1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 03:43:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3eelcn$1666@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <3ec1tl$4vv@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>|> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>|> : An example is far more effective than just stating the case.
>|> How can an illogical inference be considered "effective?"

     I'm amused at the continuing removal of context in this discussion, but
     no matter, that's never bothered anyone before.

     First, it's only an 'illogical inference' in Mr. Logogan's 
     illogical interpretation.

>Dale Bass is evidently advocating science by vote
>instead of by examination of fact.

     Second, close examination is fine, we've done that and CNF a la
     P&F has been found wanting every time.  However, there is 
     a political aspect to _every_ human endeavour.  Get used to it.

     May I suggest Paul Feyerabend's 'Against Method' to provide a modicum
     of perspective on your problem.
     
>  Little to distinguish this from the silent
>(?) majority on the side of the Church in Church vs. Galileo [medieval Europe].

     Third, they laughed at Bozo the Clown.

     That's the usual response when cranks mention Galileo.  It works
     fine here too.

                               dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 03:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5Cy7YpB.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Their critiques
>of Pons and Fleischmann have no scientific merit. Jones, for example, claims
>that a power supply set for a half amp with a 100 V rail voltage can produce
>180 watt for as long as you like.

     I could say it's producing 1000 W.  Unfortunately for P&F  (or
     perhaps quite fortunately), they never measured it accurately so
     they will never know exactly what they drew.  Good experimental 
     technique.  

     I'd certainly base earthshattering claims on such work,
     he noted sarcastically.
  
     And Jed, my guess is that your idea of scientific merit is 
     somewhat different that the ideas of those of us who are actually
     scientists.

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:20:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <568a4NO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) (that's SCHULTZ -- sorry),
>writes:
> 
>     "BTW, the reason that many of the skeptics like to ask about the water
>     heater is given in your sentence above:  if measuring 200 watts is so
>     easy, surely it must be even easier to determine whether one has a
>     working water heater or not."
> 
>You are quite right. It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a
>working water heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much
>higher power levels, which are inherantly easy to measure. For example, the
>largest Griggs device inputs 110 KW and outputs between 130 to 140 KW, which
>is even more impossible to miss -- or mistake -- than 200 watts. There is no
>question at all that these commercial water heaters do create massive levels
>of excess energy. 

     No they do not.  Would you like to wager on this, Jed?  Something
     that will make it worth my while to show you how they do not?

     Oh yes, I forgot, you don't bet.  How confident of you.

>2. You should NEVER assume that CF scientists -- or anyone else -- is competant
>about anything. 

      Don't worry, we won't.

>If you cannot judge the calorimetry yourself, then you have no business
>posting messages saying the work is no good. You have no business saying they
>have not shown "extraordinary proof."

      Hmmm.  You seem to have no qualifications, and yet you feel quite
      free to post saying the work is beyond reproach.

>and such reasons; or you are *not* expert, in which case you must admit you
>cannot tell whether they proved the point or not. 

      I think you should admit it Jed.  You have no idea whether they
      proved the point or not.

>Go ahead and try and find a problem with a quality experiment if you dare.
>Since I have a ton of calibration data, schematics and other detailed
>information from many of these people, I am sure I can tear apart any
>technical reason you dream up as easily as I tore up the Dick Blue's flakey
>ideas about Griggs: the 1 cm error; the invisible heat pump; and "cold mist."

     That's right Jed. Tell me about the waveform on each phase on
     the input to Grigg's machine.  You just rip us to shreads with 
     information on detailed three phase VI integrations without assuming
     power factors or motor efficiencies.  You just go right ahead.

     While you're at it, why don't you regale us again with
     that pyrometer work you've been doing.  That was quite a hoot.
     My confidence in your calibration of the dynamometer is 
     quite high too.

     But in a way, you're quite right.  There may well be no problems 
     with 'quality experiments', because there may be none.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The Call
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The Call
(was Re: Kunich versus Rothwell)
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:26:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3een03$1666@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>|> As I posted elsewhere, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
>
>The number of independent experimenters and their geographical spread is
>also extraordinary.

     Same with UFO sightings, crop circles too.

>pillars, pipes, fans and ropes.  No one knows the jumbo itself yet, and it
>even might be largely vacuous (large stomach), but you must admit it is
>*extraordinarily* consistent in trumpeting all around the world!

     It's truly amazing that the sightings of aliens from other worlds
     have basically converged to a single drawing in the last decade
     or so.  Must be because they exist.

                                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:28:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rqy7AFX.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>I wrote "It is indeed even easier to determine whether one has a working water
>heater or not. The reason is that a water heater produces much higher power
>levels, which are inherently easy to measure." schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
>(Richard Schultz) asks an off the wall question:
> 
>     "Then why do you get so upset when people ask to see the working water
>     heater that Pons claimed he already had in his hand?"
> 
>I do not get upset! Not the least bit. I must have missed the thread here, I
>am not sure which water heater you are talking about. Are you are referring to
>the one Pons showed on the CBC documentary? The white cylindrical 10 KW
>prototype? If that's what you mean, I think it's great. The cat's pajamas! It
>is about time they got serious and started work on big devices.

      Hahahahahahaha.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 04:33:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3eell6$hb1@firewall.ihs.com>,
Alastair Mayer <alastair@firewall.ihs.com> wrote:
>The level of ignorance displayed by Jed's critics who ASSumed they
>knew what "rail voltage" was certainly casts an interesting reflection
>on their other comments.

      Interestingly, it appears that most everyone here knows about
      relevant voltage issues *but* Jed.

>Jed may or may not be wrong about CF and the Grigg's Gadget, but with
>only the evidence of postings here, his engineering knowledge and clarity
>of thinking far exceeds that of most of his detractors.

      Social 'science' major?

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  slug@gemini.ci /  are there any faq?
     
Originally-From: slug@gemini.ci.uc.pt
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: are there any faq?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 09:03:36 GMT
Organization: CIUC-Univ. Coimbra-Portugal

hello!

I'm reading this conf. since yesterday and i can't understand some
technical terms.Are there any faq's and where to find them?

tks in advance.
()'s
Nuno Sucena
CQG9304
CT???? soon (ham)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenslug cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Jacobs Shannon /  Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp (Jacobs Shannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:12:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Eng. & Comp. Sci., Yamanashi Univ., Japan

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Jacobs Shannon <shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp> writes:
:  
: >As regards cold fusion itself, my basic conclusion is that it was a
: >flash in the pan.  If it really was the great breakthrough that it
: >appeared to be, then enough time has passed (and enough money has been
: >spent) for more convincing experiments and much stronger theoretical
: >justifications.
:  
: This "basic conclusion" is preposterous. Obviously, you have never invented
: anything in your life, or done any industrial R&D. If you had the slightest
: knowledge of history -- if you had read even one book! -- you would know that

I'm sorry that you find my personal conclusions so distressing.  I do
not wish to be drawn into a debate on this topic.  But I think the
tone of your post speaks more clearly than any reply I could make as
to your lack of impartiality.  Unfortunately, real science requires
impartiality.

Regarding your ad hominem attacks, they mostly show your unwillingness
or inability to address the scientific issues.  However, I will reply
that I have been involved in industrial research, though I hold no
patents, and one of my degrees includes history.  I read in excess of
50 books per year, many of them on history or technology.  Recently I
read an interesting history of the development of the steam engine, a
process which took centuries.

When the original announcements concerning cold fusion were made, it
seemed that large quantities of heat were already being produced.
Hopeful rumors flew wildly.  My own hypothesis was that perhaps there
was some new mechanism whereby hydrogen atoms could be forced into
extreme proximity, leading to fusion.  This does not appear to be the
case.  As I already wrote, I wish it were otherwise, but my wishes
have nothing to do with it.  And I've read nothing here or elsewhere
to revive my optimism.  Sorry.

I suppose I should close with a joke:  Science is never having to say
you're sorry.

--
If I write it in Japanese, there's a 28% chance it is my opinion.
 (And Japanese documentation makes for an interesting netlife.)
         VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA
         A   This special message has been brought    V 
         V  to you by shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp  A
         AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenshanen cudfnJacobs cudlnShannon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 13:33:06 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >|> : An example is far more effective than just stating the case.
: >|> How can an illogical inference be considered "effective?"
:      I'm amused at the continuing removal of context in this discussion, but
:      no matter, that's never bothered anyone before.
:      First, it's only an 'illogical inference' in Mr. Logogan's 
:      illogical interpretation.

Illogical form is not rescued by context.  In fact, it is often helpful
to replace all premises with neutral variable names so as to short-circuit
our natural biases.

I believe you made the following form of argument:

X says U 
Y says V
Assume V is wrong
   Therefore U is wrong.    <===  Bogus conclusion

There are at least two flaws in the above inference.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA parts, update 2 !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.s
ience,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie.alternativen,
e.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment
sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: MRA parts, update 2 !
Date: 05 Jan 1995 18:25:00 +0100

PARTS SOURCES FOR THE MRA

Joel and Norm now report that stranded wire seems to be required in
order to see the strange effects.

(22 " gauge, read update 9 !)


The transducer used in the Keelynet device was obtained from a surplus
source local to Texas.  We're trying to track down more of them.
They apparently came from an industrial plastic welder.

A Lead Zirconate Titanate piezo transducer can be had from H&R corp, but
its dimensions are: 2" dia x 0.1" thick, not the same as the original
Keelynet device.  It has a 45KHz resonance.  Will it work?  Dunno.  They
have several hundred in stock.

H&R also carries numerous ceramic magnets, but it's unknown whether or not
any are close enough to Norm's original that they will work.  They offer
one large ceramic magnet, 4 x 3 x 1", and have only about 50 in stock.
This magnet has its poles on the flat magnet face, and has TWO poles on
each face.

At least two kinds of ceramic magnet exist: Barium ferrite and Strontium
ferrite.  It is not known whether both types work in this device.

H&R Co.
18 Canal St     <---- This place has a GREAT surplus mail order catalog!
PO Box 122
Bristol, PA  19007-0122
800-848-8001

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
when? / Randy Kaelber /      
Originally-From: rskaelber@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Randy Kaelber)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.envi
onment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle

Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 5 Jan 95 11:37:20 -0500
Organization: United Energy and Transport

Richard Wentk <leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>To suggest also that you HAVE to have a PhD (another post, this...) 
>before you can be treated seriously is also daft. I too get sick of 
>postings that start 'Well, I'm no scientist, but...' and then go on to 
>state something that simply isn't true. (My net favourite has to be 'Mirrors 
>don't work in a vacuum', BTW... :) ) I'm no fan of tiresome speculations 

Well, they don't! Just last night, I put a mirror inside my vacuum and it was
so dirty in there that the dust covered the mirror and I couldn't see a thing.
;)
-- 
Randy Kaelber, Subsistence Programmer and keeper of the smallest FAQ in USENET
(the misc.survivalism Education/Training FAQ)
Owner, Mercury and Earth (except one East Hemisphere nation to be named later)
http://miavx1.muohio.edu/~rskaelber/homepage.html             
My .sig automatically terminates threads because it mentions Nazis and Hitler.
cudkeys:
cudenrskaelber cudfnRandy cudlnKaelber cudszM 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 18:39:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

JL> I believe you made the following form of argument:
JL> X says U 
JL> Y says V
JL> Assume V is wrong
JL>    Therefore U is wrong.    <===  Bogus conclusion

CRB> No.  I made an observation of the form:
CRB> X and Y make the similar and completely silly statements U;
CRB> isn't the juxtaposition funny?


Here is the original exchange:

JR> There is absolutely, positively no likelihood that every single one of 
JR> them, at every single university and corporation is wrong. 

CRB> That's the same argument used by people who think UFO's are aliens
CRB> from other planets.

In my above diagram,

X = Jed
U = "it is unlikely that they are all wrong"
Y = ufologists
V = "it is unlikely that they are all wrong"

Now in this case U=V (in structure).

So if we assume that there are no UFO's, and since U=V, can we conclude
that CF is bogus?

The logical inference is "no", there simply isn't a causal link between
the two premises.

Indeed, the holy grail of science is replication ("it is unlikely that
they are all wrong.")

So now we have uncovered a third flaw in your argument, they are listed:

1.) Linking conclusions on the basis of similar form
2.) Presuming a negative premise (i.e. presuming the conclusion)
3.) Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:09:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I posted this spec sheet before, here 'tis again. It does not have everything,
for more info, contact the manufacturer.
 
 
 
The dynamometer at Hydro Dynamics is an Eaton rotary transformer torque sensor
model 1805-5K. The spec sheet says:
 
Nonlinearity: of rated output  +/- 0.05%
Hysteresis: of rated output +/- 0.05%
Repeatability: of rated output +/- 0.02%
Zero balance: of rated output +/- 1.0%
 
Temperature range, compensated: +70 to +170 deg F; +21 to +77 deg C
Temperature range, useable: -20 to +170 deg F; -30 to +77 deg C
Temperature effect on output of reading per deg F: +/- 0.001%; per deg C:
0.0018%
Temperature effect on zero: of rated output per deg F: +/- 0.001%; per deg C:
0.0018%
 
Capacity: 5,000 lb * in; 565 N * m
Max speed RPM: 22,000
Protection for Overloads: 15,000 lb * in; 1,695 N * m
Torsional Stiffness 950,000 lb * in / Rad.; 107,330 N * m / Rad.
Rotating Inertia 8.41 * 10^-3 lb * in * Sec^2; 9.6 * 10^-4 N * m * Sec^2
Weight: 29 lbs; 13.2 kg
 
Please note the measurements taken at Hydro Dynamics are all far below these
maximum capacities. The unit is being operated well within the recommended
range of operating parameters. Also please note it was installed and tested by
a local engineering firm that specializes in this type of work, which is an
authorized dealer.
 
Product features include:
 
* High accuracy
* High overload protection with high signal output (sensitivity
* Extended speed range
* Minimal maintenance due to "bearings only" contact
* Carrier frequency excitation provides increased signal/noise immunity
* 100 to 10,000 lb. in. capacities.
 
For more information, contact Eaton Aerospace & Commercial Controls.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / John Vetrano /  Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry easier than Fermat's Last Theorem proof
Date: 5 Jan 1995 22:20:33 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <x+x4wbD.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
Yes, that is exactly what it is like. The fabrication techniques at the
*University of Illinois*, NTT, and Mitsubishi are taken directly from silicon
chip technologies.
 

Jed,
  Could I bother you for a name of someone doing this research at the
University of Illinois?  I'm assuming you meant fabrication of CF
cathodes.  If not, I guess you can ignore the rest of the post.  I go
there occasionally to carry out (unrelated) research (it's also where I
received my degree) and that may be my best opportunity to discuss CF with
someone in person.  As I have mentioned before in this forum I think there
are opportunities to explore the existence of this phenomenon from a
microstructural viewpoint.  Maybe I could get some "before and after"
material from the researchers at UI to put in the microscope.  If you
could please steer me in the direction of a name I would be grateful. 
Thanks in advance.

John Vetrano
js_vetrano@pnl.gov

-- 
The above opinions are mine, all mine.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Norman Fraley /  New Research & Testing Association Formed
     
Originally-From: crta@xnet.com (Norman Fraley)
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision,sci.misc,sci.nonlinear,sci.op-research,sci.op
ics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.acce
erators,sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.
hysics.particle,sci.polymers,sci.psychology,sci.research,sci.research.ca
eers,sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: New Research & Testing Association Formed
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 21:08:01 GMT
Organization: Contract Research & Testing Association

As the primary resource of research information, the Internet was the
primary choice for making all concerned individuals aware of the formation
of the Contract Research & Testing Association.

CRTA is an International Association designed to serve the needs of contract
research, product and process development organizations and consultants
throughout the world.  Contract research organizations have specific public,
governmental, and industry perception and promotion needs which are not addressed
by existing scientific industry associations.  CRTA operates as a non-profit,
tax-exempt, corporation eligible for scientific research and public awareness
charitable organization contributions as provided for in the IRC 501(c)(3) provisions.

Being a scientific research and public awareness related organization, CRTA
exists to benefit its members by providing:

  1) An organization devoted to the promotion of Contract Research.
  2) A unified voice on matters of common interest or concern.
  3) Point of contact for media relations relative to contract research.
  4) Business opportunity referrals as a research clearinghouse.
  5) Professional networking opportunities for its members.
  6) Periodic publishing of information beneficial to the membership.
  7) Periodic dissemination of applicable research results to the public.
  8) Governmental representation on issues affecting CRO's.
  9) Public promotion of the strengths of its membership.
 10) A directory of Contract Research Organizations and Consultants.

CRTA will provide:
  1)  A forum for the exchange of information.
  2)  Formal recognition to the CRO's role in business.
  3)  Standards for the professionals so engaged.
  4)  Representation the profession in matters of common interest.
  5)  The development of techniques and methods to improve the practice and
      management of CROs.

CRTA will also offer:
  1)  A monthly news publication.
  2)  Annual meetings
  3)  Active promotional media publicity programs.
  4)  A professional placement service
  5)  A Contract Research Service Directory.
  6)  Media topics and contacts directory

If you have an interest in joining the Contract Research & Testing Association,
please E-mail your reply to crta@xnet.com.  Please include:

1) The word "membership" in your RE: or header information,
2) Your interest in the association / your area of work,
3) Your dues payment preference (check, money order, credit card,
company check, wire xfer, etc.)
   DO NOT INCLUDE ANY CREDIT CARD INFORMATION!  Only your preference
for the manner of payment.
4) Most importantly, your email address, and additional contact
information if you desire.

We will then e-mail membership information and ALL FURTHER INFORMATION
directly to you at your email location.  Thank you for taking the time
to read this announcement.  If membership in this program this does not
appeal to you, thank you for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,
Membership Department
Contract Research & Testing Association


Best Regards,

Norman Fraley                                         CRTA@xnet.com
Executive Director                                   BBS:708-515-0494
Contract Research & Testing Association
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrta cudfnNorman cudlnFraley cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: When is the Nice conference?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the Nice conference?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 23:56:48 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1995Jan4.151454.1978@acoust.byu.edu>, jonesse@acoust.byu.edu says:

>Yes, I think there is a definite pattern.  I received private email about
>this from Douglas Morrison some weeks ago -- he had not received the mailing
>either.  So at least the D's, J's and M's appear missing...
>
>> I need not point out (but do) that editing an invitation list is 
>> somewhat beyond the standard practice for scientific meetings.  Perhaps
>> the conference sponsers would like to explain their mailing selection
>> proceedure.  
>> 
>> Tom Droege
>
>Good luck.  I do have the announcement, however -- heard about it from
>Tom Claytor who did receive the announcement (and he publishes "positive"
>results sometimes).  So I have a copy from Claytor, which I then faxed to
>Morrison.  Need a copy, Tom, or anyone?

Yes, I would like a copy.  FAX # (708) 840-2876

OK, so it looks like they are not holding the meeting according to generally
accepted scientific procedures.  It does not sound like a meeting I would
want to attend either.  

I am surprised that everyone is so calm about this.  I would have expected a 
thread 50 entries long by now.  Come on people, wake up!  This meeting is
a farce!  One does not hold scientific meetings using a list edited according
to belief.  

