere.

There may have been sufficient physics already known to make the inference 
that there must be a conducting layer in the atmosphere, but supposing there
hadn't been. The sceptical ones would presumably have said that Marconi was
a crackpot.
 --------------------------
Regards,  John.
P.O. Box 36, BODMIN, PL30 4YY, U.K. Tel/Fax: +44 1208 850790

cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnSkingley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.02.05 / Rodolphe BOLOT /  Plasmas: Searching for database.
     
Originally-From: Rodolphe BOLOT <rodolphe.Bolot@utbm.fr>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmas: Searching for database.
Date: 5 Feb 1996 17:00:15 GMT
Organization: Institut Polytechnique de Sevenans

						I'm looking for data about ionised species of different elements. 
What I need is GURVICH's (or equivalent) tables for some species. Where 
could I find such some data ???
Thanks for interesting to my message.																								Rodolphe.
My e-mail is rodolphe.bolot@utbm.fr


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBolot cudfnRodolphe cudlnBOLOT cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb  6 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