The fundamental concept of science is free and open discussion of ideas.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: Tom?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom?
Date: 6 Jan 1995 00:00:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.950105164647.12174D-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> says:
>
>
>Sorry to use this group for a personal communication, but:
>Tom Droege, I'd like to email you but have only an undoubtedly out-of-date
>address, and lost your most recent posting. Could you please email me?
>Thank you, and excuse me, you others.
>
>-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk
>
Here I am.

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov

Happy New Year!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Tom Droege /  Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 6 Jan 1995 00:06:34 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3ehihp$d15@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little) says:
>
>I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.
>
>In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
>believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
>primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
>world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
>on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
>Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
>there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
>scientists.
>
>I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in calorimetry.
>I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying design ranging in
>scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently have running a computer-based
>differential calorimeter which is quite suitable for cold fusion work.  It is
>an integrating calorimeter which is necessary for measuring experiments that
>are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber is readily adjustable to
>accomodate different sized devices.
>
>In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
>calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
>one that does produce excess heat).
>
>If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one month, I
>will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
>publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.
>
>Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.
>
>Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.

Good Luck!  Scott, I tried this many times.  At the Maui meeting Peter 
Hagelstein took me around to the Italians, the Japanese, and McKubre and
said "why don't you guys give Tom a cell to test.  With his reputation etc.
we could put this thing to rest."  This on the last day of the conference.
There were no takers, though McKubre looked very interested when I showed
him a picture of the parts I was machining for the next generation 
calorimeter.  These guys do not want somone else making a test.  Hard to 
think of a good reason as I made it clear that I would sign a non-disclosure
agreement.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA update 8, free energy device !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie.alternativ
n,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environm
nt,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: MRA update 8, free energy device !
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA (Power Test)
Subject: Testing, 1-2-3
Subject: MRA (Power Test)
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA measurements
Subject: W. Rosenthal called...
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Subject: (R) MRA measurements
Date: 05 Jan 1995 18:09:00 +0100

Message 10253                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 06:24
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill: After successfully running the MRA on 12 Dec. Joel and I video 
taped the original prototype running on his table and driving two loads 
ie, light bulbs and DC motors at the same time so that no one could say 
that this was RF as we have seen when experimenters run small neon 
tubes. The video of course has date time stamps on the footage. This is 
normal and prudent proceedures when establishing time and place of 
invention.  I have had so many calls now requesting magnets and piezo's 
that I cannot possibly supply them. I spent about 3 hours on the phone 
yesterday talking to people across this country re- MRA. The biggest 
problem that I have encountered is the fact that all who have called 
have only the original MRA.ASC file and do not have the MRA1.ASC and 
the most important RULE9.ASC.  Without the Rule9.ASC they do not have 
the theory that makes the MRA possible.  Coppies of the MRA.ASC are 
being sent all over this country to friends and other researchers 
without the RULE9.ASC.  Are you posting the MRA (public "A" ) messages 
to Internet each day so that there is a constant up-date as to 
progress?  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10254                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 06:36
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA (Power Test)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel: I have been putting a lot of thought into the high power test of 
the MRA device.  Since you have determined that the circuit is creating 
what we call Mhos and usually this phenomenon is associated with 
vaccuum tubes in operation and going back to the work of T. Henry 
Morray with his "valve" then I am setting up this 250 watt tube power 
amp for the ultimate test.  Since transistors seem to not be able to 
take the bucking effect of the "first harmonic" checkinhe input 
current into the circuit we should use the vaccuum tube for this final 
stage of signal injection into the MRA series resonant primary. The 
"finals" tubes then are basically in the series circuit and will 
survive the punishment brought on by the "hammering" effect of the 
first harmonic. These large output tubes will display more of your 
"Mhos" effect than simple transistors.  I still believe, (I keep 
dreaming about it) that the vaccuum tube should play a part in the 
circuit as a "coherror" of the ZPE into the circuit.  Certainly worth 
trying for we are at the point where we need to push the piezo's at 
their design power ratings of 50 watts at 150 Volts. There will be some 
serious voltages developed in the series resonant primary for we have 
already seen nearly 1000 Volts circulating with only 20 volts of 
primary input. A vaccuum tube is the only animal that could survive the 
punishment in a high voltage circuit like this. Bob Paddock's 
indestructible transistors won't cut it in this harsh environment. 
Thoughts and ideas.  Norm
===============================================================================
Message 10257                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 10:22
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: Testing, 1-2-3
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Bill,
 
You made a suggestion a while back about going into the amplifier
output section and measuring current from an isolated point.
That was done this morning, measuring both voltage and current into
and out of the isolation transformer.  It was easy, because the
xfmr leads are wire wrapped to pins on top of the pcb.
 
The input to the isolation transformer is consuming 2.4 watts, and the
output is measuring 1.9 watts, while the MRA is providing 2.3 watts,
which is less than the input to the isolation transformer, but more
than the output.  Since the secondary of the isolation transformer is
part of the "voltage multiplied" primary of the MRA, its power at 1.9
watts may be overstated...but regardless, the MRA output is above it
by 26%, and that is DC, after a bridge rectifier. MRA primary current
was decreasing while the secondary output was increasing, but I took
a reading rather than wait all day to see exactly where it would go.
 
Increasing power to the MRA (went up to 20VDC out on a 19.1VDC rated
motor) increased the ratio to 30%.  What this is saying is that the
gain of the MRA is high enough so that it doesn't matter whether you
measure primary current direct in-line across multiplied voltage...
it's still over unity.  Now I really don't know what to test next.
Suggestions?
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10261                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 14:30
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA (Power Test)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel: Do you think I'm crazy?  I had no intention ot just turn the 
switch on on a 250 Watt amp drivind the piezo.  What I said is that we 
need to substitute a vaccuum tube amp in the circuit instead of the 
puny transistors we are now useing so we can proceed in the power test. 
I like you agree with caution on something we are not realy sure of the 
true nature of the beast.  Don't worry, there is no intention of 
running very significant amounts of power at this time.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10264                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 19:52
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Jerry:  Hal Fox called and that bunch is so excited up in Salt Lake 
City that he is already writting the article for the next NEN. I went 
to the main post office and sent him the MRA1.ASC and the RULE9.ASC so 
he would have enough info for the article.  He sends his 
congratulations and was obviously moved by our giving the tecnology to 
the world as "PUBLIC DOMAIN".  Please post the MRAMSGS.TXT that Bill 
uploaded so we can review the Internet traffic.  Thanks Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10265                                  DATE/TIME: 12/29/94 20:30
From   : BILL BEATY
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA measurements
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Norm and Joel:       
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 00:39:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3ef7ic$9fp@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Kurt Reyno,
kurtreyno@aol.com writes:

[creative calculation with some numbers I guesstimated has been trimmed]
[estimation of energy consumption and production at PPPL deleted]
> So, in other words, for hot-fusion to generate 1 watt of power from
> fusion,
> it requires roughly 690,000 watts of input power (ignoring for the
moment
> the reported claims of some critics that the alleged fusion output is
> actually zero). 

Actually in the best experiments to date the fusion power output
has come to somewhat over 1/4 of the heating power delivered to
the plasma.  I don't think you want my office lighting included in
your power consumption, I don't pretend to be generating fusion myself.

Do you understand the difference between an experiment and a 
working power plant?  For instance, Fermi's little graphite pile
at the University of Chicago probably didn't produce as much energy
as it took to build the device.  Similarly for some of the early
photovoltaic cells launched on early space probes.  Hot fusion 
hasn't claimed to have generated more power than it consumes yet;
we just claim to know *how* to do it now.  The science is there,
but the technology hasn't grown up to the level of the science yet.

The situation in hot fusion now is that we've achieved the core
plasma conditions required for a working power plant, we just 
haven't combined that technology with near-steady-state 
superconducting field magnets in a machine large enough to 
generate significant amounts of surplus energy.  Such a machine
has been designed, however, and provided the nations of the world
agree to fund it, the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor should be generating gigawatts of fusion power sometime
after the year 2000.  This is not a Pons-Fleischmann "water heater,"
this is a machine in which the science is already understood, 
the theory is solidly there, and the researchers are not working
beyond their areas of competence.  It's mostly an engineering project,
although there is a lot of science to be done in order to make
future fusion reactors reliable and economic.

> Hmmm, and you call this *success*?! Perhaps in a sense it
> is
> success, in the Jed-Rothwell sense: that the government hot-fusion
program
> is welfare payments for the physicists involved and the companies that
> supply the hardware. So, as justification for welfare to the elite,
> hot-fusion is a great success.

What's your definition of welfare?  I don't see it...  What does this
have to do with science?  If conducting science to develop better energy
sources so the world has a fighting chance to keep itself going until the
end of the next century is "welfare," I'd like to know what you think of
something like Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
etc.  
 
> Gee, if CF were threatening my welfare payments, I'd be attacking it
too.
> Way to go, Heeter: keep fighting for your welfare check.

Cold fusion hasn't ever seriously threatened hot fusion.  What are you
talking about?  The only thing threatening the hot fusion budget right now
are the people who confuse scientific research to "promote the general
welfare" (which is written into the constitution as one of the purposes
of the U.S. government) with "scientific welfare."  

You want to know why I'm involved in fusion research?  If I wanted 
to be well off now, I'd just go get a job.  I'm more interested 
in trying to make sure that everyone can have enough energy supplies 
to do whatever they'd like to do for the next few million years - it's 
more fun and more challenging than simply trying to earn a living.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA update 9, Free energy device !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie.alternativ
n,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environm
nt,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: MRA update 9, Free energy device !
Subject: Cool Current
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA
Subject: (R) MRA reduces AC line current
Subject: (R) Drop current and decade current
Subject: (R) MRA (Power Test)
Subject: MRA I/O Ratios
Subject: Call & Fax from Tom Bearden
Subject: (R) Testing, 1-2-3
Subject: Your Messages
Subject: MRAMSGS1.ASC
Subject: MRAMSGS1.ASC
Subject: MRA Other ways?
Subject: MRA Tech Note
Subject: MRA Other Ways
Subject: MRA
Subject: (R) MRA measurements
Subject: (R) Your Messages
Subject: MRA Tech Note - Wire
Subject: MRA
Date: 05 Jan 1995 18:21:00 +0100

Message 10271                                  DATE/TIME: 12/30/94 13:06
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED -- 
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: Cool Current
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm,
 
Tom Bearden and others have reported the effect of "cold current"
in free energy devices, and so the question comes up regarding the
MRA, "where's the cold current?".  I've taken the MRA's temperature
at all inputs and outputs, and everything is 5-10 degrees warmer than 
ambient air, except for one place.  There is one place where the temp
is the same as ambient, and it is a path in the series circuit
which should read warmer, like all of the other paths...so, there
is some cooling, but not a lot of it under low level input and
output.
 
That location is the wires connecting the piezo to the primary,
which should be as warm as the other wires in the series circuit,
but these wires stay at room temp.  That is the location where we
should see "blue light" on camera film.  Now that Tom has seen the
schematic, if we ask him where we should see it, I bet he'll know.
 
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10291                                  DATE/TIME: 12/31/94 01:55
From   : BILL BEATY                         -- PRIVATE --    -- RECEIVED --  
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

On MRA1.asc and RULE9.asc, yep, I put them on my WWW page as
soon as I got them.  I think that the problem is that my
original announcement was for the net address where all the
stuff could be found, but then within a couple of days there
were copies of just mra.asc all over the Usenet (which is like
a group of BBS systems)  So people stopped going to the site
that has all the info, or they even got copies that had no
reference to where on internet they came from.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 13:47:22 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1994Dec29.165313.1966@acousb.byu.edu>, jonesse@acousb.byu.edu writes:
|> 
|> I would appreciate your comments on the possibility that fission
|> energy might supply a significant part of our energy needs during
|> the 3rd millenium AD.  Some of the problems:  

As other people commented, the technical problems are insignificant
compared with the political ones.  There is only one hard technical
issue (waste disposal) and one moderately hard one (catastrophe
avoidance).  The latter has now several known solutions.

|> Sounds good.  But will "inherently safe reactors" be sufficiently
|> acceptable to be tried in the US and Europe?  Perhaps elsewhere? 
|> Who would build such reactors, and where would the waste be
|> stored?  Considering the problems the Dept. of Energy and nuclear
|> industry are facing in cleaning up radioactive wastes, and the
|> public distrust of nuclear reactors (and scientists, lately), I
|> wonder if *any* nuclear reactors could be built again in the US.

They are still being built in the UK and France, at least, and they
are NOT "inherently safe" designs.  The UK government's attitude is
to suppress information whereever possible, and I believe that the
position is still that all information relating to nuclear power is
automatically an official secret.  I favour nuclear fission as a
power source for the UK, but NOT under the current arrangements.
Until and unless there is an open, independent body to oversee the
industry, there is little hope for improvement.

Like every other rational person, I view the prospect of a major
plutonium leak with horror.  Uranium (even 235) isn't really an
issue.  Most secondary (fission) products have relatively short
half-lives, which at least reduces the problems.  The most ghastly
prospect is a relatively poor country setting up a cheap and nasty
reactor, and simply dumping the waste products at sea.  This
already goes on to some extent.

Unfortunately, there is no pressure group promoting safer fission
reactors in the UK (or elsewhere, I believe).  Greenpeace are doing
excellent work preventing the government from covering up some of
the disgraceful practices, but are 100% opposed to nuclear power
(or at least fission).  How would you tackle this problem?


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 09:01:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) quotes an interesting article from
the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday, July 8, 1989:
 
     "Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells,
     Deseret News science writer
 
     A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water
     requirements of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B.
     Stanley Pons. ..."
 
I did not know he had one the size of a thermos back in 1989. Anyway, that
turned out to be true. Those CF gadgets are still percolating in the lab of B.
Stanley Pons, and they still could satisfy the hot-water requirements of an
average home. They are a lot closer to doing that today than they were back in
1989. Great progress has been made!
 
Newspaper reports from 1989 are interesting, but if you want to seriously
evaluate the technology, you must read recent scientific papers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Easy measurements?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Easy measurements?
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 09:02:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) asks:
 
     "I'll put this in the form of a question for Jed Rothwell.  In which of
     the two following cases would you expect to be able to make the most
     definitive calorimetric measurement with ease? . . . A)  There is no
     power input, but the power out appears to be roughly 200 watts. . . . B)
     For an input power of 110 kW the power output appears to be roughly 130
     kW."
 
Either one would be a piece of cake. Both cases have been seen with CF
experiments. I don't know why you specify "the power output appears to be
roughly. . ." What should it appear to be roughly? You can measure it and find
out what it to within a few percent. Why on earth would anyone settle for
rough appearances? People have been accurately measuring enthalpy since the
days of James Watt.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Eugene Mallove /  Britz Abandons Science - Re-posting
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz Abandons Science - Re-posting
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 05:24:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A perfect statement from Britz, a True (Dis)Believer who has abandoned science
for his pseudo-scientific religion:


>Thank you, Tom, but no thank you. I have a full program and no time to spare;
>and I really am a skeptic, you know, and I wouldn't attend a conference 
>devoted to something I don't believe in, when I can't get to all those 
>that I do believe in.
>
>-- Dieter  alias britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

"Something I don't believe in," indeed.

What a Fool you are, Britz. May we have no more blabbliographies from you in 
1995!

Gene Mallove
Cold Fusion Technology
Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Richard Blue /  Re: Measuring the lever
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Measuring the lever
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 05:24:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After all the verbiage concerning how accurately Jed Rothwell calibrated
the dynamometer on the Griggs Hydrosonic pump, his latest response hints
that he, in fact, never made a measurement of the length of that lever.
Instead we are ask to accept the notion that some unspecified party at
some unspecified time did measure the length, and that they did it
properly.  It would thus appear that Jed cannot vouch for the calibration
of the dynamometer.

As to the question of the operating temperature for the dynamometer, Jed
says he is repeating himself, and that he answered this question earlier.
I apologize for having missed that fact in your messages that are generally
so clear and to the point.

Although the pump housing temperature was measured with a pyrometric device
and found to be quite hot, that shaft extending from that housing is said
to be cool enough to permit hand contact.  Jed explains this by noting that
the shaft is spinning in air and is thus cooled more than is the housing.
I am not sure I buy that explanation.  Let's just say that a more careful
determination of the temperature profile of this device during startup,
operation, and cooldown might be useful information.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Richard Blue /  Re: Refuting Reifenschweiler
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refuting Reifenschweiler
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 05:24:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Once again a CF advocate (Daryl Owen) indicates a lack of understanding
as to where the burden of proof must lie.  I indicated that the conditions
underwhich the Reifenschweiler measurements were made were too poorly
controlled to be considered indicative of the effect he claimed.  Daryl
asks me to "prove" that to be the case by giving specific chemical reaction
data.  I, of course, can't possibly do that because I don't have sufficient
information about the experimental conditions.  That information is simply
not given in the Reifenschweiler paper.

I can, however, provide further information to support my suggestion
that the titanium is reactive and will redily form compounds with
almost everything except the inert gases.  In case you are singularly
uninformed, Mr. Owen, that is the basis of an entire vacuum pump technology.
Titanium getter pumping is widely used.  You should be able to find
information on that subject from a source that you consider reliable.

Now are there other points that you would call into question?  Do you
agree that changing the chemical composition of the material containing
the tritium can have a significant effect on the observed signal?
If you are willing to accept that, then the burden of proof lies with
you!  What evidence can you or Reifenschweiler provide that the
chemical composition of the radiating material does not change during
the course of the material?  Indeed Reifenschweiler himself asserts
that the configuration of the tritium undergoes some transformation.
However, I differ with him as to what the nature of that transformation
must be, and have merely pointed out an established fact.  The observed
effect need not involve anything unusual or extraordinary.  It is just
plain chemistry.  You "prove" that it is not!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.06 / Eugene Mallove /  Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Day at MIT - 2nd Posting
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 05:25:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

************************  COLD FUSION DAY  ************************
                              at MIT


                         COLD FUSION
          A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                        IAP  Program 
              Video-Lecture-Demonstration Program

_______________________________________________________
January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM 
Room 10-105 (Bush Room)
First floor, main building of MIT, under the Great Dome
________________________________________________________


Cold fusion is the generic term for the production of excess power from 
electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with palladium, or 
light water with nickel. Nuclear products and emissions have also been 
reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and charged particles. New 
non-electrochemical physical systems have also been discovered that evidence 
significant excess power and associated nuclear products.  It is difficult to 
imagine a greater reversal of scientific fortunes than what has been emerging 
in the cold fusion field. As the literature of cold fusion expands, the 
startling phenomena are of continuing interest to experimentalists, 
theoreticians, inventors, and entrepreneurs. In this day of lectures, 
discussions, and startling videos, the focus will be on the history, science, 
technology, and business of cold fusion.

Recent developments in commercial-level power production will be discussed at 
this meeting. The program organizers are also negotiating to have one or more 
demonstration units in operation at MIT this day.

________________________________________________
For more information on the meeting please contact Dr. Eugene F. Mallove,
MIT '69, at  Cold Fusion Technology, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816;  
Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975  or at                           
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com
_________________________________________________

Comments to skeptics, *in advance* of your "pissing contest" to out-do each 
other with mockery of this event:

1. This *is* an officially sanctioned MIT event of the Independent Activities 
Program, being organized by a senior person within the MIT Alumni Association.

2. I have no intention of dueling with you on this forum, so expect few 
replies -- if any -- to your expected nitwit remarks.

3. I will not discuss, in advance, which demonstration units will be there or 
will be reported on. These exist already and are incontrovertible in their 
performance.

4. This is 1995, 100 years after the discovery of X-rays, which so upset 
classical physics. I expect 1995 to be a similar turning point to 1895 in our 
understanding of the universe.

To steal from our "good friend" John Maddox of Nature magazine in 1989:

FAREWELL (NOT FOND) to PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM.

Happy New Year to all Truth Seekers! 

(The rest of you can rot in hell, for all I care, but if some of you 
eventually change your stripes, I'll be glad to shake your hands and work with
you on new science and technology.)

Gene Mallove




cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  Van /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:41:25 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <D1JCxs.700@cygnus.com>, E. Michael Smith <ems@cygnus.com> wrote:
>From the 'almost a conspiracy theory' department:  Anyone see the PBS
>show on diamonds?  Notice that scene where the ex-GE employee says that
>they were making 1-2 carat GEM grade diamonds syntheticly?  And that 
>DeBeers sent over an envoy and suddenly they didn't know how to make
>GEM grade any more, but the price of industrial diamonds from both GE
>and DeBeers went up a chunk?  Notice the scene about the high cost to 
>the US in WWII for industrial diamonds? The scene about the effort to 
>keep industrial diamonds out of the hands of WWII Nazi Germany?  
>
>Gee.. now we hear that GE was found inocent of any conspiracy to 
>restrain trade...  Hmmm...  And just WHOM is a large military contractor?  
>
>It does look like the technological genie is out of the bag on this one,
>though, in that synthetic industrial diamonds are a well known technology
>and anyone wanting to push that technology further has a good idea which
>ways to go...

Yes, I saw it twice, very interesting.

I like the part about the ad compaign too, so that men have to
buy women diamonds ("a girl's best friend), even though they don't
look much different, and the real cost is not _that_ much greater
that rhinestones.

If I were a woman, screw the diamond, buy me a US T-bond instead, or
whatever.
-- 

Van - Internet address -  vanjac@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ------> The Water Heater <------
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:40:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xOy5Y-Z.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) quotes an interesting article from
>the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday, July 8, 1989:
> 
>     "Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells,
>     Deseret News science writer
> 
>     A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water
>     requirements of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B.
>     Stanley Pons. ..."
> 
>I did not know he had one the size of a thermos back in 1989. Anyway, that
>turned out to be true. Those CF gadgets are still percolating in the lab of B.
>Stanley Pons, and they still could satisfy the hot-water requirements of an
>average home. They are a lot closer to doing that today than they were back in
>1989. Great progress has been made!

      100 * 0 = 0

      1000 * 0 = 0

      1.0E42 * 0 = 0

     'Great progress has been made!'

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Easy measurements?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Easy measurements?
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xu6Zwja.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>out what it to within a few percent. Why on earth would anyone settle for
>rough appearances? People have been accurately measuring enthalpy since the
>days of James Watt.

     Where did you get your 'enthalpy meter'?

                                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  prasad /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:03:12 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <D1wyCr.85I@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> ...
|>      P&F has been found wanting every time.  However, there is 
|>      a political aspect to _every_ human endeavour.  Get used to it.
|> ...
|>      That's the usual response when cranks mention Galileo.  It works
|>      fine here too.

How I admire the unfailing Dale Bass ludicity and courtesy.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  prasad /  Rqst For Info (MRA).
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rqst For Info (MRA).
Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:14:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

How about those MRA enthusiasts
	(a) at least restrict their postings to some groups (alt.?) and
	(b) back their claims with more relevant data?

Since they're talking fancy resonances, I'd seriously suggest they first
do basic measurements with their signal generator and produce Bode plots
for their rather unexotic circuit.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / K Jonsson /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:07:04 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <D1x0oA.9EE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <3eell6$hb1@firewall.ihs.com>,
>Alastair Mayer <alastair@firewall.ihs.com> wrote:
>>The level of ignorance displayed by Jed's critics who ASSumed they
>>knew what "rail voltage" was certainly casts an interesting reflection
>>on their other comments.

>      Interestingly, it appears that most everyone here knows about
>      relevant voltage issues *but* Jed.

>>Jed may or may not be wrong about CF and the Grigg's Gadget, but with
>>only the evidence of postings here, his engineering knowledge and clarity
>>of thinking far exceeds that of most of his detractors.

>      Social 'science' major?

I happen to agree with Alistair.  Of course P&F should have monitored their
input properly (I am not entirely familiar with their work, I am commenting
only on information received through this newsgroup).  But even if they
didn't  It is fairly obvious that they were not pulling out substantially
more than 50w from a 0.5A 100V power supply.  Of course, by a stroke
of unluck, they might have hit a bad power supply.  But it is fairly
unlikely, don't you think?  Perhaps just as likely as CF in fact, eh?
Some observations just are so obvious that they do not necessarily
need detailed measurements.
For example, Jed's hand determined that the heat of the GG shaft was
sub 77 degrees C.  It is similarly fair to assume that this is within
the Dynamometer's temparature range if the Dynamometer is indeed
an industrial unit.  And although you will want to see the exact
specifications for the Dyno (and Jed should have checked, but one
can't think of everything) it is very unlikely that the dyno should
be so badly designed as to fail at this low temparature.

Perhaps Jed would be so kind as to describe the dynamometer for us,
i.e. it's construction.  The only tynamometer I have used wasn't
a seperate unit at all, but rather the motor was mounted on
a pivoted mounting, the reacting torque on which could be measured with
an arm attatched to a spring.  A fairly simple instument, not subject to
heat problems.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  prasad /  Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: 5 Jan 1995 17:21:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <WAF2PCB287378964@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|> two men decided to examine a classic system of liquid confined between two
|> vertical cylinders. One cylinder rotated inside the other, pulling the liquid
|> around with it.  The system enclosed its flow between surfaces.  Thus it
|> restricted the possible motion of the liquid in space, unlike jets and wakes
|> in open water.  The rotating cylinders produced what was known to
|> Couette-Taylor flow.  Typically, the inner cylinder spins inside a stationary
|> shell,  as a matter of convenience.  As the rotation begins and picks up
|> speed, the first instability occurs, the liquid forms an elegant pattern
|> resembling a stack of inner tubes at a service station. Doughnut-shaped bands
|> appear around the cylinder, stacked one atop another.  A speck in the fluid
|> rotates not just east to west but also up and in and down and out around the
|> doughnuts.  this much was already understood.  G. I. Taylor had seen it and
|> measured it in 1923."

See the same quite well presented in Feynman's Lectures, tail end of vol II.

However, what you quote here doesn't seem to relate to steam-generation,
cavitation, ultrasonics, or over-unity efficiency.  How does this piece from
the mainstream physics relate to Griggs pump at all?  Am I missing something?

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Date: 5 Jan 1995 18:58:09 GMT
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
Organization: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION

  My first patent anticipated the latest experimental findings of extra
iron in carbon arcing.
  I contend, as so well amplified in my patent application, that cold
fusion is spontaneous neutron materialization. This was first
hypothesized by P.A.M. Dirac, a giant in theoretical physics, of which
there are no physics giants, except me on the physics landscape today.
Do yourself a favor and read Dirac's DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS. This is the
trouble with todays limelighted physics professors. They never pay
close attention to the true physicists and like restless, wayward and
never listening teenagers they want to do things anew, only to later
find out the hard way that they should have listened to their
grown-ups, (Dirac) in the first place.
  Here I post this patent application leaving out the Details of the
Invention and the Claims. That is the business of the patent office.
  See where I anticipated Bockris's excess iron findings.
  Cold fusion experiments are very important for the history of
physics. Because through them, we will see that the Conservation of
Energy/Mass was a fakery, a joke, a sham. And it is good that we
discover all the conservation laws were fakeries through cold fusion,
something of engineering practical and useful devices. Enough said for
the time being.

   FUSION ENGINEERED:  RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
DEVICES
Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium  
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: This new one USA 08/304,118; the old one was 07/737,170 with
patent examiner Harvey Behrend, Commissioner of Patents Bruce A.
Lehman, Secretary of Energy (DoE) Hazel R. OULeary, Deputy Secretary
(DoE) William H. White, Director of Nuclear Energy (DoE) Edson C.
Brolin 
Filing Date: August 31, 1994. The old one was 29 July 1991 subsequently
reformatted and resubmitted early 1993.
Related U.S. Application Data: 07/737,170
	PATENTS CITED
{1} My patent application 1991 USA 07/737,170 
         and rejected by patent office 1993
{2} Canon's patent (EP 568 118)
{3} John Tandberg patent application (17 februari)1927; Sweden 
       patent office rejected his application (17 november) 1927. 	See
VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, the book on page 34.
	REFERENCES CITED
{4} Directions in Physics   P.A.M. Dirac, 1975,1978 pages 72-81
{5} The book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTATILITY: THE UNIFICATION OF 
          PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH   6th edition, 	  
             Archimedes Plutonium, 1990.
{6a} Paneth F. and Peters K., (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 59, 
       2039; 1926) 
{6b} Paneth F., Peters K., Gnther P. (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 
       60, 808; 1927)
{6c} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 25Sept1926, vol 118, pages 
       455-456, titled News and Views.
{6d} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 9Oct1926, vol 118, pages 
       526-527, titled The Reported Conversion of Hydrogen into 
       Helium.
{6e} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 14May1927, vol 119, pages 
       706-707, titled The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium.
{7a} Tandberg, John  THE ABSORPTION OF HARD g-RAYS as studied 
          by means of nuclear reactions and artificial radioactivity  
          1937
{7b} Tandberg, Re:  Collections relating to history of physics . . 
         John Tandberg, Ph.D. in physics, and president, Chemical 
        Laboratories at Electrolux: (5 meters):; continued . .  Lund 
        Univ. Library, POB 3, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
{7c} Tandberg, John  VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, en bok av och 
	om John Tandberg 1970
{8} Radioactivity, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol.15, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 103-121.
{9} Magnetohydrodynamics, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol. 	10, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 327-
            335.
{10} STARPOWER     The U.S. and the International Quest For   
         Fusion Energy, Congress of the United States, Office of 
         Technology Assessment, Oct1987 
{11} Energy & Technology Review  (E&TR) OCT1990, pages 1-17 
         titled   Cold Fusion -- One Year Later .
{12}  MEN OF MATHEMATICS  by E.T. Bell 1937, pages 8-9.
{13a} FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  , 1963.
{13b} QED  Feynman, 1985. 
{14} NEW SCIENTIST   "PATENTS", "Cold fusion rides again", 
         25JUN1994, page 23. 
{15} Physical Review   1957, vol. 105, pages 1127-1128, titled 
        Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions by Muons  by L.W. Alvarez 
         et.al. Radiation Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA, 
         (Received 17Dec1956)
{16a} Reifenschweiler Radiation, Internet sci.physics.fusion, 
         <940331071702_73770.1337_DHE45-1@CompuServe.COM>
{16b} Reifenschweiler Radiation, NEW SCIENTIST, 8JAN1994, p.16
{16c} Reifenschweiler Radiation, PHYSICS LETTERS A , vol.184,   
           3JAN1994, p. 149-153
{17a} Sonoluminescence, Internet sci.physics.fusion
{17b} Sonoluminescence, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,  DEC1993,  
           p.24,26
{17c} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.144, 23OCT1993, 
           p.271
{17d} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.255, 20MAR92, p. 1511
{17e} Sonoluminescence, PHYSICS TODAY, NOV1991, p. 17-18
{17f} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.253, 20SEP1991,p.1397-
           1399
{17g} Sonoluminescence, NATURE, vol.352, 25JUL1991, p. 318-
           320
{17h} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.139, 11MAY1991, 
           p.292
{18} INTERNET, newsgroups, various pertinent threads relating to 
         cold fusion and patents from sci.physics, and 
         sci.physics.fusion, and sci.physics.electromag, and my own 
         newsgroup the "Altar of Science and Physics is 
         Plutonium" abbreviated alt.sci.physics.plutonium. 
         Computer-in, and come to learn about your Maker. ATOM
{19a} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  New Scientist  	 
           25JUN94 page 18. 
{19b} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  Science News  	 
           28SEP91, vol. 140, page 196.
{20a}  MOONS & PLANETS , 1993, William K. Hartmann, printed on 
            recycled acid-free paper.
{20b} Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991 	  
pages 26-29.
{21a} Deuterium, cosmic abundance, Nature , 14APR1994, vol. 
          368, pages v, 599, and 584.
{21b} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 31OCT1992, 
           vol. 136, page 16.
{21c} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 30JUN1988, 
           vol. 118, page 46.
{21d} Lithium, cosmic abundance, Scientific American  May 
           1987, pages 39-45, titled The Cosmic Synthesis of 
           Lithium, Beryllium and Boron .
{21e} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, Science , 10JAN1992, vol. 
           255, pages 162-163.
{21f} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           13JUN1992, vol. 134, page 17.
{21g} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           3AUG1991, vol. 131, page 16.
{22a} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  New Scientist  	 
          15AUG92 pages 28-32. 
{22b} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  McGRAW-HILL 
           ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  vol. 17, 7th 
            Ed. 1992, pages 600-621.
{23a} Diamond purity. Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat 
          using pure ice  , Scientific American  SEP90 page 169. 
{23b} Diamond purity. Growth of large, high quality diamond 
           crystals at General Electric  , American Journal of Physics 

            NOV91 pages 1005-1007. 
{23c} Diamond purity. A denser, more perfect diamond , Science 
           News  2NOV91 page 287.
{23d} Diamond purity. The ace of diamonds packs them in , New 
          Scientist  9NOV91 page 26.
{24} CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics  75th edition 1994  	pages
10-272 to 10-277.
{25}  Nuclear reactor, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA  
          of Science & Technology  vol. 12, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 193-
            202.
{26} PHYSICS, PART 2, 3rd edition, extended version  Halliday &
Resnick, 1986.


			ABSTRACT
The two main ingredients of a patent is Rnewness of the artS and
Reconomic or commercial valueS.  Two "newnesses to fusion engineering"
are provided herein (1) an explanation for fusion, that is, the correct
theory which is a new theory, and (2)  technique or method for inducing
fusion. Both of these newnesses were applied for in my patent
application USA 07/737,170 in 1991-1993 and rejected by the USA patent
office and DoE out of ignorance, porkbarreling for hot fusion, and
persecution of supergenius me. By 1994, Canon, received  European
patent, confirming the experimental truth of my patent claim. Do I sue
the USA patent office for dereliction of duty? It is unconscionable to
sue the USA DoE for physics irrlehre, because that would approach a
perpetual money making machine in violation of 2nd law of
thermodynamics:-) The explanation (1) is Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization (rsnm). The technique (2) to induce rsnm is
pulsing which is either changing electric current i and/or changing 
electric potential difference V. Changing i, V is what Canon has done
to induce cold fusion in their experiments. Canon calls it "pulsing"
but it is the same as changing i, V as claimed in my early patent
application. Thus, either Canon's patent (EP 568 118), or the USA
patent process has unrightfully taken at least one-half of the claims
made by my patent application 07/737,170. The economic value of cold
fusion is so immense and obvious to warrant these comments.


		DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 
 	These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa 1890's and early 1900's thought that
since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium is
warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands, and
continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, NEUTRONS GLOW BLUE, thought that this new phenomenon was
perpetual motion.{26}  Radioactivity was a new science. And, because of
these unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity
were quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion,
or violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical
laws.  Later, after the 1920Us with Quantum Mechanics around, clearer
explanations of radioactivity were given. Only with quantum theory in
the mid-to-late 1920's was radioactivity well enough understood to
accord with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) {13b} and is superior to the old
concept of force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept
interaction in this application; the reason: quantum physics is the
correct physics.
 	Now with Cold Fusion, a similar circumstance of bewilderment arises.
However, when Cold Fusion is taken as spontaneous neutron
materialization, then it is seen as radioactivity. But, the
conservation of energy/mass is violated. P.A.M. Dirac was the first
genius of physics to realize that the conservation of energy/mass is a
fakery{4} circa 1970's as per DIRAC'S DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS  pages 76-
78
  "  Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very
large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should
then expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to
t^2. Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
proportionally to t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the
Universe, a continuous creation of matter. 
   There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
it is not in favor at the present time.
  The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
  I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
Hypothesis.
  This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
  If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
creations. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter
is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation. There are these two
possibilities for the creation of new matter. I do not know which to
prefer. One should continue with both possibilities and examine their
consequences. "
	I, with the Plutonium Atom Totality theory can give meaning and
specifics to Dirac's genius intuition as quoted above. Dirac's new form
of radioactivity is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm), or radioactive spontaneous particle (alpha, beta, . .)
materialization.
	The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred in 1896, when
Becquerel discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years
later for the uses of Becquerel's radioactivity were applied to produce
nuclear fission power. Fission radioactivity was technologically used
in the engineering of nuclear fission reactors which generated nuclear
power, post 1942.{25} 
  	However, and quite remarkably, the history of cold fusion {6}{7}
started circa 1926-1932. I quote " 1926 Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in
Berlin first claim to have observed the fusion of hydrogen under
pressure to form helium in finely divided palladium metal. It was
already well known at the time that certain metals such as palladium
can absorb large quantities of hydrogen. In a short note immediately
following this claim, Nature issued the statement: " This announcement,
if correct, is of great importance and will evoke even more interest
than the claim by Miethe and Stammereich to have transmuted mercury
into gold...Belief or disbelief in the ...message must be reserved
pending further and more definite evidence." After substantial
criticisms and further studies, the two researchers withdrew the claim
of helium synthesis."
    "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tandberg proposes using
electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
experiments after calculating that all the deuterium would be
equivalent to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "
  {11}
	Nature   1926 states R Theory indicating that this conversion would
involve the liberation of much energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4
gram-atoms of hydrogen), the authorUs  [Paneth & Peters] primary task
was to find out if the change would take place without introducing
energy from outside, e.g. in the presence of a catalyst; and in order
to be able to detect very small quantities of helium they elaborated
the spectroscopic method in such a way that the limiting amount
detectable was 10^-8 to 10^-9 c.c., or 10^-12 to 10^-13 gm. S {6d}
	Paneth, Peters, & especially Tandberg were treated by the science
communities with harsh criticism and disbelief. So harsh was their
treatment that their reputations were under attack and questioned and
so they went underground with their experiments, and they went
underground in the belief of the correctness of their science. From
1932 through 1956, cold fusion experimentation went underground. After
1956, the story of cold fusion springs forth back to life again with
muon catalyzed fusion. But before I get to 1956, I want to outline more
of John Tandberg's work since the history of cold fusion in large part
is due to his science experiments. And the much later work, that of
1989 of Fleischmann & Pons is merely a repeat of Tandberg.
  	The 1926 news of Paneth & Peters work reached Sweden.  John Tandberg
started to experiment with Paneth and Peters fusion idea.  At that time
Tandberg was a physics researcher for the Electrolux Company and an
expert in this area of research, and he would later became the
scientific director and manager of Electrolux. In February 1927 John
Tandberg of the Electrolux Research Laboratory filed a patent for "A
METHOD TO PRODUCE HELIUM AND USEFUL ENERGY".  Early on, Paneth, Peters,
and Tandberg were looking for helium production for the airship
industry. But all three men, especially Tandberg, quickly turned to the
harnessing of nuclear energy. Tandberg was searching for nuclear energy
as evidenced by the title of his patent. In Tandberg's patent
application, he claimed to have discovered "A METHOD TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENCY IN ORDER TO PRODUCE USEFUL ENERGY". This patent application
was rejected by the Swedish patent office in that same year of 1927. 
But Tandberg went underground to continue working on cold fusion in the
electrolysis measurements with heavy water, D2O instead of H2O.
Tandberg used palladium as the metal cathode.  Heavy water was obtained
from the Niels Bohr Institute.
   Obviously, from the patent application of Tandberg 1927 and the
wording of Paneth & Peters news-reports of 1926 "liberation of much
energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4 gram-atoms of hydrogen) "{6d} that the
experimentation of transmutation of hydrogen into helium had by 1927
turned into the much more important quest for nuclear energy.  The
quest had quickly changed from that of simply producing helium for the
airship industry to that of producing enormous energy. The energy
equation  E = mcc was around since 1907, and also the understanding
that chemical changes or rearrangements can release chemical energy. By
1927 it was known that  nuclear changes or  rearrangements can release
enormously more energy than chemical energy. Quantum Mechanics by the
late 1920's was progressing rapidly. And Paneth, Peters, and Tandberg
through their experimentation were the first to try to build a nuclear
fusion reactor. The results of TandbergUs experiments were mostly
deafening and banging electrical discharges when trying to produce
nuclear fusion in wires of palladium that had been saturated with
deuterium via electrolysis. Tandberg experimentally set a constant high
voltage across deuterated palladium wires, not a variable/ pulsed
voltage, in order to fuse the deuterium into helium. If Tandberg had
set a variable/ pulsed electric potential V or electric current i,
across the deuterated palladium, he would have engineered a repeatable
fusion reactor in 1927. The genius John Tandberg died in 1968. 
	Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion in 1956{15}. These observations were easily confirmed and
subsequently passed into physics facts, unlike electrochemical test
tube cold fusion as reported in 1989 which became hotly contested and
not easy to confirm. With muon catalyzed fusion, the physics community
was in agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepted it
because the verification is easily repeatable. It was theoretically
proposed much earlier than 1956 by Frank and Sakharov in the late
1940's. 
	Now the history of cold fusion jumps to the year 1989, specifically
23MAR1989 when Fleischmann & Pons{11} world-wide announced by high
speed communications that they were successful with Tandberg's work of
1927, i.e. electrochemical test-tube cold fusion. Their work is a
repeat of TandbergUs work. Nothing new to the art of cold fusion was
realized by Fleischmann & Pons over that of Tandberg. No explanation of
cold fusion, and no new technique to induce cold fusion. And because
there was "nothing new to the art of cold fusion" by the Fleischmann &
Pons repeat experiments of Tandberg, their cold fusion experiments were
again not Rscientifically repeatableS, just as Tandberg's experiments
were not scientifically repeatable because they did not use pulsing to
induce fusion.  And some researchers in various laboratories around the
world unwittingly pulsed the electric current i or pulsed the electric
potential V in order to begin, or interrupt, or halt the experiments
and were able to observe some cold fusion nuclear energy. Some reported
nuclear reactions after their experiments were halted because in the
procedure of halting, they pulsed the set-up of the apparatus. But they
were in the weeds as to knowing the explanation of cold fusion and the
necessity of pulsing. They experimented with constant current i and
constant V, for the most part. So the Fleischmann & Pons experiments of
1989 were nothing new over the Tandberg experimental work of 1927-1932.

	Now I could skip immediately to the Canon patent of 1994 {2} which
pulses the experimental fusion set-up. And because Canon pulses, the
experiment is repeatable. But, I, in 1991 had priority patent right
claims of the "Pulsing technique in cold fusion experiments", which is
the essential ingredient in making cold fusion repeatable.
	Starting in 1991, the history of cold fusion continues with me. I
would come to provide the correct theory of fusion in general and cold
fusion in particular via rsnm in my patent application of 1991-1993
{1}. And I provided the correct technique or method to induce rsnm,
i.e. via pulsing. My patent was rejected by the USA patent office and
DoE as it seems that the USA patent office has rejected most every
patent concerning cold fusion. This USA DoE and patent office
suppression of cold fusion patents was discussed on Internet,
sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.electromag news threads. It appears
that the USA DoE does not want to have cold fusion interests exceed the
porkbarreling interests of thermonuclear (hot) fusion and laser
inertial confinement fusion {10}. Consequently, on the advice of the
DoE, the USA patent office is breaking the law as to the issuance of
proper and rightful patents applied for by cold fusioners. Someone of
USA DoE, USA patent office or Canon has unrightfully taken 1/2 of the
claims made in my patent{1}. Researchers are now going to Europe to
gain patents. The whole thing is getting silly and ironic, because the
USA has biotechnology liberties and the Europeans suppress
biotechnology, hence a biotechnology research transfer, but ironically,
the USA is a cold fusion suppressor and persecutor and Europe is a cold
fusion liberator, yielding a cold fusion technology transfer.
	In 1994, the Japanese corporation Canon was issued a patent and I
quote New Scientist  in full {14}.
	 " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
office equipment.
	In 1989 Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
	Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
voltages.
	The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
concentrate the electric field.
         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes,
says Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold
increase in gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute
cycles of 5 and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold
increase in emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode
than the electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says
Canon, proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be
occasioned relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying
heat energy capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat
energy for a practical application," it claims. "
	The above is an accurate outline of the physics history of cold fusion
to date as of this patent application. The PULSING technique which
induces cold fusion has been verified by Canon. The part of my
application which explains cold fusion via RSNM, Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, has not been physically verified
and confirmed as of this application. Before leaving the history of
cold fusion, I want to outline my discovery of RSNM. 
	My discovery of rsnm occurred in late 1990 as a consequence of my
discovery of the ATOM TOTALITY theory, that the observable universe is
just the 5f6 of 231PU, the last electron or the 94th electron of one
atom of isotope 231PU. The discovery of rsnm is supported by
quintessential genius Dirac in his great book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 
{4}, which is required reading for all nuclear energy patent examiners,
DoE, and physics majors:-) RSNM is how the universe grows, stars,
galaxies, planets, etc., and not by the awkward and moron idea of
intergalactic and interstellar dust. 
	I needed to find-out what induces rsnm, and so in early 1991, I
discovered what induces rsnm from reading about muon catalyzed fusion.
It is induced by a changing electric current i or changing electric
potential V, i.e. PULSING.  And subsequently submitted my 1991-1993
patent application. Little did I know that the USA patent office which
is controlled in part by the USA Department of Energy (DoE) has
suppressed "cold fusion patents" and is persecuting me for what I
represent-- Atom Totality. 
" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,
sci.physics.electromag From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Message-ID: <Cu96HI.J46@prometheus.UUCP>
References: <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> Has anyone sued the USA patent office and won?
 Yes. For example, in the area of fusion (nuclear) energy, the DoE has
the right and obligation to handle all patent applications, as far as
the technical advise or withholding as a national security measure
(secrecy). However, the Patent Office handles the administrative
matters: --  mailings, filings etc.; so, it appears that their examiner
is actually doing all of the examination work, although he is slaving
for DoE remarks.  For example, Harvey Berhrends did a large number of
fusion related applications for the US Patent Off.   
Now it came to pass, that the DoE would not care to have some fellow
with an issued fusion patent then go charging off to Congress and say 
" Hey you guys!  Eureka I have solved the fusion problem and have a
patent to prove it, so Stop funding the tokamak and fund ME INSTEAD.. 
(Of course whe would they (after all it could mess up a nice porker
project in their voting area, and if they did, what difference would it
make, after all the DoE can be mighty slow about doling out forced
funds.  :-)      So the Department of Energy (should be Dept. of
"Energia" in honor of the inventors of the tokamak) decided to find all
other than tokamak related fusion patents were invalid based on a bogus
argument.  The argument went as follows:  
A fusion reactor has never been made or operated commercially or any
other way, and therefore, we wouldn't know what a commercial fusion
reactor looked liked and consequently, one could never be invented, at
least until one was operated commercially.   
Well who has the money for that ... we certainly don't (yet) and even
the DoE apparently DoEsn't, judging by the billions that have been
shoveled down the tokamak hole and the increasing doubt about their
next fling with that mass redistributor.  
NOTE: This did not stop the issuance of "PLASMA technology" patents.   
Anyway, a German citizen working for GE filed a fusion patent and like
all the rest of us, it was rejected by DoE using this same bogus
argument.  Even though the person returned to Germany, he sued and his
patent rejection case was overturned probably in the very late '80s by
the US Court of Patent Appeals, and all the rest of us then began to
also have our patents issued forthwith, 1990-1992.     
                 Thanks for the long delay DoE.  
                   We are still seeking your goal .. 
                           First if necessary.  " {18}
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:11:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
     "That's right Jed. Tell me about the waveform on each phase on the input
     to Grigg's machine.  You just rip us to shreds with information on
     detailed three phase VI integrations without assuming power factors or
     motor efficiencies.  You just go right ahead."
 
You are foaming at the mouth. Griggs had his power meters recalibrated at the
factory by General Electric. He installed a dynamometer and showed that the
power meter readings correlate with it exactly according to the electric motor
manufacturer's spec. That satisfied most readers here, but you said it was
meaningless. Nothing will satisfy you, you will always demand more and more
and more proof at impossibly high standards. You demand 10 digits past the
decimal point, where an integer value proves the point beyond question. We
could have the entire assembled staffs of EPRI, the IEEE, and the (former)
National Bureau of Standards certify that the power meters is working
according to spec -- to within a half-percent -- and you still would still
insist that it is 50% off. You will never give a reason. No meter in that
class could possible function with such a gigantic error. You could never in
million years substantiate any of your claims that a 50% error is possible,
but you will go repeating them anyway. When I get the detailed data (probably
at ICCF5), I'll describe a Griggs device that inputs 4,000 watts and outputs
12,000 watts, and you will make up some new cockamamie reason to doubt that as
well.
 
Your tactic is obvious: you will forever move the goalpost farther out of
reach. Long ago we provided "extraordinary proof" of an extraordinary claim,
but you can just keep raising the standards, far beyond any rational,
scientifically justified level. We scored a touchdown, so you moved the
goalposts down the field. We scored another touchdown, so you moved the
goalposts out of the stadium into the parking lot. We scored again, and now
you want to move the goalposts into the next county.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  Van /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: vanjac@netcom.com (Van)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:07:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <hatunenD1JGyx.5u1@netcom.com>,
DaveHatunen <hatunen@netcom.com> wrote:
>>But, yes, I DO
>>believe in the 'unseen hand' of Adam Smith and the tendency of greed
>>and avarice to drive folks in a common direction.  
>
>Some people call that "the market". How does Cygnus feel about it?

I feel we need laws to prevent abuses. There is a limit to how
"free" markets should be.

>>And, yes, I DO 
>>believe in the tendency of the military to be paranoid about technological
>>advances that might obsolete their current batch of toys...  And, yes,
>>the law DOES let them act on that paranoia by confiscation and clasification.
>
>There are times when I wouldn't have it any other way.

IMO the military in the US is far too big and powerful,
I see no danger of the US becoming overrun by some other
country. Its time to put a stop the the abuses of the military
and other things done in the name of "national security".

Or maybe we should just set up a pan-USA for the world,
with us as the police, collecting taxes to pay for our
role as the cops of the world.

Somehow I think other nations want to keep their soveriegnty,
and even if we managed it, there would be endless resistance.

OTOH, thats not too different from how things are now.
-- 

Van - Internet address -  vanjac@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvanjac cudlnVan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Dieter Britz /  Tom?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom?
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:49:03 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Sorry to use this group for a personal communication, but:
Tom Droege, I'd like to email you but have only an undoubtedly out-of-date
address, and lost your most recent posting. Could you please email me?
Thank you, and excuse me, you others.

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
Date: 5 Jan 1995 15:41:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3ds1kj$epv@stratus.skypoint.net>
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:

> 1.) There really is no excess iron.
> 2.) There is excess iron but the specifics of Bockris hypothesis is wrong.
> 3.) There is excess iron and the Bockris hypothesis is right.

 Now, Jones below has come up with the obvious reason that 2.) is
correct. Since, in all of the purported CF reports of excess energy,
the spontaneous materialization of neutrons, the radioactive process
Dirac talked about in his book Directions in Physics, is a process
which WORKS obeying the cosmic abundance of the elements.
 Of course this is the Violation of the Conservation of Energy/mass as
what P.A.M. Dirac so stated. 
 But to verify this is what is going on in all purported CF
experiments, such labs as Jones's milk bottles for erlenmeyer flasks
and rulers for calibration instruments combined with that muddled Jones
logic perched above the Utah desert, that kind of lab will not do.
 For this is one of the most important physics experiments ever done.
It is simply to measure hadron count before a CF (carbon arc)
experiment and hadron count after a CF (carbon arc) experiment.
  But then again, Jones may surprize me with shucking that fuzzy logic,
rolling up his sleeves, getting down to real science with the necessary
equipment of measuring hadron count. But I doubt it. Jones's repoiture
is 90% sitting in front of a computer posting to the Internet.
  Here, for accurate hadron count, we need a unbiased National
Laboratory. Keep in mind, this is perhaps the most important physics
experiment to date, because it will dispense all conservation laws out
of physics. Quite a feat that will be. It will remove the blinders from
the eyes of the physics community.

In article <1995Jan3.162348.1971@acoust.byu.edu>
jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes:

> To review:  John Bockris and R. Sundaresan "suggested as the origin of the 
> iron" in carbon-arc-in-water experiments, the following four-body nuclear
> reaction:
> 
>   12C +12C +18O +18O --> 56Fe + 4He.
> 
> A recent paper in Fusion Technology cites this paper and carries on further
> experiments of this type.  [M. Singh et al., Fusion Tech. Nov. 1994. p. 266.]
> These researchers at BARC (cleverly) tested the ratio of 57Fe/56Fe in the
> "iron recovered from the graphite residue" along with analysis of natural
> iron.  If Bockris is right, one would expect more 56Fe one supposes -- in
> any case, a nuclear reaction would be unlikely to produce the *same*
> 57Fe/56Fe ratio as found on earth.  But contamination would yield the same
> ratio in the carbon detritus, of course.  The result:
> 
> Natural iron, 57Fe/56Fe   0.0230 +- 0.0002
> Carbon arc      "         0.0231 +- 0.0007
>                           0.0230 +- 0.0002 (another expermental run)
>                           0.0232 +- 0.0002 (yet another run).
> 
> The 54Fe/56Fe ratio was also found, in the carbon residue, to correspond to
> the ratio found in nature:
>               54Fe/56Fe   0.0638 +- 0.005 (natural iron), 
>                           0.0635 +- 0.0010 (in carbon residue)
> 
> Also,
> "It appears that in the first few experiments when iron was found to be high,
> other elements like silicon, chromium, and nickel were also high and 
> dropped to lower values in the subsequent experiments [as did iron]."
> 
> These results imply that the iron found in the carbon residue at the bottom
> of the cell comes from contamination, not from a wild 4-body nuclear reaction!
> 
> --Steven Jones 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:22:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3egsei$n9q@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: >|> : An example is far more effective than just stating the case.
>: >|> How can an illogical inference be considered "effective?"
>:      I'm amused at the continuing removal of context in this discussion, but
>:      no matter, that's never bothered anyone before.
>:      First, it's only an 'illogical inference' in Mr. Logogan's 
>:      illogical interpretation.
>
>Illogical form is not rescued by context. 

     It is when the 'form' assumed is incorrect.  That would have
     been clear in context.  However, devoid of context, it is pretty 
     easy to make the mistake you've made in this case.

> In fact, it is often helpful
>to replace all premises with neutral variable names so as to short-circuit
>our natural biases.

     Again, it's only illogical in your interpretation as a syllogism, 
     not in the context of my remarks.

>I believe you made the following form of argument:
>
>X says U 
>Y says V
>Assume V is wrong
>   Therefore U is wrong.    <===  Bogus conclusion
>
>There are at least two flaws in the above inference.
>

     No.  I made an observation of the form:

          X and Y make the similar and completely silly statements U;
          isn't the juxtaposition funny?
   
     Feel free to make any argument you like.  Do not, however,
     feel free to make mine for me.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The Call (was Re: Kunich versus 
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alien Visitation vs. P&F Cold Fusion:  You Make The Call (was Re: Kunich versus 
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 11:26 -0500 (EST)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
->      Same with UFO sightings, crop circles too.
->
->      It's truly amazing that the sightings of aliens from other worlds
->      have basically converged to a single drawing in the last decade
->      or so.  Must be because they exist.
 
You are in the wrong newsgroup for this discussion.  I would suggest moving
your reasoning, whatever it is, over to alt.alien.visitors, alt.paranormal.ufo,
alt.paranormal, alt.ufo.reports or even alt.psychology and
alt.psychology.research.  I am sure those will rejoice in any brillient
insights you can provide, or alternatively set you straight on any stupid ideas
on the subjects.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xyy7wvY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>     "That's right Jed. Tell me about the waveform on each phase on the input
>     to Grigg's machine.  You just rip us to shreds with information on
>     detailed three phase VI integrations without assuming power factors or
>     motor efficiencies.  You just go right ahead."
> 
>You are foaming at the mouth. Griggs had his power meters recalibrated at the
>factory by General Electric. 

    You'd think if someone had such earth-shattering results, he'd
    bother with the proper instruments to measure the input power.

>He installed a dynamometer and showed that the
>power meter readings correlate with it exactly according to the electric motor
>manufacturer's spec. That satisfied most readers here,
     
     I doubt that's true, but anyone who is 'satisfied' is fooling themselves.
     
     First, I doubt you can calibrate a dynamometer.  Second, 'Correlate with
     it exactly according to the electric motor manufacturer's spec.' involves
     several assumptions, the nature of which I suspect you do not understand,
     even if you cared.  

> Nothing will satisfy you, you will always demand more and more
>and more proof at impossibly high standards. You demand 10 digits past the
>decimal point, where an integer value proves the point beyond question.

      No, I don't think you even know what an integer is.

> We
>could have the entire assembled staffs of EPRI, the IEEE, and the (former)
>National Bureau of Standards certify that the power meters is working
>according to spec -- to within a half-percent -- and you still would still
>insist that it is 50% off. You will never give a reason. No meter in that
>class could possible function with such a gigantic error.

     It would be much simpler to use a scope than to pay all those 
     guys to calibrate instrumentation that may be inappropriate for
     your application.

> You could never in
>million years substantiate any of your claims that a 50% error is possible,
>but you will go repeating them anyway. When I get the detailed data (probably
>at ICCF5), I'll describe a Griggs device that inputs 4,000 watts and outputs
>12,000 watts, and you will make up some new cockamamie reason to doubt that as
>well.

     Then don't bother with the scope, jack up the temperature and 
     take away the input power.  I'll not hold my breath.

>Your tactic is obvious: you will forever move the goalpost farther out of
>reach. Long ago we provided "extraordinary proof" of an extraordinary claim,
>but you can just keep raising the standards, far beyond any rational,
>scientifically justified level.

     Yes, extraordinary proof in the form of pyrometer measurements and
     the laying on of calibrated hands on industrial machinery.

> We scored a touchdown, so you moved the
>goalposts down the field. We scored another touchdown, so you moved the
>goalposts out of the stadium into the parking lot. We scored again, and now
>you want to move the goalposts into the next county.

     Au contraire, Jed.  You've not yet found the field.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.electromag,sc
.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:18:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

This is a continuation, part 2 of 3.


        The proper history of superconductivity cites names which were
never
considered as pioneers into superconductivity theory, namely Prince
Debroglie. The correct theory of superconductivity follows the names
Onnes, Meissner, Debroglie,  Bohm-Aharonov, Mller & Bednorz, and
Archimedes Plutonium, and all the rest were lesser men in
superconductivity.
        In 1911, Kamerlingh Onnes discovered that mercury at 4.2K  has
no
resistance to the flow of an electrical current.  " As you know, very
many metals become superconducting below a certain temperature (First
discovered by Onnes in 1911; H.K.Onnes, Comm. Phys. Lab., Univ. Leyden,
Nos. 119, 120, 122 (1911). ) -- the temperature is different for
different metals. When you reduce the temperature sufficiently the
metals conduct electricity without any resistance. This phenomenon has
been observed for a very large number of metals but not for all, and
the theory of this phenomenon has caused a great deal of difficulty."
{3a}
   Before 1986, the highest valued Tc  was among the niobium based
alloys, Nb3Sn  which is Tc at 18.1K, and Nb3Ge which is Tc  at 22.3K.  
The pure element with the highest Tc is niobium with Tc = 9.26K. {4a}
The elements which are considered good conductors at room temperature,
such as silver, gold, or copper, do not exhibit superconductivity, or
else it is so low of a K temperature, that it is beyond our present
measurements.  
   The Meissner Effect in 1933 -- superconducting materials exhibit a
property in which they exclude from their volume all magnetic fields. 
A superconductor excludes magnetic field lines. This effect was
discovered by Meissner and Ochsenfeld when measuring the magnetic field
surrounding two adjacent long cylindrical single crystals of tin and
they observed that at 3.72K the Earth's magnetic field was expelled
from their interior.  This indicated that at the onset of
superconductivity, superconductors are perhaps 100% diamagnetic. This
discovery showed that  the transition to superconductivity is
reversible, and that the laws of thermodynamics apply to it. {4b}
Thermodynamics is statistics. Photon scattering and neutrino scattering
are statistics, which is an important point in the correct theory of
superconduction.
        It is 1937 and I have talked about 1911 and 1933 with two great
experiments, and it is here in 1937 that I consider the correct theory
of superconductivity has its first roots. In 1937 starts what I
consider the true history of the correct theory of superconductivity.
And, although Prince Debroglie is not after superconductivity in his
great book-- MATTER AND LIGHT; the new physics   1937 by Louis De
Broglie Membre de l'Institut, Nobel Prize Award 1927, Professeur  la
Facult des Sciences de Paris, because he does not relate neutrinos to
superconductivity. However, Debroglie surely does intuit and is firmly
convinced that the photon is a composite particle of at least two
neutrinos. Prince Louis Debroglie was a giant among intuitive
theoretical physicists, and in this regard, it is my opinion that he
was comparable to Faraday in physics intuition.
   According to the index in this book MATTER AND LIGHT , the pages 65,
76, 101, and 141  are pages where Debroglie gives some discussion of
neutrinos. Below I quote those discussions in full and in some cases I
spill over unto other pages in order to reveal the continuity of
thought. I quote Debroglie because to the history of superconductivity,
this is where the correct theory springs forth first.  And, not to jump
too far ahead of myself, but to prepare the reader with a mental
picture, I will summarize here the main idea of the correct theory of
superconductivity. Superconductivity, I posit, is neutrinolization,
where photon signalers (messengers) forcing other electrons to move,
have been decomposed photons into neutrinos, and those neutrinos,
instead of photons, are now forcing other electrons to move. This
decomposition of photons into neutrinos I call neutrinolization.
        Below I quote Prince Debroglie at length, not in little
snippets,
because it is important to form a broad picture of why he thought the
photon is a composite particle. Debroglie does not discuss
superconductivity in his book, but, I think Debroglie would be
surprised and happy that his genius set the groundwork, the first steps
onto the correct theory of superconductivity.  
        " What results from all this, in conclusion, is that today the
distinction between a corpuscle electrically neutral and having an
extremely small mass, and a photon, has become very slight. At the
moment it would appear that we have to consider three kinds of neutral
corpuscles: the neutron, whose mass is approximately equal to unity;
FermiUs neutrino, whose total mass would be very much less than the
electronic mass; and the photon, where the connection between the two
charges of contrary sign would be such that the mass would be less
still.
   At present it is believed that a photon may be transformed into two
or more corpuscles; it is thought, for example, that the energy of a
ray might be capable of giving birth to a couple of electrons of
contrary sign, by first providing the amount of energy 2mcc necessary
in order that the masses shall come into existence, and next the
kinetic energy which the electrons should possess. The inverse
phenomenon again, the dematerialization of a corpuscle, is also
believed to be possible and , by extension, the creation of new 
quantities of Matter at the expense of the kinetic energy of a very
rapid corpuscle has also been suggested. 
   The possibility that two corpuscles which in a certain way are
symmetrical-- like the positive and the negative electron-- can be
annihilated, may lead to fresh views about the structure of the photon.
A photon consisting of a couple of corpuscles, related to each other in
the same way in which the positive electron is related to the negative
electron, would then be capable of being destroyed in the presence of
Matter by yielding up to it all its energy content. Such an
annihilation of the photon, in fact, would constitute the
photo-electric effect, and would explain  its specific character. At
the same time we should understand why a photon, composed of two
corpuscles of spin 1/2, should obey Bose-Einstein statistics. " {5a}
        " But whether or not we adopt the hypothesis of the
neutron-proton, we
are in any case led to regard the two electrons as simple. Recent
research seems to indicate the existence of two other types of
corpuscle, thus making six in all:--the neutrino, which appears to have
a vanishingly small mass, or perhaps no mass whatever (cf. p. 141), and
also the heavy electron, sometimes called the barytron or mesotron,
with probably a mass of from 150-300 times the mass of the electron,
which is here taken as the unit, and with an electric charge nearly
equal to that of the electron. The properties of these new types of
corpuscle, however, are not yet at all well known. 
   This suffices to restore a certain degree of symmetry between the
two kinds of electricity; for the two electrons, whose masses are
doubtless identical, while their charges are equal and of contrary
sign, appear to be quite comparable with one another. A complete theory
of the two electrons-- the suggestions advanced by Dirac give us at any
rate a preliminary idea of it-- will probably succeed some day in
revealing the real character of the symmetry between them, a symmetry
which, to revert to a comparison made at the beginning of this Chapter,
is doubtless analogous to that between the right and the left hand. One
fundamental difference, however, does exist between them. For the
negative electron is constantly manifesting itself in our experiments,
whereas the positive electron only makes an exceptional appearance, and
always has a tendency to disappear when in contact with Matter. I shall
revert to this point. " {5b}
        " With the introduction of DiracUs Electron Theory, however,
the
position has changed. For this is a relativistic Theory, and as such
applicable to the photon. Further, it introduces an anisotropic wave,
having a certain analogy with the polarization of Light. Finally, it
connects electromagnetic magnitudes, derived from its intrinsic
magnetic moment, with the corpuscle, and these magnitudes have a
certain analogy with the fields of MaxwellUs electromagnetic wave. It
might thus have been hoped that an application of DiracUs equations to
the photon would give us a satisfactory dualist theory which could be
applied to Light. Actually, however, such was not the case, and without
entering here into details I will merely say that a photon constructed
on such lines would possess only half the symmetry necessary for an
adequate theory of Light. Having made this discovery, the present
author recently formulated a theory of Light in which the photon is
regarded, not as a single Dirac corpuscle, but as a pair of Dirac
corpuscles analogous to the pair formed by a positive and a negative
electron. This conception leads to very satisfactory results, at any
rate as far as the propagation of Light in empty space is concerned. It
accounts also for the polarization of Light, and enables us to
formulate exactly the real and deep relation subsisting between spin
and polarization. We are also enabled to attach to the photon an
electromagnetic field, completely identical with that by means of which
Maxwell represent Light.
   I do not, however, wish at this point to dwell on this new Theory of
Light. More particularly, I will refrain from going into the question
whether the two corpuscles, of which it assumes the photon to consist,
ought not to be identified with the neutrinos, the existence of which
is assumed by theoretical physicists in order to account for the
apparent non-conservation of energy when continuous b-spectra are
emitted by radioactive substances. I shall merely draw attention to the
majestic curve which physical theory would have described, were this
new theory to receive definite confirmation. For in that event,
physicists would have begun from the simple idea of the electron
regarded as a charged material point; they would then have been
compelled, in order to explain quantum phenomena, to extend to the
electron the dual nature discovered in Light, thus creating Wave
Mechanics. In the next place, to include within Wave Mechanics the
properties of spin which are necessary to explain a whole group of
phenomena, they would have been compelled to complicate the new
Mechanics by giving it the form due to Dirac. And finally, by a strange
reversion to its first beginnings, the perfected Wave Mechanics would
have returned to a point where it would serve in its turn in the
formation of the dualist Theory of Light by uniting the photon, the
light-wave, polarization and MaxwellUs electromagnetic field in one
harmonious whole. " {5c}
        " The idea thus suggests itself that the photon might be
considered as
consisting of two Dirac corpuscles. But we know that Dirac's Theory,
completed by the idea of lacunae already dealt with, makes a positive
anti-electron correspond to the negative electron. More generally, we
can make an anti-corpuscle correspond to every corpuscle obeying the
Dirac equations, the former being defined as a hole or a lacuna within
a domain of negative energy. On such a view it becomes tempting to
imagine the photon to consist of a corpuscle having a negligible mass
and charge and obeying the Dirac equations, associated with an
anti-corpuscle of the same kind. It is a hypothesis to which we have
been recently led, and it is an attractive one. For it is reasonable to
suppose that a photon constituted in this way should be capable of
annihilation in the presence of Matter, transferring to it at the some
time the whole of its energy-- the annihilation corresponding to a
quantum transition by which the corpuscle contained in the photon fills
up the accompanying lacuna. Actually such a transition, accompanied by
annihilation, would constitute the photo-electric effect, whose
fundamental importance from the theoretical point of view has already
been stressed, while the electromagnetic field associated with the
photon would then have to be defined as a function of this transition.
Actually it is possible to show that an electromagnetic field,
completely analogous to that which in Maxwell's system defines the
luminous wave, can be associated with this transition leading to
annihilation. In itself this is an encouraging fact; and further, since
the photon is now assumed to consist of a corpuscle and an
anti-corpuscle both of which are defined by the Dirac equations, the
photon ought to follow Bose-Einstein statistics, which experiments show
that it actually does follow.
   To construct a photon after the schema outlined above we must assume
the existence of a class of corpuscles obeying the Dirac equations and
having either no electric charge and mass, or at any rate a charge and
mass negligible as compared with those of the electron, minute as the
latter are. Now there are in fact certain indications supporting the
existence of this new physical entity. When b-rays are emitted by the
nucleus of a radioactive substance, the Principle of the Conservation
of Energy is not, apparently, satisfied. We may therefore well
sacrifice this important Principle of Conservation so far as nuclear
phenomena are concerned; and this is the solution supported by Bohr's
great authority. Alternatively, we may assume that the phenomenon of
the emission of b-rays by radioactive nuclei is accompanied by the
emission of a new kind of particle, which it would be hard to detect
experimentally because of the slightness of its action on Matter. The
energy carried by these particles would thus escape experimental
detection, at any rate with such means as we possess today, and on this
hypothesis we could retain the Conservation of Energy. This idea was
advanced some time ago by Pauli and Fermi, who called the new-- and
hypothetical-- type of corpuscle the neutrino. Certain recent research
has rendered the existence of the neutrino more probable, although
there is not yet any apparent means of establishing it by direct
observation. Francis Perrin and Fermi have shown that if the neutrino
does exist, its mass must be zero, or at least negligible compared with
that of the electron. At the same time it would be impossible to
identify the neutrino with the photon, since it has so far escaped
experimental detection, so that its action on Matter must be extremely
slight. In other words, it can have no electromagnetic field. This
naturally suggests an identification of the neutrino with that
corpuscle having no mass which forms part of the photon, and the
neutrino would thus be a kind of semi-photon. In a state of isolation,
i.e. when not accompanied by an anti-neutrino, it would have no
electromagnetic field, since it could not be annihilated by the
photo-electric effect; but when united with an anti-neutrino it would
form a photon and would have an electromagnetic field of the Maxwellian
type. " {5d}
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:06:08 GMT
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

	I can not help it if I see these very important engineering ideas in
his mind's eye and file the patents long before researchers can even
run to their labs to verify that I am correct.  I am not unlike Tesla
in these actions, by seeing very complicated physics and electrical
engineering all within my mind. This is how I alone realized that
superconductivity is photon flow turned into neutrino flow. I do not
need fancy-smanzy and expensive research laboratories; all I need is
the most reliable and up-to-date physics data and my math logic and
intuition will get me to the core of the problem. I can do physics in
my mind without a research laboratory because I am a supergenius, and
other researchers and regular geniuses need to have a heavy equipment
research laboratory :-) 	Supergenius is a brand new term to the science
community applicable only to Archimedes and myself.  Of course I was
Archimedes in one of my previous lives. I have discovered by math
logic; the process of elimination, that the correct theory of
superconductivity is the decomposition of photon flow into neutrino
flow. This is my next patent application: CORRECT THEORY OF
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS.
	Only neutrinos can move through matter to give almost zero electrical
resistance which superconductors display. I will submit a patent
application for the correct theory of superconductivity before the end
of this year 1994. Anyway, it is not coincidental that the dictionary
will now have the new word "supergenius" after the word
"superconductivity" , after "superfluidity", and before the word
"superluminal":-) Which leads me into the next topic of discussion--
persecuting a supergenius. This is what the USA DoE and patent
authorities in 1993 committed on me. Who do I sue, that is the
question? Do I sue the USA DoE, USA patent office, or Canon, or in
combinations thereof?
    "As a rule mathematicians have been bad customers to persecute;
they have usually been capable of returning what they received with
compound interest. " {12}
And one can even anticipate what form of future persecution comes out
of the USA patent office-- rejection for trivial reasons, forget to dot
an i or cross a t on page so and so. When a bureaucracy wants to deny a
patent, they can quickly find some silly excuse to reject it, or make
the applicant run through a tiresome gauntlet. Before leaving the topic
of patent persecution, I want to apprise the reader of the fact that I
am the reincarnation of Archimedes. In my previous half-life, I was
Archimedes and very familiar with inventions. Silently, we have moved
up through the generations (the movie Highlander) and within 2
millenniums of moving up through the normal math distribution-curve
(bell shaped curve) of people to my present half-life as supergenius
Archimedes Plutonium. Few persons, except physicists and math people
have known we were among you, . . until now:-)
	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
(rsnm) (pronounced resin or raisin by DoE fruitcakes:-)
	(1) Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces rsnm. But whereas the physics community
thinks the goings on in muon catalyzed experiments is that muatoms of
hydrogen isotopes bring about, . . after several quantum steps the
fusing together to make an atom of helium, their theoretical thinking
is wrong.  What is really going on are several quantum steps of rsnm.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, rsnm. Instead of requiring a
changing electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or
running a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It
is the muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the
changing  i. The muon is the changing i or changing V which is the
pulser or pulsing. Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As
important as in the laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's
law of induction a changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's
law of induction as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or
current are required. In rsnm, we are in a higher level of composition
but the symmetry follows. There is the symmetry in Maxwell's Equations
that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice
versa. The composition of photons is electric fields and magnetic
fields. In cold fusion, this symmetry is needed, but it is in a higher
level of composition. That composition, specifically is-- Maxwell's
Equations relate photons which are composed of 2 neutrinos. In the
higher level of composition of quantum interactions, gravitons for
example are composed of 4 neutrinos or 2 photons. Muons, electrons,
protons, and neutrons are composed of different arrangements of
neutrinos. In cold fusion, a higher level of composition from photon
composition in MaxwellUs Equations, it is neutrinos induction by a
changing electric current/ and / or changing electric potential which
induces rsnm.
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  A muon is an electron with added neutrinos. When a muon
forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its own variable VandeGraaff
machine already within the muatom. Or a muon is a variable electric
current within the muatom. Hence when there are muons in any particular
sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those muons will induce
spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere resulting
in a net energy to the whole system. Note that it is not necessary to
have hydrogen, or deuterium, or tritium for muon catalyzed fusion to
work. Muons in pure iron will result in rsnm. Muons in pure mercury
will result in rsnm. In fact, all stars and all planets have iron cores
which manufacture new hydrogen after rsnm with the neutron decaying
into hydrogen, and new helium (after spontaneous alpha particle
materialization (rs-alpha-m) plus a step of rsnm.)
(2)  REIFENSCHWEILER RADIATION. " Thirty years ago [early 1960's], Otto
Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect
Geiger-Mller tubes from damage when they are first ionised.  He found
the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of
titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the
mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process
known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon:
radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the
temperature increased from 115 degrees C to 160 degrees C, the emission
of beta particles fell by 28 per cent. 
  Hendrik Casimir, the director of research at Philips at the time,
remembers the excitement when Reifenschweiler broke the news. "I said
it could be extremely important--but I didn't believe it," says
Casimir.
   The two scientists put the discovery to one side as they
concentrated on the Geiger-Mller tubes. They never found the time to
come back to it. But following the recent rows over cold fusion, they
have finally decided to publsh the results in the 3 January issue of
Physics Letters A . " {16b}
	Reifenschweiler radiation is as yet unexplained by the
physics-community-at-large. Otto R. proposes (triton) nuclear pairing
hypothesis {16b}.  Vigier proposes ""tight" Bohr orbits in dense media
are derived and where occurence of cold DD-fusion {16a}, . .  And,
Secco discovered Reifenschweiler radiation in heavier nuclei than
tritium. In particular, Secco " who investigated gas-solid exchange
between the Zn-gas labelled by the 65Zn-nuclide with polycrystalline
ZnO at elevated temperatures. {16a}  
	When the theory of rsnm is observed as the true mechanism and accepted
then Reifenschweiler radiation is easily explained. When temperatures
are increased in certain substances then rsnm occurs resulting in a
reduction in the rate of radioactivity because of the added new
neutrons of rsnm makes the radioactive isotope a stable isotope.
	(3)  SONOLUMINESCENCE. " Sonoluminescence1-13 is a non-equilibrium
phenomenon in which the energy in a sound wave becomes highly
concentrated so as to generate flashes of light in a liquid. We show
here that these flashes, which comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast
to be resolved by the fastest photomultiplier tubes available.
Furthermore, when sonoluminescence is driven by a resonant sound field,
the bursts can occur in a continuously repeating , regular fashion.
These precise 'clock-like' emissions can continue for hours at drive
frequencies ranging from audible to ultrasonic. These bursts represent
an amplification of energy by eleven orders of magnitude. " {17g} That
was a brief description of sonoluminescence. Note also in the various
references listed {17} that the light emission is blue. "Blue" is the
color that indicates neutrons are present, which is a well known fact
at nuclear reactor sites. Sonoluminescence cavities are blue colored.
Here I wax poetically with my restatement of a paragraph in the film
series Ascent of Man . " At twilight in the sixth lobe of 5f6, so say
science commentators to physics, 231PU made for humanity a number of
tools that gives also the gift of creation. If the old science
commentators were alive today, they would write ' PU, the Maker made
the neutron and is made of neutrons'. Here it is, at Oak Ridge in
Tennessee, the blue glow that is the trace of neutrons: the visible
presence of our Maker. "
	Sonoluminescence is explained as rsnm where the sound energy is a
mechanical conversion of electrical energy of variable V (or i) in the
collapsing bubble. Sonoluminescence is cold fusion and it is the
explanation of pulsar stars and blue giant stars, not that blue giants
are so very hot but that they are giant cold fusion objects.
	(4)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
astronomical objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no known objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, energetic electrons, and gamma rays. {19}
	Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron,
neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays.  
	A 10^14 MEV cosmic particle was detected. 
" From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
detected Date: 14 Dec 1993 14:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Message-ID: <14DEC199314500231@csa5.lbl.gov>
In the spirit of continuing to share the little interesting tidbits of
physics which I stumble across in the Physics Library here at LBL, I 
submit the following brief note for your amusement: The folks from the
Fly's Eye II project, (an extensive array of phototubes looking up into
the sky for light from cosmic-ray-induced air showers in the Earth's
atmosphere) have reported there recent data in PRL a few weeks ago,
including a single event at roughly 3x10^20 eV! This is the highest
energy particle ever detected in the history of particle physics. For
comparison, the beam at the highest-energy machine currently running
(the Tevatron) is 900 GeV, or 9x10^11 eV. After the better part of a
century of studying cosmic rays, they still provide a unique window
into particle physics and cosmology. At the same time, we still know
almost nothing about them. Where in the world DoEs a 3x10^20 eV cosmic
ray come from? We don't know. It isn't likely to be a charged particle
from within our galaxy - the galactic magnetic field is too weak to
contain such a particle. In other words, it would escape from the Milky
Way before it got accelerated to that high an energy. It's probably
extragalactic.
Maybe it's an unfortunate leftover from the Early Universe which
finally ended its life by accidentally colliding with a nitrogen
nucleus in the Earth's upper atmosphere? That can't be, either. A
charged particle with that energy would collide with a photon in the
CMBR in an average of 10^8 years. (A photon of that energy would also
suffer a similar fate.)
That means that this particle was probably less than 10^8 years old
when it was blasted apart in our atmosphere, which means that it
originated from somewhere within our local supercluster of galaxies
(speed-of-light travel time, and all that.) within the last 100 million
years or so.
So what made it? We don't know. The Fly's Eye can determine the
direction from which the particle came. At this energy even a charged
particle travels on a roughly straight line due to its huge magnetic
rigidity. So it should point right back its source. So they looked, but
there's nothing there! There aren't any objects like active galaxies
and such in that part of the sky, of which we know. So its origin, like
that of most cosmic rays, continues to be a mystery. Perhaps it was not
accelerated by some violent event, but rather just came into being at
high energy through the decay of some massive Big Bang remnant, some
GUT-related object which decayed into light particles of incredible
energy. We don't know. If this speculation is correct, then studying
such events can tell us about the number and distribution of these
objects, whatever they might be. The most straightforward way to
investigate these phenomenon would be to build a 10^8 TeV collider. :-)
In the absence of such a machine, we will have to continue to take what
nature gives us. If you want to know more about the Fly's Eye, you can
check out the Nov. 22 PRL and the references therein, or find something
about it in Physics Today. I don't have that reference, but I know that
it has been discussed there in the not too distant past. " {18}
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Message-ID: <2eohfo$a56@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
   This is a most amazing verified fact that a particle exists which
has 10^14 MEV. Another verified fact is that these energetic bursts are
uniform throughout the cosmic sky with no known source.  There is the
fact that a neutron is 931 MEV and a proton is 928 MEV. And the fact
that the mass creation of a prion or virus requires 10^14 MEV. And the
fact that an energetic particle of 10^14 MEV can create roughly 10^8
particles of element 189. And the fact that 10^14 MEV can create what
atomic element? Can it create element of atomic number 10^11?? From
Aug1993 I posted both to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion my patent
on SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES. This is an extension of
Dirac's ideas as mentioned in his most excellent little book, one of
the best books on physics ever written--Directions in Physics. And it
is truly remarkable to me that the physics community has ignored
Dirac's positing of a "new radioactivities." See his gem of a book on
this. If the universe is an atom totality then the growth of the
universe is by spontaneous materialization. This is a direct violation
of the conservation laws. The big bang model is dumbfounded in trying
to explain a 10^14 particle and the uniformity along with no known
source for these particles, and the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. The steady-state model is dumbfounded in trying to
explain these facts, and again, the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. Only the atom totality theory gives the answers easily
and naturally, Not only does spontaneous materialization of elements 1
through 189 occur in our 94th electron observable 231 Pu totality. But
life comes into existence spontaneously. The first living creatures
were prions and viruses which evolved biologically to higher and more
complex lifeforms. By the way this outline of the first lifeforms as
prions and viruses is counter to the present biology communitys' view
that the cell was the first life form and prions and viruses came
afterwards. I contend that this is a reverse of what really happened.
Prions and viruses came first. ATOM {18}
	The uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because
spontaneous neutron materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as
the uniform process of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The
uniformity explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium
Atom Totality{5}.  That our observable universe is just the 94th
electron, the last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231,
(I denote isotopes as such 231*94) which acts as a quantum cavity, a
quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily stray too far by explaining
why the Cosmic Background Radiation is relentlessly uniform with a
blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the night sky is dark because it
is a quantum blackbody cavity. Blackbody entails dark night sky. Why
the speeds of galaxies are quantized as Tifft has discovered, because
the galaxies are inside a quantum blackbody cavity-- the last electron
of 231Pu. The meaning of quantized galaxy speeds is that galaxies are
ordered at exact distances. Just as the Solar System is quantized at
exact distances as per Titius-Bode Law of planetary distances. All of
which is explained by rsnm as a uniform creation of new matter.
	(5) 1978 scientists from A. F. Ioffe Physiotechnical Institute in
Leningrad announced discovery of unusual concentrations of rare isotope
helium 3 in certain metals. (Note that I use the star notation for
isotopes, where helium is 4*2.)  Thus, 3*2  is produced when 2*1 + 2*1
-> 3*2 + 1*0
B.A. Mamyrin, L.V. Khabarin, and V.S. Yudenich found large amounts of
3*2 in different pure metals and no 4*2. These findings of 3*2 were not
uniform but in patches of pure metal. They also found 3*1 in high
concentrations.
	(6) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I
assert, is by rsnm. The current science community thinks the Solar
System was created by interstellar dust cloud. I say it is rsnm. Earth
is growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. From Dirac's  DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, page 81
  "  Well, there we have effects which we might hope to be able to
measure, and so check up on whether this theory is a good theory or
not. We just have to make accurate observations with atomic time. I
should emphasize that it is important that these observations are made
with atomic time, because the above formulas apply only to quantities
in atomic units.
   We might, first of all, think of the Moon and make observations of
the Moon to check on this theory. Now, people have been making
observations of the motion of the Moon for the last 20 years with
atomic time. They have also recently been making accurate observations
of the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units. The astronauts
who landed on the Moon put down some laser reflectors, and people are
now sending laser light to these reflectors and observing the light
reflected by them. They then measure, using an atomic clock, the time
taken by the light to get to the Moon and back and, in that way, get
the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units.
    If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our
theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be
approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about
2cm/year.
With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
Earth at the same rate. We would have to measure, therefore, the
distance of the Moon to that accuracy. Now, people have recently been
measuring the distance of the Moon with very great accuracy. The most
recent information I obtained was that, nearly a year ago, they had the
", ..[ Continued.] {4}
	The last that I had read in regards to the Moon movement cm/year was
that it was moving away from Earth at a rate of 3 cm/year{18}. This
suggests both additive and multiplicative rsnm, simultaneously.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: The true physics behind Cold Fusion: My 1st Patent: RSNM,(part 
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:10:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

Below I continue that patent application of Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization (rsnm) devices. Note that in supporting
evidence (9) that I had anticipated Bockris's recent excess iron in
carbon arcing.



	Now consider the increasing mass of Earth. The physics and astronomy
community assigns the known fact of the growing accretion of Earth to
only one account, that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting
cosmic gas and dust. Corner a astronomy professor. Corner a physics
professor. In fact, corner the whole astrophysics community and they
eventually will come around to ascribing the origin of stars and our
solar system and to most everything else to DUST long after the
speculative Big Bang had occurred. 
 	I have something better to offer. I assert that Earth is growing more
massive daily by two accounts, one from the outer space planetary
sweep, but more importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in
the interior of Earth induced through the changing electric current i
and changing electric potential V inside Earth. When astronomers try to
reconcile the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from
cosmic sweep alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass
accretion by Earth is equal to the EarthUs accretion from outer space
plus EarthUs internal accretion by rsnm.
 	Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of rsnm in
the EarthUs center. The Earth of the past was a smaller planet which
explains Wegener's Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
	The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
	The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much of anything in physics and
astronomy. Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect. 
	The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are loci where large quantity of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
	The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury{20}. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: (1) huge iron core and (2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud (LP
reinterpretation of the Max Born interpretation of the wavefunction in
the Schroedinger Equation {26}) of the 94th electron of plutonium. Dots
of the Schroedinger wave equation is where electromagnetic potential
and current exists, and wherever it exists there exists magnetic field
and hence rsnm occurs. The larger the magnetic field, the more rsnm.
The Sun has variable (nT) from 200000  (nT) through 100000000 (nT), and
Jupiter has 420000 (nT) {20a}. So the Sun is growing faster than
Jupiter in newly created matter by rsnm of neutrons transmutating into
hydrogen.
	(7) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
	The case for the light chemical elements and isotopes and their
anomalous quantity found in stars, galaxies, and space {21}. The
overabundance of deuterium and the abundance of the light elements of
lithium, beryllium, and boron are found in too large of a proportion in
stars and galaxies and space to be accountable by hot fusion. This data
of overabundance of these isotopes/elements shows the Big Bang theory
as the fakery that it is. For stars are so hot that these light
elements would have been burned-off and the theoretical rate of
creation by hot fusion of new deuterium, new lithium, new beryllium,
and new boron are too low to what is actually observed. Here again is
another disagreement (solar neutrinos) of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. In summary, where the light elements
are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be there, and where
they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space, there should be
more of them there.
	The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once rsnm is seen as
the active working process. In intergalactic space there is little to
no changing electric potential V or changing current flow i, and so
there is little neutron materialization to form these light elements.
In intergalactic space only additive rsnm occurs, but in stars and
galaxies both additive and multiplicative rsnm occurs. And in stars, it
is not so much that they are hot and burn-off the light elements but
that stars continually create via rsnm these light elements because of
the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
	(8) The cosmic abundance elements and isotopes, and the uniform
distribution of the chemical elements in the observable universe in the
proportions that they are observed is strong evidence in support for
the process of rsnm. Again the physics community explains the
uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds dust as a result of
supernovas. But supernovas are rare events. It strains credulity and
imagination to think that the uniformity of the elements occurred due
to a Big Bang and subsequent supernovas as mixers or blenders for
uniformity.
	(9) The observation that when electric current i flowing through wires
or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and
eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the
high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of rsnm when i 
varies. And before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms
of zinc Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a highly pure
copper wire will be contaminated by rsnm products, and a highly pure
tungsten filament or heater will be contaminated via rsnm products
after running  a changing electric current i through.  Check chemical
analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric,
Philips, Siemens, et al.
	(10) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not
direct evidence for rsnm, it is direct evidence that the currently
accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect{22a}. Why is there a missing
2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing count of neutrinos
when rsnm of cold fusion is the active mechanism of stars. It will be
discovered, I predict, that the fusion temperature of the Sun was
exaggerated. When correct temperatures of the SunUs interior are
measured, then cold fusion will replace the fake theory of hot fusion. 
   Let us take math logic and assume that the physics of the sun is hot
fusion of protons hydrogen nucleuses via the carbon cycle to produce
helium {22b}. This implies the temperature of the sun's core is 1.5 x
10^7 K . But with this given temperature, theoretical predictions
result in a certain amount of neutrino emission. Yet from those
predictions, 2/3 of the neutrino emission is missing from experimental
observations on Earth. Cold fusion implies a different explanation. The
Sun's temperature at the core is far cooler. Only 33.33...% of the
fusion of the sun is hot fusion and the majority, the 66.66...% is cold
fusion. The suns heat is produced by two mechanisms. Neutrinos are not
produced by cold fusion. 
  	Cold fusion of rsnm produces no neutrinos, hence there never was a
missing count when the correct theory is accepted. 
The mistake of hot fusion theory that the physics community makes is
that the 4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong
nuclear and gravity are considered to the 100% exclusion of
radioactivities and electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count
accords with theory. Vice versa, if radioactivities and
electromagnetism are considered to the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear
and gravity, then the actual measured neutrino count accords with
theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino count from the Sun is indirect support
for rsnm since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and all
stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions
(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as
quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle stated one
way{26}: The wave and the particle nature of a quantum entity are both
necessary for a complete description. However, both natures cannot be
revealed simultaneously in any single experiment. The nature that is
revealed, whether particle or whether wave, is determined by the
experimental set-up.  The 1/3 actual observed count of neutrinos from
the Sun accords well with theory once the theory makes predictions from
the use of either SN and G, excluding R and EM, and vice versa. By the
Complementary Principle (CP), we can only observe R-EM in any single
experiment with no revealing of SN-G.
	Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion
from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially
that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the
strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive
and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and
gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic
forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when
all 4 forces are considered at once.
	I end evidences with the above 10. The worst difficulty in verifying
my claim of rsnm is in overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and
the dead weight inertia of the current physics community-at-large. A
physics community and also a mathematics community is composed mainly
of professors. Professors of a subject are not the best persons in
their field.  Because professors are just teachers who teach what
geniuses or the two supergeniuses have laid down. The best persons of a
subject field are the geniuses/supergeniuses of that field.  Professors
only teach what the geniuses of the subject field have established.
Geniuses of physics possess physics intuition, likewise for math and
math geniuses. Professors of physics have little to no physics
intuition and follow a herdlike mentality. Professors of physics are
good at regurgitating physics and doing what they were designed to do--
teach the subject. But lacking physics intuition they can not create
new physics nor see what is correct or wrong with the current physics.
Whenever something new in physics comes up, the first instinct of a
physics professor is to remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the
new physics. Their physics career starts and ends with regurgitation,
never any important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most
of the geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally to that
of doing their physics work. Many of the greatest physicists were never
even professors of physics such as Franklin, Faraday, and Tesla when
they did their creative work. Only after it was obvious to the Idioten
community of physics professors that these men were not like
themselves--regurgitators of the subject, but true physicists, did the
community put forth the pretenses that they were good old professors
all along, or try to make them into their mold. There are more clear
cut examples in mathematics than physics.  The best two examples are
the cases of Galois and Ramanujan. The important point I am getting to
is that the community of physics professors is against cold fusion not
because of the experimental results shown to date, but more so out of
sentiment, out of ignorance, and most important out of the politics for
more government funds to continue with hot fusion and laser inertial
confinement fusion porkbarrels.  A professor of physics will stick to
the old physics like a goofball sticks to glue. I make this statement
in order to prepare the reader long before I discuss violation of
conservation of energy-mass. When I discuss the violation of
conservation of energy-mass I feel myself in the same position as what
Aristarchus was in when he proposed the heliocentric system several
thousands of years ago. The majority of people are dumbfounded with new
ideas even though the evidence is plain as day and night and
undeniable.
	Virtual particles out of nowhere is a form of violation of
conservation of energy-mass. The physics community overlooks this
violation of conservation of energy-mass by saying that it happens so
fast with such small particles. Dirac would agree from his book{4} that
rsnm is a direct violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  But
conservation violation is nothing new, for example: (i) It was
experimentally shown that the conservation of parity was violated in
1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was experimentally shown that
charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were not conserved. See 1964 
Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus inferred by assuming if time
reversal multiply charge conjugation multiply parity (TCP) is a good
symmetry, that time reversal symmetry is violated. The conservation of
time reversal symmetry means that if time could run backwards, would it
be acceptable to the laws of physics?  
	My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe is growing by newly created matter via rsnm. The
present community of physics at large believes in the Big Bang model in
which there is no growth of new matter after the initial explosion. I
say that model is wrong.
	Thus it does not surprize me that the USA DoE and patent examiner
sticks with the community of physics professors and the goofball
conservation of energy-mass. A supergenius such as Archimedes and
myself have to show the bandwagons where and how far wrong they are. 
Dirac is with me, in his book{4}.  That is the reason I am a
supergenius because I go against that huge community of physics
professors, what Jonathan Swift called "the confederacy of dunces". 
For when supergenius comes to Earth, you can easily recognize it by one
sign-- "There will be such a large Confederacy of Dunces, all massed-up
against him--" 
	What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
	(1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of hadrons in a
mass sample. Measuring exact counts of hadrons before running a
changing electric current i or changing electromagnetic potential V
through the sample and checking the count afterwards is extremely
difficult and never exact.
	(2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% pure isotope. And in the case of hydrogen
gas a container of pure hydrogen. It seems as if there is always
contamination. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond{23}.
In theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is
another formulation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
	(3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Reactors are
hydrogen isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and
dangerous to work with when running either a changing electric current
i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: RE:  Dr. Bockris 4-body reaction/further experiments
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 14:13 -0500 (EST)

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 
-> It is simply to measure hadron count before a CF (carbon arc)
-> experiment and hadron count after a CF (carbon arc) experiment.
 
Simple?  Just how do you propose to do a hadron count?  I know of no simple way
to get a reasonable count, and no way to get a total count accurate to a few
haydrons.  An object with say 10^18 atoms would require about 16 to 20 digits
of accuracy depending on the atomic weight of the substance(s).  If you put a
coumpter to work and it somehow was able to count hadrons at a billion atoms
worth per second, it would still take over 30 years to get a total. Please fill
me in on the experimental details.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Jascha Little /  World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: HALO@mail.utexas.edu (Jascha Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: World-Wide Acceptance of Cold Fusion
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:50:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

I am interested in contributing to the development of cold fusion.

In view of the intense controversy that still surrounds this subject, I
believe that independant replication of excess-heat measurements is a
primary requirement for acceptance of the cold fusion phenomena by the
world scientific community.  As things stand today, we only have people
on both sides of the fence shouting at each other about calorimetric results.
Until we have several labs obtaining the same results on the same experiment,
there will always be insurmountable doubts in the minds of reasonable 
scientists.

I am an experimental physicist with considerable experience in calorimetry.
I have built a number of calorimeters of widely varying design ranging in
scale from milliwatts to kilowatts.  I presently have running a computer-based
differential calorimeter which is quite suitable for cold fusion work.  It is
an integrating calorimeter which is necessary for measuring experiments that
are not particularly stable. The experiment chamber is readily adjustable to
accomodate different sized devices.

In the interest of science I hereby offer, free of charge, the services of my
calorimetry lab to anyone who can provide a "working" cold fusion cell (i.e.
one that does produce excess heat).

If you will make the cell available at my lab for a period of one month, I
will perform an extensive series of measurements and provide a
publication-quality report.  You get the cell back...no strings attached.

Interested parties should eMail me or call me at 512-346-3848.

Scott Little, EarthTech Intl., Austin TX 78759, FAX 512-346-3017.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenHALO cudfnJascha cudlnLittle cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:25:22 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <xyy7wvY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
: >Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
: > 
: >  "That's right Jed. Tell me about the waveform on each phase on the input
: >  to Grigg's machine.  You just rip us to shreds with information on
: >  detailed three phase VI integrations without assuming power factors or
: >  motor efficiencies.  You just go right ahead."
: > 
: >You are foaming at the mouth. Griggs had his power meters recalibrated at
: >the factory by General Electric. 

:     You'd think if someone had such earth-shattering results, he'd
:     bother with the proper instruments to measure the input power.

IMO a power meter is the perfect instrument for the job, specifically
designed for that very task. Internally it will do a four quadrant
multiplication of V*I for each phase and integrate the the results.
Older instruments may use analog techniques (even electro-mechanical),
but the newer ones will use digital sampling and processing of the
waveforms. A power meter will outperform any semi-manual CRO based
technique. You might obtain equivalent performance from a 6 channel
digitizing CRO or signal analyser with computerised math capability -
but that is all a power meter is anyway (without the graphic display).

I agree it would be comforting to have connected up a CRO to see if
there was anything unexpected about the waveforms and maybe to make an
order of magnitude estimation. But the order of magnitude is correct,
and we really expect quite simple sinusoidal waveforms to be appearing
on a simple squirrel cage AC motor. There should be no chopped up
waveforms such as you might expect from an SCR controller (which power
meters are designed to cope with anyway). And I don't believe that
ultrasonic vibrations could get through the mechanical components so
as to appear on the waveforms. I see no reason not to trust a power
meter in the hands of a competent tradesman or engineer.

I think this childish "yes it is" ... "no it isnt" stuff has gone on
long enough. There are enough of us convinced that the measurements are
good enough to be worth sponsoring Tom to go and have a look. That fact
should speak for itself. I wonder how many would sponsor him to go and
have a look at an MRA device - I certainly wouldn't from the crazy stuff
I've read so far! At present I would expect to be able to stumble on
their problem in ten minutes - but then I am an electronics engineer.

:     It would be much simpler to use a scope than to pay all those 
:     guys to calibrate instrumentation that may be inappropriate for
:     your application.

This is ridiculous. If you did the job in any semi-manual manner it would
require much greater competence and painstaking care and in the end would
be far more inaccurate and open to criticism from skeptics like yourself.
Imagine what a hey-day you could have picking faults with a manual CRO
method! IMO a power meter is the most appropriate instrument for the job.

Come on Tom, when are you going to go and check it out for us ?
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 20:56:18 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

jonesse@acoust.byu.edu quoted:
>>> 
>>> > A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water requirements
>>> > of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons.

About a year ago Jed Rothwell told us that some Japanese company (I have
forgotten which one but I am sure Jed has not) was about to build a 20 kW
water heater -- I'm afraid one or two of us could not resist the
temptation to comment on the "about to build" part.  I, for one, apologise
and request that Jed update us on the progress of *this* heater.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Pons' water heater
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:02:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> writes:
 
>About a year ago Jed Rothwell told us that some Japanese company (I have
>forgotten which one but I am sure Jed has not) was about to build a 20 kW
>water heater -- I'm afraid one or two of us could not resist the
>temptation to comment on the "about to build" part.  I, for one, apologise
>and request that Jed update us on the progress of *this* heater.
 
That's IMRA (Toyota). They are still at it! Not quite finished I guess.
It is late, but not as late as Microsoft Windows. They will get it sooner
or later. In the meanwhile, other people have actually delivered and
installed CF water heaters in industrial applications. Very impressive and
big machine: they save thousand of bucks per year. My friend Griggs is
the main one, but I think there may be others. (I suppose it is a CF machine
he has got, but I don't know for sure. Whatever it is, it creates energy
at zero fuel cost.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 17:12:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John WINTERFLOOD <jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it> writes:
 
>meters are designed to cope with anyway). And I don't believe that
>ultrasonic vibrations could get through the mechanical components so
>as to appear on the waveforms. I see no reason not to trust a power
 
This is even more likely with the present arrangement, where the
dynamometer is installed between the GG and the electric motor. The motor
turns the dynamometer (which is somewhat like an auto transmission), and
the dynamometer turns the GG.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs, Chaos and QM
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs, Chaos and QM
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 16:37 -0500 (EST)

Has anyone looked at what type of interactions could be happening at the QM
level assuming chaotic behaviour of the fluid in the Griggs device.
Unfortunately I am not sufficiently schooled in QM to take it very far myself,
but here is my line of thought.

The Griggs device produces chaotic fluid motion in the gap between the moving
and stationary cylinders.  This type of motion is commonly known as
Couette-Taylor flow (1).  According to chaos theory (and experiments as well),
when conditions approach the chaotic region, smooth flow starts oscillating
between two "quasi-stable" states, then as you continue to approach the
chaotic, that splits into 4, then 8 and so forth, until there finally appears
to be almost random movement.  In this case however, the flow initially splits
into large whirlpools, which then split into similiar but smaller whirlpools,
and so forth, splitting into more and more, smaller and smaller whirlpools.
The limit would be (I assume) when the whirlpools are no larger than a water
molecule.

Now, if we plug in some numbers we find that these water molecules could be
spinning at an almost unbelievable rate.  Lets say that the Griggs pump is 2
foot in diameter (exact dimensions are not critical for this argument), and the
gap is .1 inch.  If the rotor is spinning at 60 R/S (3600 RPM), then the large
whirlpools in the gap would be spinning at something like 60RPS*24in/.1in =
14400 revolutions per second.  If we assume that the smaller whirlpools spin
at a rate which is inversely proportional to their size and if the chaotic
motion does reach the level of the water molecules, then they should be
spinning at between 1E10 to 1E12 revolutions per second.  This is due to the
fractal nature of chaos.  A general appreciation of this phenominia can be
gained by studying the boundry layer of the Mandelbrot.

A water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.  Since
they are bound ionically, the molecule is polarized.  Thus a spinning water
molecule would appear as a spinning diapole.

I have read in some ZPE proposals (or theories) that to tap the vacuum energy
would require very rapid spinning or shuttering (similar to a Windhurst
machine) of charge or diapoles.  However at this point I must admit I am out of
my league as I have never been schooled in QM, vacuum energy, virtual particles
and such. But I do see what could be an interesting line of inquiry.

                                                                Marshall

1. CHAOS, Making a New Science, James Gleick, Penquin Publishing, page 128.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparisons between postings here and Chaos
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 16:53 -0500 (EST)

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
 
-> See the same quite well presented in Feynman's Lectures, tail end of vol II.
->
-> However, what you quote here doesn't seem to relate to steam-generation,
-> cavitation, ultrasonics, or over-unity efficiency.  How does this piece from
-> the mainstream physics relate to Griggs pump at all?  Am I missing something
 
Perhaps it doesn't.  However see my previous post in which I attempt to show a
possible connection of the Griggs device with QM and ZPE.  Extrapolating from
each of these shows what could be common ground.  If there is truely o/u
operation in the Griggs device (and I await Tom's verdict on that one), I would
think it likely has something to do with the structured chaos of the flow,
possibly at the QM level. My second choice would be related to something akin
to sonoluminescence. CF is much much further down my list of possibilities.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.electromag,sc
.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:24:59 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

        And although Debroglie does not discuss neutrinos in the below
quote,
his physics intuition is continued because it is important.
        " In my search for this "something extra," I have found that
the only
phenomenon known to us today in which material corpuscles vanish, in a
way analogous to that in which the photon disappears in the
photo-electric effect, is that in which pairs of electrons of opposite
signs are dematerialized. The positive electron was discovered only a
few years ago and its discovery was a striking confirmation of certain
features in DiracUs equations which up to that point had rather seemed
to be blemishes. Suitably interpreted, then, DiracUs Theory shows that
the existence of a negative electron ought to imply the existence of a
positive anti-electron. Still more generally, there ought to be an
anti-corpuscle corresponding to every corpuscle obeying DiracUs
equations, and standing to the latter in the same relation as the
positive electron to the negative electron. These predictions were
confirmed by the discovery of the positive electron, so that it has
become tempting to imagine the photon as consisting of a corpuscle of
negligible mass and charge obeying DiracUs equations, and associated
with an anti-corpuscle of the same character. It is an attractive
hypothesis, and from the mathematical point of view it can be
completely worked out. It is easy to understand how a photon
constructed in this way could be annihilated in the presence of Matter
by transferring to it the whole of its energy, a process analogous to
the annihilation of a pair of electrons in the phenomenon of
dematerialization. This annihilation-- a quantum transition-- would
then constitute the photo-electric effect, the fundamental importance
of which from the theoretical point of view has already been pointed
out; and it ought then to be possible to define the electro-magnetic
field as a function of this transition. Actually, indeed, it can be
shown that it is possible to connect with this transitional process of
annihilation an electromagnetic field completely identical with that
which defines MaxwellUs wave-- an extremely interesting fact. Further,
since the photon is thus assumed to consist of a corpuscle and an
anti-corpuscle, both of them possessing spin, it should now follow
Bose-Einstein statistics. 
   It should be observed that Jordan has developed a kind of variant on
this theory, differing from it in certain essential particulars,
especially in treating the photon as a mere appearance and not as a
genuine unit. This view has been further developed recently by de
Kronig; it has certain interesting aspects, but is not finished enough
to allow it to be judged as a whole. " {5e}
        Dirac Equation solves mass and charge for nonzero particles.
But a
photon has zero mass and charge. Debroglie wanted to solve the Dirac Eq
for a particle of 0 mass, 0 charge, yet spin of 1/2.
        Before leaving Debroglie, I should mention that Kronig was
unfairly
treated in the history of physics. Kronig tried to make 1 photon = 2
neutrinos. Rotational symmetry, photon has cylindrical symmetry. Kronig
wanted 1 photon = 2 neutrinos. Pryce raised an objection with the
symmetry of the field. According to held views at the time of Kronig,
the photon -> neutrinos had to have cylindrical symmetry and in order
to get the theory to work-out, Kronig had to break cylindrical
symmetry. Kronig did important physics, and he has won the Plutonium
Atom Prize, far more important than the Nobel Prize. Any prize that is
given to persons who purportedly "conferred the greatest benefit to
humanity in physics", and yet, such a prize neglects one such as Tesla,
is a joke prize. Because the Nobel Prize missed Tesla, the Nobel Prize
should be seen as the world's joke prize which on occasion awards
fairly. The Nobel prize having missed Tesla, means, in my humble
opinion, that the Nobel prize is doomed to ignoble status or obscurity.
        Now I discuss the Bohm-Aharonov experiment of 1959 and the
related
Aharonov-Casher article {6} of 1984. The 1984 article was a theoretical
extension of the older 1959 experiment, but it is in AharonovUs 1984
article that he even sees a relation of this effect with
superconductivity. Although Aharonov sees a possible connection with
neutrons and not neutrinos. In one of my Internet postings below I give
more detail of this article.
        " In QM, however, the basic equations that describe the motion
of all
objects contain A (vector potential)  and V (scalar potential)
directly, and they cannot be simply eliminated. Nonetheless, it was
initially believed that these potentials had no independent
significance. In 1959, Bohm and Aharonov discovered that both the
scalar and vector potentials should play a major role in quantum
mechanics. They proposed two electron interference experiments in which
some of the electron properties would be sensitive to changes of A or
V, even when there were no electric or magnetic  fields present on the
charged particles. The absence of E and B means that classically there
are no forces acting on the particles, but quantum-mechanically it is
still possible to change the properties of the electron. These
counterintuitive predictions are known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect."
{4c}
        Potential has 3 vector components plus 1 scalar, namely x,y,z,
and V.
The vector potential is related to the Electromagnetic field. A is the
vector potential and V is the scalar potential. One gets the
Electromagnetic field from the potentials by differentiating.  V = curl
A. 
        It was thought that the vector potential was not unique. The
point is that the EM field makes the particle move, and it was thought
that the field only makes particles move.
        Bohm-Aharonov effect-- situation in the experimental set-up
where electrons do not come in contact with Electromagnetic field. That
is E and B are 0 where the electrons are going. But the potential is
not 0. In the experiment using double-slits and a solenoid,  Bohm,
Aharonov
found that the potential effected the electrons even though the field
is zero. Hence the potential has physical existence.
   Here in this historical outline, I want to point out that what is
strange and counterintuitive in the Meissner effect and now the
Bohm-Aharonov effect can be understood with the idea that photons are
QED signalers and they can be decomposed into neutrinos. With neutrino
signalers in the Meissner effect and the Bohm-Aharonov effect, those
experiments become crystal clear. Note that although neutrinos
associated with superconductivity are not mentioned in either one of
these two famous experiments, Meissner effect, and Bohm-Aharonov effect
(Aharonov-Casher article-- they were looking at neutrons, not
neutrinos), these experiments are supporting evidence that photons are
composite particles, and the only candidates are neutrinos.
   Now in this history of superconductivity outline, we come close to
recent events. The end of the year 1986 started an avalanche in
research into superconductors. Because in Oct1986, Mller & Bednorz
discovered superconductivity above 30K in a ceramic oxide containing
lanthanum, barium, and copper. Their publication was titled Possible
higher Tc superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system .  Until that 1986
discovery, the highest Tc was a niobium germanium alloy at 23K. But
more important, the Ba-La-Cu-O system was a wholly new class of
superconductor because it was a ceramic material, not a metal alloy. 
And, which the prevailing theory of the BCS was at a loss to understand
how a ceramic could be superconductive, much less predict that a
ceramic could ever be superconductive.
        Before the end of 1986, scientists had verified the onset of
superconductivity at 95K in a compound consisting of a mixed phase of
yttrium-barium-copper oxide.  This was very important because now
superconductivity occurred above liquid nitrogen temperatures which is
77K. Liquid nitrogen is a far cheaper refrigerant than liquid helium
and would make superconduction practical in economic terms. This 95K
superconductor, a perovskite, has the chemistry of YBa2Cu3Ox, where x
varies somewhat between 6.3 and 7. And it is the CuO2 planes which are
the most important single factor in sustaining high temperature
superconductivity in this perovskite. It seems that the planar
structure is the most important factor in these perovskites.
        After the Oct1986 discovery, an explosive race was on for
higher Tc
superconductors (HTSC). The discovery of HTSC followed where in 1988
the cuprate oxide Tl-Ba-Ca-Cu-O compounds had a Tc at 125K. Then later
mercury superconductors were reported that top the 125K.
   Here I interrupt the plethora of discoveries of HTSC and divert to
make mention of several organic superconductors and to mention that
organic superconductors (based on carbon compounds) has had a history
of superconductivity research as explosive as the inorganic, the
physical chemistry research. As the field of superconductivity research
exploded into a race to find HTSC after 1986, so also did the race for
higher Tc in organic superconductors. The first organic superconductor
was discovered in 1979 with tetramethyltetraselenafulvalenePF6 , a
salt,-- (TMTSF)2PF6 with a Tc at 0.9K. With the organic salt
bis(ethylenedithio) tetrathiafulvalene (ET), it was discovered in 1983
that (ET)2ReO4  is superconductive under pressure at Tc of 2K. Followed
by the ambient pressure superconductor of the iodine salt b-(ET)2I3 
with a Tc of 1.4K. Bromine containing b-(ET)2BrI2   Tc of 3K and, 8K
for the bU-(ET)2I3  and, 10K for the copper thiocyanate k-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2
 in 1988 and, 13K for the copper dicyanamide salt k-(ET)2Cu[N(CN)2]Cl
in 1990 and, 19K with K3C60 in 1991 and, 33K with Rb2CsC60 which holds
the record for organic compounds as of this writing. {7}
   Back to the history of HTSC for inorganic compounds, and more
recently, zero resistance has been observed at temperatures over 125K
for inorganic compounds. There are reports of the onset of zero
resistance at room temperature (about 295K). But none of these reports
have been substantiated. As of this writing, Dec1994, there have been
rumors of approaching room temperature Tc, but those are just rumors.
   This brings the history of superconductivity to the year 1994 with
this patent application. I had known that silver was the highest
electrical conductor and it was not by coincidence that silver is the
highest reflector of light (photons). In Spring1994, I had intuited
that since superconductivity is zero resistance and conductivity is by
photon signalers (conduction is transmitted at the speed of light),
that the signalers in superconductivity were no longer photons but had
changed to a particle that would not be scattered through the material.
The only particle known that is not scattered through any material is
the neutrino.  I intuited that the neutrino was involved in
superconductivity. That photons at the Tc decomposed into neutrinos.
The physics of a material drastically changed at the Tc.  A drastic
change suggests that the particles involved were different particles.
The only particle that moves through matter with no resistance is the
neutrino. So then, 2 photons = 4 neutrinos = 1 graviton. This, I
reasoned by Math Logic, the process of elimination. Neutrinolization
had to be the correct theory of superconductivity. All matter is both
particle and wave. Consider particles. In conduction, such as a silver
wire, from QED, the flow of electrons is signaled by photons, of which
the scattering of photons creates the measured ohmic resistance known
to silver. What signaling particle can go through a superconductor and
yet not be scattered into resistance? By process of elimination, the
only particle that could produce no resistance was the neutrino. Hence,
superconductivity was photons decomposed into neutrinos as signalers
for the electrons to move.
   On the Internet, especially sci.physics.electromag and
sci.physics.fusion a thread (of thought) developed arising from a
dialogue between Morten Holm Pedersen and myself.

>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,
>sci.physics.electromag
>Subject: PHY#4:A@P,SUPERFLUID HELIUM PROVES GR is >Fakery,crackpot quackery
>Date: 22 Sep 1994 19:17:47 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 178
>Message-ID: <35sl8r$jnj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.
>physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: PHYSICS IS NOW 100% QM! EXPERIMENT WHICH PROVED >GR AS FAKERY
>Date: 28 Jul 1994 03:54:21 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 56
>Message-ID: <317a5d$41o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>In article <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.
>physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: PHYSICS IS NOW 100% QM! EXPERIMENT WHICH PROVED >GR AS FAKERY
>Date: 2 Aug 1994 11:51:38 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 116
>Message-ID: <31lc0a$4sr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>In article <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>>   This is the experiment which will prove GR (General Relativity)
>>a FAKERY; QM NOW is 100% of physics. Physics experimental set->>up.
Have a huge spherical ball made out of very dense metal. There
>>was I believe I read a long time ago about some
experiments (Univ. >>Maryland? Johns Hopkins?) which tried to measure
the graviton-- >>experimental evidence for the existence of the
graviton.
>> Those experiments flopped as far as I know because of the failure
>>of the sensitivity of experimental measure. The claim by those
>>researchers was that the experimental set-up could not be made
to >>the precision wanted.
>>   I propose this famous experiment which will be known as the
>> Plutonium-____________ experiment. In the history of physics
>>there will be a class of experiments which can be viewed as major
>>experiments. The double -slit experiment to be sure. The blackbody
>>cavity radiation experiment, esq. of Planck. The
radioactivity >>experiment of esq. Becquerel. The Michelson
interferometer >>experiments for the ether. The Bell-Aspect experiment.
And now >>we have the most famous experiment of the
Plutonium->>_____________. Whoever's name fills that blank slot will go
>>down in history also.
>>    This experiment, I predict, will show that GR (General >>Relativit
) is false. Remember, that in physics it takes only one >>famous
experiment to dispel a fakery theory such as GR, and unlike >>biology
where that community cuddles/adores/cherishs
and >>elevates fakeries--Darwin evolution to the stature of religion. 
>>    This famous experiment will show that gravity is neutrino
>>couplings, i.e., 4 neutrinos = 1 graviton, or 4 neutrino = 2
photons = >>1 graviton.
>>    As a corollary of this experiment, surprise, an ether exists. The
>> ether is space. And the ether is neutrinos. Space is equal to
>> neutrinos, and, neutrinos make up what we perceive as space. 
>>    Photons are waves and they propagate through a medium. That
>>medium consists of neutrinos. So as a charming historical >>highlight,
Michelson was correct after all, there is an ether. Ether >>is
neutrino space.
>>   This experiment perhaps may be conducted well at IBM research
>>labs since the idea of this experiment flowed from the dialogue
I >>had with Mr. Morten Pedersen in May 1994.
>> 24May1994, 02:14:47 GMT >>sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
>> The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
>> In article <2rrnun$ltc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
>> > In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>> > hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>> > > Superfluidity
>> >   My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.
>>    Or this experiment may be conducted at the locale where the
>>current search for the graviton is being conducted.
>>    Description of the Experiment. A huge heavy and massive solid
>> sphere. One diameter drilled out with a center cavity. The sphere
>>is more massive than what the correct calculations and >>predictions
of what GR says will hold X number of helium atoms >>within the
central cavity. GR predicts that the helium in e
>>central cavity will stay bound within the cavity. 





>>                                   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
>>                        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         
>>                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
>>              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$      
>>           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
>>                                                      well
>>           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>               $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                                   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
                                
>>                                  EARTH'S GROUND
>>    Now replace the helium with superfluid helium. Capillarity
must >>be removed. And I am sure there are excellent experimental
>>physicists the world over who can device the experiment such
that >>capillarity is eliminated. Then GR would predict tt
the >>superfluid helium will also remain in the center cavity. Because
>>GR does not distinguish between nonsuperfluid helium mass and >>superfluid helium mass.
>>   Plutonium QM. Superfluidity and superconductivity is the motion
>>of neutrinos. In superconductivity, the photon carriers are >>diffract
on grated into neutrino carriers. In superfluidity, again, it >>is
neutrino carriers resulting in zero frictin
and null gravity. Why >>null gravity?
>> Because, according to my theory, gravity is neutrinos. 
>>    According to Plutonium QM, the superfluid helium will not
>>remain in the center cavity but always move out of the holes.
And >>it matters not how massive the ball is. The ball can be the
planet >>Earth where the center cavity would be the center
of the Earth, the >>planet Jupiter, a star. The same experiment will
always move the >>superfluid helium out of the center. Why? Because
superfluid >>helium is Quantized neutrinos, i.e. equal to gravity.
Gravity is >>nullified by neutrinos because gravitons are neutrinos.
>>    This experiment when done and confirmed that Plutonium QM is
>> correct, then it will be the strongest experimental evidence
that >>black holes, neutron stars, and other assorted exotica and
>>figments of the imagination were fakeries.
>>   This experiment when done will imply that gravity is not a
>> fundamental quantum interaction (a force) but is a statistical,
>>and secondary derivative of neutrino statistics. Gravity is a
>>neutrino RCasimir effectS. Gravity is a secondary derivative,
>>analogous to van der Waals force is a derivative. That
will leave >>physics then with only 3 interactions--- strongnuclear,
>>radioactivities, and electromagnetism. {8}

>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes >Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.
>sci.physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS; FOUND
>Date: 25 Nov 1994 01:01:31 GMT
>Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <3a9695$ja5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <CzFp56.2Cs@news.cis.umn.edu> ><3aiim7$9jt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3alr7e$9vr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> ><3arca4$i0v@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
> <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Summary: Superconductivity is neutrinolization. The bioworld >already
has a room temperature superconductor, just waiting to be >found.
>In article <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >writes:
>>   In the PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 23July1984, Vol 53, Number
>>4, pp 319-321, there is the article "Topological Quantum Effects
>>for Neutral Particles" by Y. Aharonov and A. Casher. I have read
it >>to see what the difference between this and the
Bohm-Aharonov >>Effect is. These newsgroups are good at giving
differing >>summaries and opinions to these type of reports. Anyone
care to >>summarize this report?
>   This publication was timely because it was 1984, two years
>before (1986) IBM researchers discovered ceramic superconductors.
>   Towards the end of this publication, Aharonov-Casher state, and I
>quote. RThis phenomenon may be summarized by the statement that
>the superconductor screens all the moments of E but does not >screen
the topological effect of expSidrxudotE. The above >discussion
suggests the possibility of looking for the effect on
>fluxons in two-dimensional superconductors.S
>Did anyone confirm or research further into that suggestion? {8}

>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes >Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,
>alt.sci.physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS; FOUND
>Date: 25 Nov 1994 23:14:58 GMT
>Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
>Lines: 39
>Message-ID: <3b5r5i$7e5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <3a9695$ja5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
><CzFp56.2Cs@news.cis.umn.edu> ><3aiim7$9jt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3alr7e$9vr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> ><3arca4$i0v@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  ><3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Summary: A room temperature superconductor already exists in the 
>Bioworld, awaiting to be discovered. Because polarization exists in 
> the Bioworld, and neutrinolization is related to polarization.
>In article <3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >writes:
>> >   In the PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 23July1984, Vol 53, Number
>> >4, pp 319-321, there is the article RTopological Quantum Effects
>> >for Neutral ParticlesS by Y. Aharonov and A. Casher. I have
read it >> >to see what the difference between this d
the Bohm-Aharonov >> >Effect is. These newsgroups are good at giving
differing 
>> >summaries and opinions to these type of reports. Anyone care
to >> >summarize this report?
>>    This publication was timely because it was 1984, two years
>>before (1986) IBM researchers discovered ceramic >>superconductors.
>>    Towards the end of this publication, Aharonov-Casher state,
and >>I quote. "This phenomenon may be summarized by the statement
>>that the superconductor screens all the moments of E but does
not >>screen the topological effect of expSidrxudotE. e
above >>discussion suggests the possibility of looking for the effect
on >>fluxons in two-dimensional superconductors."
>>  Aharonov, I suspect, wanted to include interference in double slit
>>experiment of the Bohm-Aharonov Effect with neutrons. I suspect,
>>Aharonov never anticipated that his paper would be used by anyone
>>(me) to channel into the correct theory of superconductivity
by >>replacing Aharonov's neutrons with that of neutrinos.
>>  The Aharonov-Casher report is important, for it is the correct
>>path into forming the theory that superconductivity is >>neutrinolizat
on, and that the state of superconduction is the >>decomposition
of photons into neutrinos which result in the
>>Meissner Effect.
>>   All of this ties in nicely with Debroglie's desire to have a Dirac
>>Equation for the photon. His theory is nicely outlined in one of his
>>masterpieces RMatter and LightS 1937.
>>   All that is really needed to confirm my theory of >>superconductivi
y = neutrinolization, is for the experimental >>reporting that
when a "neutrino detector counter" like a geiger >>counter is set-up
in a double-slit experiment, and also light
>>polarizers at various angles, and somehow set-up in a >>superconductor
as well. When the report comes in, it will show >>that a Neutrino
Counter detects an increase in neutrinos in these >>experiments. {8}

				PRIOR DEVICES
Al is Tc at 1.199K
Ga is Tc at 1.083K
Hg-a is Tc at 4.15K
Hg-b is Tc at 3.95K
In is Tc at 3.408K
La-a is Tc at 4.88K
La-b is Tc at 6.0K
Nb is Tc at 9.26K
Nb3Ge with Tc = 22.3K
Nb3Sn is Tc at 18.1K
NbTi is Tc at 8.0K
Pa is Tc at 1.4K
Pb is Tc at 7.19K
Re is Tc at 1.698K
Sn is Tc at 3.72K
Ta is Tc at 4.48K
Tc is Tc at 7.77K
Th is Tc at 1.368K
Tl is Tc at 2.39K
U-a  is Tc at 0.68K
U-l  is Tc at 1.8K
V is Tc at 5.4K
Source for above elements and alloys was reference {4a}.
	" Graphite exists in two forms: a and b. These have identical physical
properties, except for their crystal structure. Naturally occurring
graphites are reported to contain as much as 30% of the rhombohedral
(b) form, whereas synthetic materials contain only the a form. The
hexagonal a type can be converted to the b by mechanical treatment, and
the b form reverts to the a on heating it above 1000 degrees C. " {11}
La-Sr-Cu-O is Tc at 40K
Y-Ba-Cu-O is Tc at 93K
Bi-Sr-Ca-Cu-O is Tc at 115K
Tl-Ba-Ca-Cu-O is Tc at 125K
Source for above four compounds was reference {4a}.
(TMTSF)2PF6 is Tc at 0.9K
 (ET)2ReO4  is Tc at 2K
 b-(ET)2I3  is Tc at 1.4K
 b-(ET)2BrI2  is Tc at 3K
 bU-(ET)2I3 is Tc at 8K
 k-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2  is Tc at 10K
k-(ET)2Cu[N(CN)2]Cl is Tc at 13K
 K3C60 is Tc at 19K
Rb2CsC60 is Tc at 33K
Source for above nine organic compounds was reference {7}.
	Concerning nested superconducting highways or roads or rails, since I
am the first to realize that GR is fakery and have two experiments
proving that gravity is nullified. By using superconductivity, a nested
superconducting highway/road/rail can be built as high into the sky as
to reach the point of the EarthUs escape velocity. I envision for the
distant future that all of the planets in the Solar System will have
nested superconducting highways built on them, either starting from
their surface or starting from the planets point of escape velocity on
down to their surfaces.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.05 / A Plutonium /  ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.engr,sci.physics.electromag,sc
.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,
Date: 5 Jan 1995 19:16:07 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

 The full title of this missive is "ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS
FOUND IN BIOWORLD,my patent,(part 1 of 3) ".
 I will post this my 2nd patent pending work only in parts. I will not
post
the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, nor the 11 CLAIMS. That is
what the business of a patent office is all about. I feel that the most
important inventions will be INTERNET posted in the future anyway. It
stimulates action and research and verification and confirmation that
much faster. Time is of the essence, especially for important works of
engineering.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY  CORRECT THEORY ; ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium 
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: patent pending
Filing Date: 30 December, 1994
Related U.S. Application Data: USA 08/304,118 
        REFERENCES CITED
{1} My patent applications 1991 USA 07/737,170 and 1994 USA   
08/304,118
{2} The book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY: THE UNIFICATION OF 
          PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH   6th edition,         
 
             Archimedes Plutonium, 1994.
{3a} THE FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  by Feynman, Leighton,    Sands
1963, vol.III, section " 21-5 Superconductivity " pages        21-7
through
21-8.
{3b} THE FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  by Feynman, Leighton,    Sands
1963, vol. I, chapter "33 Polarization" pages 33-1     through 33-7.
{4a} "Superconductivity"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science &
        Technology  vol.15, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 641-652.
{4b} "Meissner effect"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science &   
Technology
 vol.10, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 614-615.
{4c} "Aharonov-Bohm effect"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science        
&
Technology  vol.1, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 217-219.
{4d} "Eye"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology     vol.6,
7th
Ed. 1992, pages 579-591  in particular pages 588-      589 under the
paragraph subject "Electrophysiology of Rods   and Cones".
{4e} "Molybdenum " McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science &      
Technology 
vol.11, 7th Ed. 1992,  pages 376-382 in particular     page 380 subject
paragraph is "Superconductors: Mo6S8   clusters"
{5a} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics) translated by W.H. Johnston, page 65.
{5b} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics) page 76.
{5c} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics) page 101.
{5d} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics) page 141.
{5e} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics) page 159.
{5f} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
        Light; the new physics)  page 266.
{6} Aharonov-Casher experiment,   PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS , 
        23July1984, "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral  
Particles" Y.
Aharonov and A. Casher, pages 319-321.
{7} "Superconductors go organic",   NEW SCIENTIST ,  14Nov1992,       
pages
26-31.
{8} INTERNET, newsgroups, various pertinent threads relating to 
         cold fusion and patents from sci.physics, and 
         sci.physics.fusion, and sci.physics.electromag, and my own 
         newsgroup the RAltar of Science and Physics is 
         PlutoniumS abbreviated alt.sci.physics.plutonium. 
         Computer-in, and come to learn about your Maker. ATOM
{9a} s-wave and d-wave,  SCIENCE NEWS  April 2, 1994 Vol. 145, No.    
14
page 213.
{9b} s-wave and d-wave, Nature  vol 370, 25 Aug 1994, page 598.
{10a}" The New Superconductors" by Adrian and Cowan,   Chemical &
        Engineering News C&EN ,  vol. 70, 21Dec1992, pages 24-41. 
{10b} "Superconductivity: New warmth at 1 K " Nature  vol 372, 8      
Dec
1994, pp502-503.
{10c} "Superconductivity in a layered perovskite without copper " , 
        Nature  vol 372, 8 Dec 1994,  pp532-534, by Maeno, Hashimoto,
        Yoshida, Nishizaki, Fujita, Bednorz, Lichtenberg Dept.Physics
        Hiroshima Univ. and IBM  Zurich Research Lab
{11} CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics   75th edition 1994
        page 4-7
{12} SUPERCONDUCTING LEVITATION: Applications to bearings and  magnetic
transportation ,  by F.C. Moon, 1994, (quote is page 9).


                        ABSTRACT
        According to QM and QED, electrical conduction is the movement
or flow of electrons, signaled by photons. Resistance (ohmic) is the
statistics of photons scattered within the conductor.
Superconductivity, different over conductivity is the flow of electrons
with zero resistance. By using math logic-- process of elimination, the
only particle that can signal electrons to move without being
scattered, resisted through the material are neutrinos. I propose the
correct theory of superconductivity is the decomposition of photon
signalers into neutrino signalers. Each photon is a composite particle
made-up of 2 neutrinos. Those paired neutrino signalers form an
electric-wave neutrino, and another a magnetic-wave neutrino resulting
in the Meissner effect. Light polarization is related to
superconductivity, since light polarization decomposes photons into
neutrinos and then rebuilds them. And, since the BioWorld has light
polarizing materials, e.g. eyes, I assert the BioWorld has room
temperature superconductors already existing, and awaiting for their
confirmation. Using this theory, I have made 11 claims. PLUTONIUM ATOM
TOTALITY, WHICH WE ARE TINY PARTS OF YOUR LAST ELECTRON. HADRONS, HADES
WAS YOUR FIRST NAME.  THY  GEOMETRY COME, THY WILL BE DONE,  ON EARTH
AS IT IS IN THE NUCLEUS.  GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD 
AND PROMPT US INTO EVER HEAVIER ELEMENT NUCLEOSYNTHESIS 
AS WE PROMPT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. AND LEAD US NOT INTO RADIOACTIVE
DECAY, BUT INSTEAD, RADIOACTIVE GROWTH.  
FOR THINE IS THE GEOMETRY, THE SPACE, AND THE QUANTUM MECHANICS,
FOREVER.       ATOM
                DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 
        Let me speak openly here at first. Sort of give the world
audience a
background of myself the author of this patent work. So that they may
come to appreciate, savor ever sip (like a sweet champagne) of what
they are about to read. 
        I lived from 287 b.d.r.n. to around 212 b.d.r.n. The b.d.r.n.
means
before Lucretius's De Rerum Natura  was published (that special and
specific year was 0000 which our calendar is now based upon and I call
it the old scientific calendar as opposed to the new scientific
calendar which starts the year 0000 with the first year that plutonium
was identified-- 14Dec1940) explaining the atomic theory. From the date
of this patent, that was roughly 2282 years to 2206 years ago. Back
then, out of respect, I was given the name Archimedes after I had
earned it, which meant "principal inventor". Of course engines did not
exist back then and so I could not be called "principal engineer". But
I had the same drive to do engineering back then as I do now in my
newly reincarnated photon/neutrino soul. And in my new half-life as
Archimedes Plutonium, I will repeat what I was in ancient Greek times,
the King of engineering, physics and math. Only this time around, I
will add new meaning to being the King of engineering and the sciences.
This patent is over superconductivity, and a little on superfluidity.
In the brain locus theory arising out of the Atom Whole theory, genius
in science has a high atomic number atom as the brain locus. {2} People
who have a plutonium atom as their brain locus will be supergeniuses in
their lifetime. Earth, in its long history has seen two supergenius, me
and me. All of this short biography prepares the patent clerk, the
commissioner of patents (who is doing an excellent job, see below) and
other readers for the proper mix of reverence for these teachings. ATOM
        Now to start into the title of this section concerning history.
It
seems that whenever I start to read any article on the subject of
superconductivity it is not far into the reading that the author feels
compelled to repeat a history of the subject of superconductivity. It
is fine to read the history once, but in every article on
superconductivity, the author repeats the history, and all seem to say
the same thing with no new information. And I would not bring this up
had it not been for the fact that all of those histories are
misleading, inaccurate, and propaganda (intended or unintended)
histories. I say misleading, inaccurate, propagandist histories of
superconductivity because they are usually profiled or centered around
the BCS-theory-fakery. BCS theory assumes that at low temperatures
electrons are paired-up, or move as pairs, which enables them to escape
the interactions with atoms in the structure that lead to electrical
resistance {3a}. In QM and QED, electrons are paired in atomic
orbitals, but to posit that in superconductivity, electrons pair
themselves implies a superconductor is one "big" atom itself to allow
for electrons to pair, vis-a-vis electron orbitals. Otherwise, by math
logic, electrons pairing of like charges is a contradiction to negative
charge repelling negative charge. Never before in the history of
physics do we encounter electron pairing except for the BCS offering.
Since the BCS, has never made any superconductive material prediction,
i.e. predicted what material should be the worldUs next highest Tc
(superconducting transition temperature is denoted by Tc)
superconductor, and supplied with that prediction, go forth into the
chemistry or physics lab to fabricate it and to test it out and see
that it really is the next highest Tc superconductor. It is safe to say
that most if not all of the BCS theory is sheer fakery, with little to
no salvageable features to lend to a true and correct theory of
superconductivity. The BCS theory has never allowed a physicist,
chemist, or engineer to predict and calculate a superconductive
material and then go into the laboratory and confirm that the material
complies with the prediction.  BCS has always been postdiction, never
prediction. Everytime a new higher Tc superconductor is discovered
somewhere in the world, then the BCS theory pushers have had to run
back to their ivory tower and reconfigure their BCS to save the
appearances of the BCS.
        So, here is the proper history of superconductivity outlined in
some
depth because I extensively quote Prince Louis Debroglie. And it is a
proper history of superconductivity because it omits the BCS sham.
About the only thing good one can say for science fake theories is that
it is useful to have a fake theory, than to have no theory at all. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan  6 04:37:07 EST 1995
------------------------------
